My review of Signature in the Cell at Amazon
Glen Davidson
"reasoning" is very flimsy, and there are quotemines making people out
to say the opposite of what they really said, especially where he's
pretending that ID can actually do science.
What's scary about Meyer's book is how many people on the other side
who read it think that he really did make a good case for ID, that he
carefully followed the methods of the "historical sciences" (as if
there's any break from present-day processes). I think that his book
might have better legs than other ID failures, mainly because we
really can't explain life's origin, and the temptation to stuff god
into that gap is strong.
Anyway, I think I managed to say a lot that others didn't (it is long,
although I could have written much more about its problems). As well
as I remember, no one actually called him out on the quotemines, which
I think are the worst aspect of the book, and they're what I include
below, above the link to my review:
"Another traditional expectation from IDCreationism is poor
scholarship, and quotes taken out of context, and this characterizes
Meyer's work as well, beyond what I have already mentioned.
"Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
unlikely.
"W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
"dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
"But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
"pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
actually functional.
"Another misused source is Michael Lynch. Meyer writes (p. 470) that
"...evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch has argued using standard
population genetics, the size of breeding populations of multicellular
organisms are simply not large enough to have afforded natural
selection sufficient opportunity to shape genomes into structures with
the kind of hierarchically organized systems of information storage
that they exhibit." Lynch did not do that at all. There is
organization in eukaryotic genomes, but not nearly so much as Meyer
claims, which is why Lynch writes:
"'The most profound changes [in eukaryotic genomes] include introns
that must be spliced out of precursor mRNAs, transcribed but
untranslated leader and trailer sequences (untranslated regions),
modular regulatory elements that drive patterns of gene expression,
and expansive intergenic regions that harbor additional diffuse
control mechanisms. Explaining the origins of these features is
difficult because they each impose an intrinsic disadvantage by
increasing the genic mutation rate to defective alleles.' [...]
"It is the putative lack of the efficient organization of the
eukaryotic genomes, compared with those of prokaryotes, that Michael
Lynch addresses there.
"In still another case, Meyer claims that "on the basis of orthodox
evolutionary theory" evolutionary biologists had assumed that
"homologous genes should, therefore, produce homologous organisms and
structures" (p. 471). Yet text in the chapter note that he uses for
reference states the exact opposite: "Comparative and evolutionary
biologists had long assumed that different groups of animals,
separated by vast amounts of evolutionary time, were constructed and
had evolved by entirely different means" (p. 558, note 28), and,
"...Ernst Mayr remarked: `Much that has been learned about gene
physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is
quite futile except in very close relatives...'" (Ibid.). Mayr was
incorrect, but Meyer credits Mayr and others of the same position with
a stance 180 degrees from the one that they were taking. "
Too bad most creationists won't understand what Meyer did wrong,
perhaps out of his rather glaring ignorance, along with the usual lack
of concern for actual truth that characterizes ID. Well, there's a
good deal more at Amazon:
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> If anything, Signature in the Cell is worse than I expected. The
> "reasoning" is very flimsy, and there are quotemines making people out
> to say the opposite of what they really said, especially where he's
> pretending that ID can actually do science.
>
> What's scary about Meyer's book is how many people on the other side
> who read it think that he really did make a good case for ID, that he
> carefully followed the methods of the "historical sciences" (as if
> there's any break from present-day processes). I think that his book
> might have better legs than other ID failures, mainly because we
> really can't explain life's origin, and the temptation to stuff god
> into that gap is strong.
>
Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
> Anyway, I think I managed to say a lot that others didn't (it is long,
> although I could have written much more about its problems). As well
> as I remember, no one actually called him out on the quotemines, which
> I think are the worst aspect of the book, and they're what I include
> below, above the link to my review:
>
> "Another traditional expectation from IDCreationism is poor
> scholarship, and quotes taken out of context, and this characterizes
> Meyer's work as well, beyond what I have already mentioned.
>
Again, since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Creationism-ID
scholarship is quite predictable and of course predetermined.
> "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
> eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
> it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
> is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
> that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
> would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
> abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
> unlikely.
>
Meyer is arguing that ID is a better explanation of the facts. Since
ID is never an option for a Darwinist your criticism is deceit.
> "W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
> "dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
> the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
> chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
> sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
> confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
> selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
> information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
>
> "But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
> was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
> relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
> evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
> improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
> highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
> "pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
> actually functional.
>
I suspect Meyer was not saying that Chung said "thus and such" but
that the fact or facts Chung established are better explained as "thus
and such." Meyer is focussed on the claim of fact that "dual-coding"
was initially a chance mutation preserved by selection. And since
selection is material (not supervised or guided) the entire mechanism
is governed ultimately by chance.
(New Reader-Learner: When Darwinists single-out selection as not
affected by chance they are really only talking to you.)
[....]
>
> Too bad most creationists won't understand what Meyer did wrong,
> perhaps out of his rather glaring ignorance, along with the usual lack
> of concern for actual truth that characterizes ID. [....]
>
About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
el cid
> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Since you are a [xyz] your opinion of [jkl] argument (or any
> [mno]) is, of course, predetermined.
Ray, this is fundamentally known as projection. That you
may judge every argument based on your predetermined
conclusions does not mean everyone does the same.
In fact, many don't.
Glen Davidson
> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If anything, Signature in the Cell is worse than I expected. The
> > "reasoning" is very flimsy, and there are quotemines making people out
> > to say the opposite of what they really said, especially where he's
> > pretending that ID can actually do science.
>
> > What's scary about Meyer's book is how many people on the other side
> > who read it think that he really did make a good case for ID, that he
> > carefully followed the methods of the "historical sciences" (as if
> > there's any break from present-day processes). I think that his book
> > might have better legs than other ID failures, mainly because we
> > really can't explain life's origin, and the temptation to stuff god
> > into that gap is strong.
>
> Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
> ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
Since you are a liar, you lie.
>
> > Anyway, I think I managed to say a lot that others didn't (it is long,
> > although I could have written much more about its problems). As well
> > as I remember, no one actually called him out on the quotemines, which
> > I think are the worst aspect of the book, and they're what I include
> > below, above the link to my review:
>
> > "Another traditional expectation from IDCreationism is poor
> > scholarship, and quotes taken out of context, and this characterizes
> > Meyer's work as well, beyond what I have already mentioned.
>
> Again, since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Creationism-ID
> scholarship is quite predictable and of course predetermined.
Since you are a liar, you lie.
>
> > "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
> > eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
> > it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
> > is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
> > that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
> > would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
> > abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
> > unlikely.
>
> Meyer is arguing that ID is a better explanation of the facts. Since
> ID is never an option for a Darwinist your criticism is deceit.
It isn't even a proper explanation, fucktard.
Since you are a liar, you lie.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
> > "dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
> > the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
> > chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
> > sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
> > confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
> > selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
> > information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
>
> > "But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
> > was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
> > relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
> > evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
> > improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
> > highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
> > "pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
> > actually functional.
>
> I suspect Meyer was not saying that Chung said "thus and such" but
> that the fact or facts Chung established are better explained as "thus
> and such."
You being a bigoted liar, you just lie, rather than learn.
Meyer is focussed on the claim of fact that "dual-coding"
> was initially a chance mutation preserved by selection. And since
> selection is material (not supervised or guided) the entire mechanism
> is governed ultimately by chance.
How fucking stupid, and how like you, Raytard.
>
> (New Reader-Learner: When Darwinists single-out selection as not
> affected by chance they are really only talking to you.)
Since you are a liar, you lie.
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> > Too bad most creationists won't understand what Meyer did wrong,
> > perhaps out of his rather glaring ignorance, along with the usual lack
> > of concern for actual truth that characterizes ID. [....]
>
> About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife.
Since you are a liar, you lie.
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)- Hide quoted text -
You know, you don't really need to bolster your credentials as an
ignorant, demented tardboy. But you will, forever.
This was just a recreational indulgence on my part. Nothing in your
fuckwitted "response" actually deserves comment, so I had no reason to
point out what a lackwit you are, which everyone except the dumbest
here know anyway. But I'm listening to Stephen Meyer lie in an
interview right now, and this keeps me from being extremely bored with
his typical tripe.
That's enough, though. I won't be bored enough to respond to you
again, with 95% certainty.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Hare-Scott
You do not respond to the specific criticism levelled at Meyer. Davidson
says Meyer makes specific errors of understanding and of scholarship. How
is that your reply is to lower the tone of the debate to generalised
accusations of bias? Surely the way to demonstrate bias by Davidson is to
show that he is wrong but you don't even make the attempt you just accuse
him with no evidence.
The reason that don't is because you can't, you don't understand a word of
what either said. Instead of trying to learn or shutting up because it is
too hard you simply posture. You can of course prove me wrong by addressing
the specific points.
David
Ray Martinez
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glenn: why not just calm down and address each point? IF you are truly
more intelligent like you claim then what's the problem? Each of my
replies is more like giving you a taste of your own medicine. As it
sits now you are showing deep frustration caused by the inability to
address or refute anything I have said.
In case you didn't notice: I am a Paleyan IDist, not a DI-IDist like
Meyer. This means that we are scientific enemies since his brand of
"IDism" accepts common descent and microevolution. This means that
Meyer is in YOUR bed, not mine. Tell me Glenn, who's on top, you or
Steve?
LOL!
Ray (Old Earth Creatorist-species immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
Imagine that; a person who actually believes that the opinions of
Darwinists concerning IDists is not predetermined?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If anything, Signature in the Cell is worse than I expected. The
> > "reasoning" is very flimsy, and there are quotemines making people out
> > to say the opposite of what they really said, especially where he's
> > pretending that ID can actually do science.
>
> > What's scary about Meyer's book is how many people on the other side
> > who read it think that he really did make a good case for ID, that he
> > carefully followed the methods of the "historical sciences" (as if
> > there's any break from present-day processes). I think that his book
> > might have better legs than other ID failures, mainly because we
> > really can't explain life's origin, and the temptation to stuff god
> > into that gap is strong.
>
> Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
> ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
The question is not whether his opinion is "predetermined" but whether
it's correct. Can you offer anything that indicates it's not
correct?
>
> > Anyway, I think I managed to say a lot that others didn't (it is long,
> > although I could have written much more about its problems). As well
> > as I remember, no one actually called him out on the quotemines, which
> > I think are the worst aspect of the book, and they're what I include
> > below, above the link to my review:
>
> > "Another traditional expectation from IDCreationism is poor
> > scholarship, and quotes taken out of context, and this characterizes
> > Meyer's work as well, beyond what I have already mentioned.
>
> Again, since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Creationism-ID
> scholarship is quite predictable and of course predetermined.
Again, you should be trying to show why his statements are incorrect,
not if they are "predetermined". Even if his statements were
"predetermined", that doesn't mean they are incorrect.
You are engaging in the fallacy of ad hominem.
>
> > "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
> > eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
> > it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
> > is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
> > that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
> > would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
> > abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
> > unlikely.
>
> Meyer is arguing that ID is a better explanation of the facts.
However his argument fails, as described above.
> Since
> ID is never an option for a Darwinist your criticism is deceit.
The only way "ID" could be an option for "Darwinists" or anyone else,
if it were to be a scientific hypothesis in the first place. It's
not, it's a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not science.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
> > "dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
> > the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
> > chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
> > sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
> > confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
> > selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
> > information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
>
> > "But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
> > was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
> > relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
> > evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
> > improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
> > highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
> > "pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
> > actually functional.
>
> I suspect Meyer was not saying that Chung said "thus and such" but
> that the fact or facts Chung established are better explained as "thus
> and such."
Instead of "suspecting" why not read the relevant works? Natural
selection has been observed to produce testable results. "ID" has
never been observed to produce anything.
> Meyer is focussed on the claim of fact that "dual-coding"
> was initially a chance mutation preserved by selection. And since
> selection is material (not supervised or guided) the entire mechanism
> is governed ultimately by chance.
Wrong again. Unsupervised or unguided is not the same as chance.
>
> (New Reader-Learner: When Darwinists single-out selection as not
> affected by chance they are really only talking to you.)
Wrong again, Ray.
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> > Too bad most creationists won't understand what Meyer did wrong,
> > perhaps out of his rather glaring ignorance, along with the usual lack
> > of concern for actual truth that characterizes ID. [....]
>
> About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife.
Again, you are just employing the ad hominem fallacy.
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)
That new slight wobble in the Earth's rotation is due to William Paley
rolling over in his grave whenever Ray claims to be a "Paleyan".
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I made several reverse bias comments in response to biased comments
initiated by Glen. Then I replied to one of his accusations of quote-
mining by Meyer, which both you and Glen have completely ignored. You
need to re-read my message and get your facts straight, Davey.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
the matter of "bias" isn't what's relevant here, Ray. If you think
that Glen is wrong, show where he's wrong, not just accuse him of
being biased. Even a biased comment can be correct. If your entire
argument is "bias" then you are employing the ad hominem fallacy.
> Then I replied to one of his accusations of quote-
> mining by Meyer, which both you and Glen have completely ignored.
Your whole reply was irrelevant, as it was based on your "suspicion"
rather than any actual evidence.
> You
> need to re-read my message and get your facts straight, Davey.
As usual, he's right, and you are wrong, yet again, Ray.
DJT
gregwrld
You didn't make a point-you merely claimed
he's biased. Back up your accusation with
evidence or withdraw it.
gregwrld
el cid
Try again Ray. I broke it down to very simple elements of logic.
Surely, many people are protective of their world-view. I grant
you that. But blithely dismissing everything someone of a
given persuasion says about something is the very definition
of prejudice. Rise above that Ray. It is possible.
Free Lunch
<reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Aug 22, 5:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> I made several reverse bias comments in response to biased comments
>> initiated by Glen.
>
>the matter of "bias" isn't what's relevant here, Ray. If you think
>that Glen is wrong, show where he's wrong, not just accuse him of
>being biased. Even a biased comment can be correct. If your entire
>argument is "bias" then you are employing the ad hominem fallacy.
>
Reality is biased against Ray. It's just not fair that nothing supports
his dogmas.
...
David Hare-Scott
So you don't understand and will not address the points. That's what I
thought, there is no need to keep repeating your refusal.
David
Dave Oldridge
2c049b...@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> If anything, Signature in the Cell is worse than I expected. The
>> "reasoning" is very flimsy, and there are quotemines making people out
>> to say the opposite of what they really said, especially where he's
>> pretending that ID can actually do science.
>>
>> What's scary about Meyer's book is how many people on the other side
>> who read it think that he really did make a good case for ID, that he
>> carefully followed the methods of the "historical sciences" (as if
>> there's any break from present-day processes). I think that his book
>> might have better legs than other ID failures, mainly because we
>> really can't explain life's origin, and the temptation to stuff god
>> into that gap is strong.
>>
>
> Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
> ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
Since you are a latter-day creationist, your support of Meyer's
intellectual dishonesty is a knee;jerk reflex. You can't help it, The
father of lies owns your soul!
>
>> Anyway, I think I managed to say a lot that others didn't (it is long,
>> although I could have written much more about its problems). As well
>> as I remember, no one actually called him out on the quotemines, which
>> I think are the worst aspect of the book, and they're what I include
>> below, above the link to my review:
>>
>> "Another traditional expectation from IDCreationism is poor
>> scholarship, and quotes taken out of context, and this characterizes
>> Meyer's work as well, beyond what I have already mentioned.
>>
>
> Again, since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Creationism-ID
> scholarship is quite predictable and of course predetermined.
Again, since you are a latter-day creationist, your support of creationist
lying is predetermined.
>
>> "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
>> eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
>> it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
>> is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
>> that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
>> would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
>> abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
>> unlikely.
>>
>
> Meyer is arguing that ID is a better explanation of the facts. Since
> ID is never an option for a Darwinist your criticism is deceit.
So, let's see. Mechanisms that we can see in action are a poorer
explanation than "some invisible entity did it by some invisible
mechanism."
If you honestly believe that, can I interest you in a couple of bridges
back east?
>
>> "W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
>> "dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
>> the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
>> chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
>> sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
>> confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
>> selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
>> information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
>>
>> "But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
>> was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
>> relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
>> evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
>> improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
>> highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
>> "pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
>> actually functional.
>>
>
> I suspect Meyer was not saying that Chung said "thus and such" but
> that the fact or facts Chung established are better explained as "thus
> and such." Meyer is focussed on the claim of fact that "dual-coding"
> was initially a chance mutation preserved by selection. And since
> selection is material (not supervised or guided) the entire mechanism
> is governed ultimately by chance.
>
> (New Reader-Learner: When Darwinists single-out selection as not
> affected by chance they are really only talking to you.)
And this must be the Mirrisite equivalent of speaking in tongues...
>
> [....]
>
>>
>> Too bad most creationists won't understand what Meyer did wrong,
>> perhaps out of his rather glaring ignorance, along with the usual lack
>> of concern for actual truth that characterizes ID. [....]
>>
>
> About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife.
ID and creationism are all about deceiving an ignorant target audience
with pseudoscientific lies in order to garner support for
unconstitutioinal political action. You people are spiritual and secular
scofflaws and you may fool some of the people some of the time but you
ain't fooling the deity you pretend to believe in at all, since you
clearly believe He lacks the power to enforce His commandments.
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)
>
>
--
Dave Oldridge+ (actual Christian)
Will in New Haven
wrote:
>
> ID and creationism are all about deceiving an ignorant target audience
> with pseudoscientific lies in order to garner support for
> unconstitutioinal political action. You people are spiritual and secular
> scofflaws and you may fool some of the people some of the time but you
> ain't fooling the deity you pretend to believe in at all, since you
> clearly believe He lacks the power to enforce His commandments.
Maybe some of ID and creationism is about gaining support for
unconstitutional political action. However, more of it is about making
money, with almost no hope of and possibly no wish for any greater
"success." And we really can't fault people for skinning pigeons. It
is why the pigeons exist. As Gene Scott would have said, stealing it
from Titanic Thompson "Suckers got no business with their money."
--
Will in New Haven
Pete when he's dead; Shoeless Joe never
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[snip]
> "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
> eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
> it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
> is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
> that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
> would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
> abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
> unlikely.
Ok, I'm not real sure what is meant by "dual coding."
But data compaction is in fact a form of encryption.
It's not necessarily a difficult to decrypt form. But it
is such a form. Viz:
The original is:
AAAAAABBDEFFFF
And this gets turned into:
6A2B1D1E4F
Not a particularly good form of compaction, obviously.
But also, it is encrypted from the original. Again, not
very difficult to decrypt. But compaction is encryption.
Until you get the idea of turning 6A into AAAAAA, and
so on, the original message isn't there.
Of course, there are better forms of compaction, and
much more difficult to crack forms of encryption.
Whether that makes any difference to the point you
were trying to make about the content of the book I
don't have any clue. My exposure to such issues is
primarily from the standpoint of doing rather simple
minded computer stuff, so I don't know much about
how DNA works.
Socks
hersheyh
And on this I can agree with Ray. If one arbitrarily assumes (or
invents out of thin air) the existence of a magical entity that
produces whatever we actually observe, one can always, always, have an
explanation that perfectly fits all the facts. In fact, that is
exactly why ID by such an invisible magical entity is correctly
excluded from *all* of the modern (meaning since the end of the Middle
Ages, not 1859) natural sciences.
But perhaps Ray has the elusive independent public and empirical
evidence for the existence of this magical entity?
> > "W.-Y. Chung and some colleagues studied some of the few cases of
> > "dual-coding" in humans, and Meyer quoted their paper as stating that
> > the origin of these instances "...is `virtually impossible by
> > chance'" (Chung, et al., "A First Look at the ARFome."). Meyer's next
> > sentence, which starts a paragraph, provides context which shows his
> > confusion of chance with natural selection: "Nor does natural
> > selection acting on random mutations help explain the efficient
> > information-storage density of the genome" (p. 464).
>
> > "But Chung was clearly stating that the maintenance of "dual-coding"
> > was naturally selected, which is the opposite of "chance." The
> > relevant paper states: "Maintenance of dual-coding regions is
> > evolutionarily costly and their occurrence by chance is statistically
> > improbable. Therefore, an ARF that is conserved in multiple species is
> > highly likely to be functional" (Chung, et al.). Natural selection
> > "pays the cost" because keeping the dual-coding is (by inference)
> > actually functional.
>
> I suspect Meyer was not saying that Chung said "thus and such" but
> that the fact or facts Chung established are better explained as "thus
> and such."
Most likely Meyer, as is common in creationist articles, was simply
abusing the hypothetical form (in which a scientist presents what
appears to be a problem for the usual explanation and then
subsequently explains how a natural mechanism can explain it) by
merely presenting the problem part, ignoring the subsequent
explanation by the author, and suggesting or implying that this
serious problem for 'evolution' can *only* be explained by inventing
an invisible, unknowable entity to magically create whatever is
observed.
> Meyer is focussed on the claim of fact that "dual-coding"
> was initially a chance mutation preserved by selection. And since
> selection is material (not supervised or guided) the entire mechanism
> is governed ultimately by chance.
Well, shit happens. And if you are a dung beetle, you use it.
Ernest Major
<d01fe449-78f8-4a4e...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Aug 22, 11:47 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>[snip]
>> "Meyer claims that "dual-coding"--common in prokaryotes, not common in
>> eukaryotes (such as ourselves)--is a kind of "encryption" (it is not,
>> it is usually a means of data compaction) and, yes, he writes that it
>> is something that only intelligence does. Yet we have good evidence
>> that certain aspects of such "dual-coding" in prokaryotes are what
>> would be expected to occur as the result of evolution. See the
>> abstract at [...] So his claim about its origins looks at best to be
>> unlikely.
>
>Ok, I'm not real sure what is meant by "dual coding."
>But data compaction is in fact a form of encryption.
>It's not necessarily a difficult to decrypt form. But it
>is such a form. Viz:
In this context dual coding refers to the same bit of DNA coding for one
protein in one reading frame, and another protein in a second,
frame-shifted reading frame. This is fairly common in bacteria, as it
allows more functionality to be packed into the same size of genome, and
DNA replication is energetically costly enough in bacteria that there is
selective pressure for smaller genomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868773/
That doesn't seem to qualify as encryption.
The other phenomenon which may be labelled as dual coding is where on
protein is coded on one strand of DNA, and another protein on the
overlapping part of the complementary strand.
>
>The original is:
>AAAAAABBDEFFFF
>
>And this gets turned into:
>6A2B1D1E4F
>
>Not a particularly good form of compaction, obviously.
>But also, it is encrypted from the original. Again, not
>very difficult to decrypt. But compaction is encryption.
>Until you get the idea of turning 6A into AAAAAA, and
>so on, the original message isn't there.
>
>Of course, there are better forms of compaction, and
>much more difficult to crack forms of encryption.
>
>Whether that makes any difference to the point you
>were trying to make about the content of the book I
>don't have any clue. My exposure to such issues is
>primarily from the standpoint of doing rather simple
>minded computer stuff, so I don't know much about
>how DNA works.
>Socks
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Puppet_Sock
> In this context dual coding refers to the same bit of DNA coding for one
> protein in one reading frame, and another protein in a second,
> frame-shifted reading frame. This is fairly common in bacteria, as it
> allows more functionality to be packed into the same size of genome, and
> DNA replication is energetically costly enough in bacteria that there is
> selective pressure for smaller genomes.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868773/
>
> That doesn't seem to qualify as encryption.
Sure it does. Not very sophisticated encryption, but encryption
never the less. A non-encrypted form would be the two blobs of
DNA not overlapped. There is even a certain amount of this
that has been used. You have a "plain text" message that
has some paragraph of text that is not relevant to the meaning
of the intended encrypted message. Then you transmit a
separate message that says "start reading at word 23" or
some such, and you get a different message. Heh heh, it's
kind of like "quote mining."
But without the context of the extra "start reading at word 23"
you can't get the extra message. Nor, in the case of DNA, could
you get the extra protein without the context that says "start
reading further down the DNA instead of at the end" or whatever
it is that causes the reading-from-a-different-spot activity.
Now it *is* unsophisticated encryption. If I gave you a paragraph
with a meaningful message embedded in this klunky way, it would
be quite likely you could crack it by saying "hey, this paragraph
has a whacky message if I start at word 23" or whatever. That's
probably a factor in the existence of such cases. It's not very
complicated to go from reading a gene normally, linearly, end-
to-end, to accidentally reading a portion from part way in. So
the change is small, so it can arise without a lot of steps.
> The other phenomenon which may be labelled as dual coding is where on
> protein is coded on one strand of DNA, and another protein on the
> overlapping part of the complementary strand.
Heh. Lots of those in encryption as well. "A man, a plan, a canal,
Suez!"
Basically what all of these say is that it is possible to read DNA in
different ways depending on context. That's pretty much unavoidable
in any sequence of data that can contain meaningful sequences.
You can't understand it without context, and changing the context
will change the meaning, maybe drastically, Or scramble it such
that it loses all meaning.
So, DNA getting kludged up by evolution, it would be highly unlikely
not to have at least some of such kludgy mechanisms.
However, I will make a prediction. Such things won't be the usual
way genes are encoded. They will be something that happens
now and then, here and there, but it would suprise me greatly
to find an organism that did this with most of its genes, or even
with a large fraction. For two reasons:
- There isn't a strong selection pressure to reduce the total DNA
used in a cell. It's not that large a cost.
- Such structures would be fragile. A mutation in one side (or in
the original of a dual pair) also mutates the other side. And that
means the steps are bigger and more likely to be problems for
the resulting organism.
Socks
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Aug 23, 10:43 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In this context dual coding refers to the same bit of DNA coding for one
> > protein in one reading frame, and another protein in a second,
> > frame-shifted reading frame. This is fairly common in bacteria, as it
> > allows more functionality to be packed into the same size of genome, and
> > DNA replication is energetically costly enough in bacteria that there is
> > selective pressure for smaller genomes.
>
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868773/
>
> > That doesn't seem to qualify as encryption.
>
> Sure it does. Not very sophisticated encryption, but encryption
> never the less. A non-encrypted form would be the two blobs of
> DNA not overlapped. There is even a certain amount of this
> that has been used. You have a "plain text" message that
> has some paragraph of text that is not relevant to the meaning
> of the intended encrypted message. Then you transmit a
> separate message that says "start reading at word 23" or
> some such, and you get a different message. Heh heh, it's
> kind of like "quote mining."
Sounds like steganography to me, which, commonly, is not considered
true cryptography.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
There is nothing to address or refute. Your original statement was
that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. As usual you have done
nothing to back up your statements.
In His glory
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
> ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
Mr. Martinez:
The bible teaches us to not cast our pearls before swine. You should
not
"Debate" these evolutionists, but rather you should share with them
the
good news of the bible, and how our all seeing, all knowing, all
powerful
creator God could not possibly have chosen evolution as the means for
creating us. Because.
It's only foolish earthly pride that makes you want to defeat these
opponents to decency. But that is an error. The battle was always
by, and the victory always belonged to God Himself. Trust in Him and
not yourself.
Ray Martinez
[CORRECTION POST; original was deleted from Google Groups due to
grammatical error.]
Glen: My original reply to your OP consisted of two points:
1. Your opinion of Creationists-IDists (your enemies) is
predetermined.
2. Your accusation that Meyer quote-mined Chung is most likely false.
Both remain unaddressed. Since I am a Paleyan IDist-species
immutabilist I have no motive or reason to protect Meyer, a DI IDist
who accepts evolution/common descent.
Ray
Ray Martinez
You should practice what you preach and not post.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Well, you could take that advice yourself, but your posts are quite
amusing, and you show so well the disconnect between logic and
creationism that it's probably better you keep posting.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID argument (or any
> > ID argument) is, of course, predetermined.
>
> Mr. Martinez:
>
> The bible teaches us to not cast our pearls before swine.
Don't worry, Ray hasn't any pearls. He casts what he thinks to be
theses, but are in fact only feces....
> You should
> not
> "Debate" these evolutionists,
Also, Ray doesn't debate, and in fact runs away rather quickly from
any real debate about fact and evidence.
> but rather you should share with them
> the
> good news of the bible, and how our all seeing, all knowing, all
> powerful
> creator God could not possibly have chosen evolution as the means for
> creating us. Because.
Because why? Why can't God use whatever means he wishes to create?
snip the rest.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Which is irrelevant to the point. You should be addressing the
points Glen made, not accusing him of "bias". A "predetermined"
opinion can be a correct one as well. Attacking Glen, not his points
is committing the fallacy of ad hominem.
>
> 2. Your accusation that Meyer quote-mined Chung is most likely false.
You say "probably false" but you obviously haven't read Chung, and so
your claim is worthless.
>
> Both remain unaddressed.
Both have been addressed, and shot down, Ray.
> Since I am a Paleyan IDist-species
> immutabilist I have no motive or reason to protect Meyer
Except for your known bias against "Darwinists", and science in
general. Also, poor William Paley spins in his grave whenever you
attempt to link your own deranged beliefs with his work.
> a DI IDist
> who accepts evolution/common descent.
This "DI IDist" is working against the scientific process, and trying
to get religious ideas presented as if they were science. You and he
have the same goal. Common descent and evolution are simply too
well established to deny without looking like a fool.
>
> Ray
Earle Jones
<07a6aa17-3cfc-4cce...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Because God can do no more and no less than that allowed by Gene Scott.
earle
*
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Besides, what good will your "protecting" him do if he's going to
spend eternity in the same place as us "atheists," right? You do think
that he and the other DI-IDers are going there, don't you? You did see
my 8/21 post about that, didn't you?