* * *     International Skeptics Forum Thread  * * *

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thread : Dover Penn ID trial
Started at 11th October 2005 06:14 AM by Ed
Visit at https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48008
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 1]
Author : Ed
Date : 11th October 2005 06:14 AM
Thread Title : Dover Penn ID trial

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2><b>Introduction by Luke T.: &nbsp;</b><i>
The genre: Drama.  The setting: a courtroom.   The cast: Theologians, scientists, teachers, lawyers, parents, politicians, and a judge.  The plot: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. The prize: A classroom filled with young minds. 

If this story begins to sound familiar to you, just remember the time is not 1925.  The place is not Tennessee.  The image is not black and white. This is 2005 in Dover, Pennsylvania brought to you in full living color.

Link to original topic (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45694)</i></font></td></tr></table>


This is being discussed in Politics but this link provides transcripts that are certainly worth a read (or at least a skim) particularly those from thursday and friday.

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/

Good it appears I can edit.

The original link was posted by Mojo in Politics.  A belated thank you and full credit.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2><b>Moderation Action by Luke T.: &nbsp;</b><i>With permission from the American Civil Liberties Union, JREF is now hosting the entire set of the Dover ID trial transcripts here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?page=dover)</i></font></td></tr></table>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 2]
Author : Beth
Date : 11th October 2005 06:32 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 3]
Author : andro
Date : 11th October 2005 06:44 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 4]
Author : Ed
Date : 11th October 2005 06:50 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 5]
Author : LTC8K6
Date : 11th October 2005 06:56 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 6]
Author : Ed
Date : 11th October 2005 07:10 AM

I asked Darat to sticky this so that we can all keep track of the developments in Dover, to which request Darat has thoughtfully acceded.

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you.  I personally (and yes, Darat, this is a personal attack) believe that the fundimentalist christian mindset that is pushing for this ID stuff is not discriminably different from fundimentalist Moslems.  They know "TRUTH" and they can brook no disagreement.  First the US then secular Europe.  And, please, no arrogant "it can't happen here" crap.  These guys have taken the NRA model and applied it to wackey (:)) beliefs.  That is:  get a mailing list of "true believers".  Make them feel like they are part of a crusade. Have them vote in a block.  Focus them on a single issue. Repeat, repeat, repeat.  Secular Europe is in their cross hairs (to mix a metaphor or rather to modify a metaphor so that it is punning, not modify, make it a pun contextually...you know what I mean).

Anyhoo, I'd like to keep this thread on Dover/Kansas ID but if anyone cares they can starat a thread on ID outside of the US.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 7]
Author : Darat
Date : 11th October 2005 07:27 AM

I asked Darat to sticky this so that we can all keep track of the developments in Dover, to which request Darat has thoughtfully acceded.

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you.  I personally (and yes, Darat, this is a personal attack) believe that the fundimentalist christian mindset that is pushing for this ID stuff is not discriminably different from fundimentalist Moslems.  They know "TRUTH" and they can brook no disagreement.  First the US then secular Europe.  And, please, no arrogant "it can't happen here" crap.  These guys have taken the NRA model and applied it to wackey (:)) beliefs.  That is:  get a mailing list of "true believers".  Make them feel like they are part of a crusade. Have them vote in a block.  Focus them on a single issue. Repeat, repeat, repeat.  Secular Europe is in their cross hairs (to mix a metaphor or rather to modify a metaphor so that it is punning, not modify, make it a pun contextually...you know what I mean).

Anyhoo, I'd like to keep this thread on Dover/Kansas ID but if anyone cares they can starat a thread on ID outside of the US.

Personal attack on me how? :confused:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 8]
Author : brodski
Date : 11th October 2005 07:47 AM

Personal attack on me how? :confused:
I think Ed ment that this was an attack, that he was making personaly. the atack seemed to be aimed at fundi X-ians.Your not a secert, part time right wing fundi are you?, when your not being expelled from the labour party for your radical left wing views, that is. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 9]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 11th October 2005 08:02 AM

This is being discussed in Politics but this link provides transcripts that are certainly worth a read (or at least a skim) particularly those from thursday and friday.Which ones are thursday and friday?  Day 5 and 6?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 10]
Author : Flo
Date : 11th October 2005 08:06 AM

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you.

Don't worry, we (as in "we degenerate Euros") are perfectly aware that all things wackey originating in the US will eventually arrive over here. :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 11]
Author : Ed
Date : 11th October 2005 08:32 AM

Which ones are thursday and friday?  Day 5 and 6?


Yes.  The cross of the Lady Professor was not posted yet.  

It seems like a lot of pages but it goes quickly.  Focus on the cross tho'.  The direct is pretty much what we know already.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 12]
Author : Ed
Date : 11th October 2005 08:38 AM

Don't worry, we (as in "we degenerate Euros") are perfectly aware that all things wackey originating in the US will eventually arrive over here. :D

This dwarfs the enormity of Jerry Lewis by ... by ... oh, Flo, it's you :)

Think that at some point (and I mean this in a non-perjoritive way) baby boomers are going to retire.  At some point the social safty net is going to spring a few holes.  People are going to be restless.  This is the kind of stuff that breeds political oddities.  I might also suggest that with your growing moslem population the islamists could find some common ground with the fundies here (much as Orthodox Jews and fundies are of a mind on this issue here).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 13]
Author : vbloke
Date : 11th October 2005 10:41 AM

I take some (although not much) comfort in the fact the the film "What the bleep do we know" made it over to the UK and vanished without trace.
This does not mean that we can be content that ID, or another form of it won't rear it's ugly head, especially as our Minister for Education, Ruth Kelly, is a member of Opus Dei and is in a great position to foist dogma into schools should she so wish.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 14]
Author : brodski
Date : 11th October 2005 01:33 PM

I take some (although not much) comfort in the fact the the film "What the bleep do we know" made it over to the UK and vanished without trace.
This does not mean that we can be content that ID, or another form of it won't rear it's ugly head, especially as our Minister for Education, Ruth Kelly, is a member of Opus Dei and is in a great position to foist dogma into schools should she so wish.
 
lets not forget that we already have state funded schools in the UK teaching 6 day young earth creationism. The English have nothing to feel smug about (both schools are in England) our government already pays for some kids to be taught fairie tales along side real science.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 15]
Author : Darat
Date : 11th October 2005 01:34 PM

lets not forget that we already have state funded schools in the UK teaching 6 day young earth creationism. The English have nothing to feel smug about (both schools are in England) our government already pays for some kids to be taught fairie tales along side real science.

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 16]
Author : brodski
Date : 11th October 2005 01:53 PM

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.
 
yes, but encouraging truly independent, church funded faith schools, isn't nearly the same scandal as the 95% state funded city academies, including Emanuel college in Gateshead. A couple of grand got a Fundy used car salesman a lot of young minds to poison, and there is nothing stopping even more bizarre groups scraping together the very small amount of cash needed to sell their belief system to impressionable minds and get the state to pay for most of it. In some cases the UK has already lost battles the US hasn't even had to fight yet. At least there seems to be organized opposition in the US, over here more people seem to care abbot what is going on in Pennsylvania and Kansas than on our doorstep.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 17]
Author : Flo
Date : 12th October 2005 12:02 AM

This dwarfs the enormity of Jerry Lewis by ... by ... oh, Flo, it's you :)

Tell you what: In 50 years, I've never, ever met a fan of Jerry Lewis in France or Switzerland. I only recently discovered he was awarded a medal for culture :eek: (but Madonna and Stallone also got one from our senile president, so ... ), which is rather funny since no single European kid knows who he is and what he's done (thankfully, and I certainly don't intend kids in my family to ever know).


Think that at some point (and I mean this in a non-perjoritive way) baby boomers are going to retire.  At some point the social safty net is going to spring a few holes.  People are going to be restless.  This is the kind of stuff that breeds political oddities.  I might also suggest that with your growing moslem population the islamists could find some common ground with the fundies here (much as Orthodox Jews and fundies are of a mind on this issue here). 

I'm afraid you're partly right, as has been seen when the Satanic Verses were published: you could suddenly find the all churches (including the fundamentalists, extreme-right and royalists catholics, etc.), together in bed with the most vocal islamists ... 

At the same time, I don't think the growing moslem population is so much a problem per se as is their (perceived and/or real) marginalisation in economic and social terms, which make them easy prey to extremists. The problem is exactly the same with those tempted by the religious right extremists.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 18]
Author : Soapy Sam
Date : 12th October 2005 04:44 AM

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.
 
Yes. They're fast learners in parliament.
Think central Scotland. Think Northern Ireland.
It's never to early to start training  bigots.
 
Perhaps the problem is that the Church of England has lacked extremist, fundamentalist, waggly beard bigots for so long that the folk down south have forgotten what religious bigotry is like. 
 
Lets wait for Charlie III to be crowned, then we can chop his head off and start another round of Catholic / Protestant warfare. The Muslims can hold the jackets.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 19]
Author : Darat
Date : 12th October 2005 04:49 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 20]
Author : Darat
Date : 12th October 2005 04:51 AM

...snip...
 
Perhaps the problem is that the Church of England has lacked extremist, fundamentalist, waggly beard bigots for so long that the folk down south have forgotten what religious bigotry is like. 

 ...snip..

You mean there might be soemthing wrong with letting this bloke (http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp) run a school?.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 21]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 12th October 2005 05:58 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF
Wow...you can see it evolving, with more fit phrases being selected by environmental pressure...and quite obviously, no intelligence behind it at all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 22]
Author : Blue Bubble
Date : 12th October 2005 06:36 AM

You mean there might be something wrong with letting this bloke (http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp) run a school?.

That looks like a nice man.  Who is he ?





P.s. I concur 100% with Soapy Sam's comments re central Scotland and Northern Ireland.  I grew up in the former, and have witnessed the religious bigotry first hand.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 23]
Author : Flo
Date : 12th October 2005 06:45 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF


They must have learnt the process from the snake-oil salesmen who managed to turn their miracle cancer drugs into miracle aids drugs almost overnight ...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 24]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 12th October 2005 07:08 AM

They must have learnt the process from the snake-oil salesmen who managed to turn their miracle cancer drugs into miracle aids drugs almost overnight ...
You mean miracle cancer and aids "dietary supplements".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 25]
Author : Mojo
Date : 12th October 2005 07:30 AM

Perhaps the problem is that the Church of England has lacked extremist, fundamentalist, waggly beard bigots for so long that the folk down south have forgotten what religious bigotry is like. Judging from the photo in today's Grauniad Stephen Green is working on the beard aspect of his presentation, but it doesn't look sufficiently waggly yet.

James Anderton (http://ugandandiscussions.co.uk/covers/655_big.jpg) had quite a good one though.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 26]
Author : Flo
Date : 12th October 2005 07:42 AM

You mean miracle cancer and aids "dietary supplements".


Over here, cures haven't yet morphed into dietary supplements. I accuse our lack of evolutionnary pressure (through the predatory habits of lawyers).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 27]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 12th October 2005 02:29 PM

Defendant&#180;s case is up next week and dont you know it, one "expert" witness is...Michael Behe of irreproducible...sorry, "irreducible complexity" fame. This is going to be good, clean family entertainment! :D :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 28]
Author : Mojo
Date : 12th October 2005 05:11 PM

Defendant´s case is up next week and dont you know it, one "expert" witness is...Michael Behe of irreproducible...sorry, "irreducible complexity" fame. This is going to be good, clean family entertainment! :D :DI think Brown indicated that Johnson was going to be called as well... :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 29]
Author : drkitten
Date : 13th October 2005 07:16 AM

Defendant´s case is up next week and dont you know it, one "expert" witness is...Michael Behe of irreproducible...sorry, "irreducible complexity" fame. This is going to be good, clean family entertainment! :D :D

Oh, it will definitely be interesting.  One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate.  Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips.

If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade.  If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site),  Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex,  complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969!

So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now.  "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur.  You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots.  Do you disagree with Dr. Miller?  Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago?  Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 30]
Author : Phrost
Date : 13th October 2005 10:13 AM

Is it just me, or do things like this get anyone else all worked up to the point they're all "GRRARRRR... SKEPTIC SMASH!"?

I canceled my membership to the ACLU when I found out about them supporting NAMBLA, but this is a good cause and I'm glad they're fighting for it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 31]
Author : c4ts
Date : 13th October 2005 10:21 AM

The state should not require you to advertise for a specific company's book.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 32]
Author : Moose
Date : 13th October 2005 03:13 PM

Sounds like the Day 8 transcript, when available, is going to be epic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 33]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 14th October 2005 03:33 PM

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you. [...] And, please, no arrogant "it can't happen here" crap.Oh, in some ways, it already has. Bear with me for a moment.

In the Netherlands, schools have a fair amount of autonomy in setting their own curriculum, but the bottom line is that every secondary school student--regardless of whether he or she attends a public or a religious school--must pass a final exam, the content of which is set by the state (i.e. the ministry of education). Now, I didn't take biology all the way to the final exam, so I didn't find out about this until recently, but the Dutch state exam curriculum for biology (or any other physical science) omits any mention of evolutionary theory. This is primarily as a result of continued pressure from hardline Calvinist activists who don't want their kids exposed to any idea which contradicts Genesis. As a result, it is possible to pass through the Dutch education system without ever hearing the word "evolution" (the main reason I didn't know this was because my school did teach evolution, but then, I went to a very good school).

What I'm trying to say here is that many of us have no room to be smug about Creationism in America. Just because Creationists are less noisy elsewhere doesn't mean they don't exist, or affect your child's education.

(Note that while I live in the US now, I am in fact a Dutch national.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 34]
Author : Mojo
Date : 14th October 2005 05:19 PM

The original link was posted by Mojo in Politics. I'd just like to point out that I don't post in Politics any more than I have to...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 35]
Author : SpaceFluffer
Date : 15th October 2005 04:03 PM

Wow...you can see it evolving, with more fit phrases being selected by environmental pressure...and quite obviously, no intelligence behind it at all.:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 36]
Author : Mojo
Date : 17th October 2005 04:28 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website.  It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 37]
Author : Ed
Date : 17th October 2005 06:33 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website.  It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.

Thank you, I don't check every day.

Any idea when the creationist dudes are testifying?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 38]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 17th October 2005 08:00 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website.  It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.
Interesting audio analysis (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/index.php?path=mp3s/) is also available, e.g. Nick Matzke´s take on the Forrest hearing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 39]
Author : Mojo
Date : 17th October 2005 08:24 AM

Thank you, I don't check every day. Nor do I, or I might have noticed it when it went up on Thursday!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 40]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 17th October 2005 03:21 PM

Thank you, I don't check every day.
 
Any idea when the creationist dudes are testifying?Behe testified today. Transcript not available yet, but several good reports are.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 41]
Author : Mojo
Date : 18th October 2005 09:09 AM

There's an amusing column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90187/) about Behe's testimony by Mike Argento.

Some more of Argento's columns are linked from the ACLUPA blog.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 42]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 18th October 2005 05:47 PM

Argh!  I have become a transcript junky!  I need my fix!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 43]
Author : Ed
Date : 18th October 2005 07:47 PM

Argh!  I have become a transcript junky!  I need my fix!

Wait for the cross, wait for the cross :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 44]
Author : Mojo
Date : 19th October 2005 06:30 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.

ETA: And one from New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 45]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 19th October 2005 06:37 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.
Nice.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 46]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 19th October 2005 06:38 AM

...but it is mere methadone...I need my transcripts...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 47]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 19th October 2005 06:43 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.
For deeper scientific insights into ID Creationism and the Dover case, try The Panda´s Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/). Granted, the above column is fun to read, and these IDC clowns get all the ridicule they deserve.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 48]
Author : Darat
Date : 19th October 2005 06:50 AM

Could someone get a list of all these good links together so I can add them to the box on the forum homepage? - TIA

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 49]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 19th October 2005 08:13 AM

Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)
Behe testified Tuesday that intelligent design, unlike creationism, does not make references to religion or religious text. Although he said he believes that the intelligent designer is God, he said the intelligent design movement does not identify the designer and that there could be other causes.Because any other, non-supernatural, designer then has the sticky question of the origins of the designer, doesn't it?

Anyway, this is really why I linked the article:
But during the cross-examination of Behe, ACLU attorney Eric Rothschild reminded the court that the National Academy of Scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and even the biology department at Lehigh University, have denounced the idea of intelligent design.

''So you have not been able to convince your colleagues,'' Rothschild said to Behe after reading a statement from Behe's peers.

The statement, posted on Lehigh's Web site, reads in part:

''While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.''

Behe said the department's statement has no scientific importance. ''Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the scientific community,'' he said, ''but I'm very pleased with the progress we're making.'':roll: :roll: :roll:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 50]
Author : richardm
Date : 19th October 2005 09:03 AM

Perhaps the problem is that the Church of England has lacked extremist, fundamentalist, waggly beard bigots for so long that the folk down south have forgotten what religious bigotry is like. 
 

I hate religious bigotry. In fact, I despise all forms of inlaid decoration.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 51]
Author : tsg
Date : 19th October 2005 09:33 AM

...but it is mere methadone...I need my transcripts... 
I feel your pain.  I've still got a hole in my soul from the missing transcripts of Days 2(am), 3(am) and 4...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 52]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 19th October 2005 01:04 PM

I think the plaintiffs should call Hovind to the stand.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 53]
Author : Ed
Date : 19th October 2005 01:39 PM

or Jack Chick

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 54]
Author : Mojo
Date : 19th October 2005 03:25 PM

I think the plaintiffs should call Hovind to the stand.Thank you for editing out the apostrophe! ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 55]
Author : c4ts
Date : 19th October 2005 11:52 PM

or Jack Chick

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

Classic Chick! It has freaky looking kids, evil Semetic teachers, unsupported nonsense which is basically hate speech... But I liked it better when it was called Big Daddy. I miss the part about atoms being held together by Jesus!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 56]
Author : Odin
Date : 20th October 2005 01:03 AM

http://www.chick.com/tractimages57245/1051/1051_22.gif
I want to known on which day did God created Suzy, since she appears to be becoming intelligently designed into a hamster.

And if YOU believe in Evolution instead of Jesus (and how in Chickworld could you believe in both?) you'll end up in hell. So thats almost everyone I've ever known, most of whom are Christians, in Hell. What a nice loving religion Chick has, the worship of the appeal to fear. :oldroll:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 57]
Author : chran
Date : 20th October 2005 02:15 AM

http://www.chick.com/tractimages57245/1051/1051_22.gif
And if YOU believe in Evolution instead of Jesus (and how in Chickworld could you believe in both?) you'll end up in hell.I love all the references to precious blood. That's surely something that all the kids will like!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 58]
Author : Yahweh
Date : 20th October 2005 02:32 AM

Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)
Because any other, non-supernatural, designer then has the sticky question of the origins of the designer, doesn't it?
Of course the intelligent designer doesnt have to be God, only someone with the basic skillset and powers to create an entire functioning universe and humans in his image from the ground up.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 59]
Author : Darat
Date : 20th October 2005 02:32 AM

Of course the intelligent designer doesnt have to be God, only someone with the basic skillset and powers to create an entire functioning universe and humans in his image from the ground up.

And is so simple that it didn't need to be designed.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 60]
Author : Darat
Date : 20th October 2005 02:34 AM

And is so simple that it didn't need to be designed.


Hold on if it was so simple it didn't need a designer to design it that means that complexity can arise from simplicity.. oops... :boggled:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 61]
Author : catbasket
Date : 20th October 2005 02:52 AM

From the New Scientist article (Mojo's link above) -

Talking about Behe's cross examination - "“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class.""


Sorry, Mr. Slade, I just cannot admire Behe.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 62]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 20th October 2005 04:04 AM

Well, it's a fine line between courage and stupidity, and I think I know which side Behe's on. Still, I think Mr. Slade's incredulity concerning Behe's academic chops is of more import to this case than his admiration of Behe's guts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 63]
Author : catbasket
Date : 20th October 2005 04:52 AM

Agreed. Personally I read into Mr. Slade's comments that possibly the only thing he admired about Behe was his guts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 64]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th October 2005 05:21 AM

Agreed. Personally I read into Mr. Slade's comments that possibly the only thing he admired about Behe was his guts.  He certainly couldn't admire his brains, that's for sure.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 65]
Author : Moose
Date : 20th October 2005 06:07 AM

Okay, I think I'm officially in "transcript withdrawl". These short articles aren't doing it for me anymore.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 66]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 20th October 2005 06:23 AM

I'm not sure if I can admire Behe's guts. If he had them, he'd come up with a testable ID hypothesis and test it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 67]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 20th October 2005 06:32 AM

I'm not sure if I can admire Behe's guts. If he had them, he'd come up with a testable ID hypothesis and test it.

If he had guts, he would state clearly what he wants: A religious tyranny.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 68]
Author : catbasket
Date : 20th October 2005 06:52 AM

I'm not sure if I can admire Behe's guts.
On display in a natural history museum as an example of some of the wonderful things evolution has produced? "This, children, is the alimentary canal." ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 69]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 20th October 2005 06:57 AM

"And this is the theory of intelligent design, which emerges from this end."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 70]
Author : catbasket
Date : 20th October 2005 07:58 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 71]
Author : catbasket
Date : 20th October 2005 08:17 AM

Could someone get a list of all these good links together so I can add them to the box on the forum homepage? - TIA
ACLUPA blog (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/)
A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF)
Dover trial transcripts (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm) (Not yet updated with days 7, 8 and 9)
Audio analysis (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/index.php?path=mp3s/)
Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90187/)
Mike Argento column 2 (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/)
New Scientist column (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178)
Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)

How's that?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 72]
Author : Darat
Date : 20th October 2005 08:57 AM

Great thanks

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 73]
Author : Mojo
Date : 20th October 2005 09:07 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/).The first session of Behe is up as well now, but no cross yet.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 74]
Author : Moose
Date : 20th October 2005 09:16 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/). 
W00t! My hero! :D

[edit:] Wait. Where? All I'm seeing are the two transcripts for day 6 on the ACLU:Pennsylvania site.

[edit again:] Never mind, I found em. They hadn't updated the transcript page yet.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 75]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th October 2005 09:28 AM

Arrgah!  I can't stand it when people try claiming that science and religious faith are compatible.  They're nothing of the sort, which is precisely why it's inappropriate to teach religious doctrines in a science class.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 76]
Author : juryjone
Date : 20th October 2005 09:55 AM

I'm not a scientist, but I do look like one.
 
In glancing through Behe's testimony, nuch is made of the fact that biological structures are referred to as machines, and that this is not a metaphor, but a definition of the structure. Behe then says that because it is a machine, that means it's designed.
 
If I toss a loose deck of cards into a corner, one or more of the cards may be propped against the wall. That propped card is an inclined plane, a simple machine. Would Behe's "inductive reasoning" lead him to believe that it was designed, or would he concede that a machine can be produced through random processes?
 
The other point I'd like to make is about the "simple test" that neither side will do: take a bacteria with no flagellum and, over the course of a couple of years, apply selective pressures over 10,000 generations. If the bacteria develop flagella, that would, according to the article, "prove" evolution.
 
To me, this a very poorly designed test that would prove nothing to either side.
 
Outcome 1: No flagellum.
   ID: See? God/Designer did it.
   Evolutionist: What made us think we could apply just the right combination of selective pressures to produce the predetermined outcome? This is stupid! It proves nothing.
 
Outcome 2: Flagellum.
   ID: See? God/Designer did it.
   Evolutionist: Wow! I did it! Man, I hope someone else is able to read my notes and replicate this sucker!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 77]
Author : rwguinn
Date : 20th October 2005 12:47 PM

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/481_kansas_state_science_standards_10_18_2005.asp
 
please read the last paragraph carefully...
This is really, really troubling. Frightening, even...
science standing in the way of an education?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 78]
Author : Cleon
Date : 20th October 2005 03:56 PM

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/481_kansas_state_science_standards_10_18_2005.asp
 
please read the last paragraph carefully...
This is really, really troubling. Frightening, even...
science standing in the way of an education?

Frightening, yes. But also illustrative of the fact that ID is one big hoax--they know it's not science.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 79]
Author : rwguinn
Date : 20th October 2005 06:56 PM

Frightening, yes. But also illustrative of the fact that ID is one big hoax--they know it's not science.

One thing that bothers me about all the legal wrangling is that logic goes out the window.
The "Watchmaker" bit about assuming a designer bothers me. If I see an inanimate mechanism, yes, I assume a designer. A Chevy small block canot reproduce, or we'd all be up to our ears in them.
some things-An arch, for example, I can ascribe to natural processes-the Desert Southwest is full of the bloody things. But the anthropomorphization (Huh?) of watches and such by comparing them to living beings escapes me.
Maybe I'm not logical enough?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 80]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 21st October 2005 03:18 AM

One thing that bothers me about all the legal wrangling is that logic goes out the window.
The "Watchmaker" bit about assuming a designer bothers me. If I see an inanimate mechanism, yes, I assume a designer. A Chevy small block canot reproduce, or we'd all be up to our ears in them.
some things-An arch, for example, I can ascribe to natural processes-the Desert Southwest is full of the bloody things. But the anthropomorphization (Huh?) of watches and such by comparing them to living beings escapes me.
Maybe I'm not logical enough?I feel the same way about mousetraps. The most damning aspect of the mousetrap as a useful analogy is the fact that it requires a human (or a clever orangutan, perhaps) to set it and bait it in order for it to have any capability whatsoever for trapping mice. How can this be compared to a living thing?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 81]
Author : Mojo
Date : 21st October 2005 03:58 AM

The first session of Behe's cross-examination is now available (see Transcript Day 11 PM) (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm)!  

:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 82]
Author : richardm
Date : 21st October 2005 07:13 AM

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q Professor Behe, right before the break you said
that the findings accumulated over 140 years that support
the contention that Darwinian processes could explain
complex molecular systems total a number of zero, correct?


His heart must have sunk when Rothschild came back to this.


A I ll -- I think I did, yes.

Q Okay. And that s a proposition you stand by.

A Well, again, you have to look at the papers. And what I meant by that is ones which fully explain how random mutation and natural selection could build a complex system; yes, there are no such explanations.

Q Zero papers.

A I don t think I said zero papers, perhaps I did, but there are zero explanations.

Q And zero is the same number of articles in  peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems?

A The number of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals which show that life is composed of molecular machinery that exhibits the purposeful arrangement of parts in detail on term, you know, many many many thousands. There are -- I think there are just one or two that mention intelligent design by name.

Q That argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

A No, I don t think -- now that you mention it, I think that I was thinking of something else.


Oops! Credibility failure!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 83]
Author : Cleon
Date : 21st October 2005 07:26 AM

His heart must have sunk when Rothschild came back to this.



Oops! Credibility failure!

Mr. Scott! Backpedal now--full warp speed!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 84]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 21st October 2005 08:00 AM

The first session of Behe's cross-examination is now available (see Transcript Day 11 PM) (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm)!  End of page 34 to the beginning of Page 37 has Behe up against a wall doing everything he can to not have to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory as defined by the National Acadamy of Sciences.  I almost feel sorry for the guy.  Almost.

Eta: Oh, found a better sound byte: Page 39 lines 6-9
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 85]
Author : drkitten
Date : 21st October 2005 08:24 AM

End of page 34 to the beginning of Page 37 has Behe up against a wall doing everything he can to not have to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory as defined by the National Acadamy of Sciences.  I almost feel sorry for the guy.  Almost.


I rather liked the bits about the loose definitions of "author" in pages 28-32.

"The way I read that is that he is seeing into the future and seeing when this actually will be published and anticipating that I will participate in the publication of thee book at that point.

Seeing into the future is one of the powers of the intelligent design movement?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 86]
Author : Mojo
Date : 21st October 2005 08:30 AM

All good clean fun! :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 87]
Author : Darat
Date : 21st October 2005 08:40 AM

And when is a cause not a cause? When it's an intelligently designed cause (pages 23-24)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 88]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 21st October 2005 08:43 AM

All good clean fun! :D
No it isn't!  I've got work to do and I'm still reading this stupid thing!  Please Ed, I need to get some work done, but I can't hit the X button!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 89]
Author : Mojo
Date : 21st October 2005 09:08 AM

Sorry, Upchurch.

Mike Argento again: Of Behe and mammary glands (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90504/). ... Dr. Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist who is one of the top intelligent design jihadists.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 90]
Author : rjh01
Date : 21st October 2005 05:09 PM

To all ID people
Never believe in your own propaganda.  Never go to court to get your own way.  High risk of embarrassing failure.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 91]
Author : Mojo
Date : 21st October 2005 05:58 PM

To all ID people
Never believe in your own propaganda.  Never go to court to get your own way.  High risk of embarrassing failure.Wait for the judgment before declaring victory.  Until then, we don't know how much of the argument the judge accepts (or even understands, as I doubt that he or she has any sort of science qualificatiion).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 92]
Author : rjh01
Date : 21st October 2005 06:23 PM

I am sure he will understand it.  He should have had in previous cases forensic and other evidence.  That should have taught him the difference between rubbish and science.  The trial would make the judge the world''s leading expert on the validity of ID and evolution.  He will be quoted for years to come. 
But as you say I am speaking too early.  Somebody else may slip up badly.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 93]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 01:17 AM

I have been impressed with the quality of the cross-examinations.  But then good lawyers are very good at arguing!  Truth of course is a different matter... ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 94]
Author : Mojo
Date : 22nd October 2005 02:21 AM

It's nice to see someone being a bit tougher with Behe than in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html) recent interview in the Grauniad.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 95]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 02:31 AM

It's nice to see someone being a bit tougher with Behe than in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html) recent interview in the Grauniad.


Interesting comment here:


JS: How is irreducible complexity different from plain old complexity?

MB: Well, think of it this way. If you take away a rock from a pile of rocks you haven't changed much. It's still a heap of rocks - just a rock or two smaller. Take away a component from the mousetrap and it isn't a mousetrap any more.


The analogy he choose actually shows the weakness in his argument!

Consider taking a rock from the bottom of the heap of rocks, the rock heap will collapse, therefore the original rock heap is in fact an example of something that displays Behe's "irreducible complexity".  

In fact the original rock heap shows that something very complex that depends on every component being in the right place for it to exist can occur just by chance. To go a step further using the reasoning he says is behind the idea of "ID" we end up with the conclusion that a rock heap must have been designed to be a rock heap.

This probably doesn't worry Behe since he believes the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 96]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 22nd October 2005 02:41 AM

This probably doesn't;t worry Behe since he belies the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.

No, not "presumably". Behe has stated very clearly that he does think God is the designer:

And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php)

The leadership of the IDEA Center are Christians, who believe that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_affiliations.php)

Guess who those leaders are?

In the summer of 2001, the new IDEA Center sought out leadership an established an Administration Staff and a Board of Directors. Additionally, the Center formed a distinguished Advisory Board consisting of key members of the intelligent design movement including, John Baumgardner, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Mark Hartwig, Phillip Johnson, Jay Wesley Richards, Dennis Wagner, and Jonathan Wells.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/history.php)

It doesn't get clearer than that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 97]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 22nd October 2005 04:03 AM

TalkOrigins have the transcripts (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) in html format.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 98]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 22nd October 2005 04:27 AM

KingMerv00 strikes the first blow in round 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46305)

It must be annoying, being the judge and knowing that the case will be appealed and a bunch of other judges will retry the case.

Couldn't they just go straight to the appeal court and start there?

I don't see why he bothers getting up in the morning.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 99]
Author : Mojo
Date : 22nd October 2005 04:33 AM

Consider taking a rock from the bottom of the heap of rocks, the rock heap will collapse, therefore the original rock heap is in fact an example of something that displays Behe's "irreducible complexity". 

In fact the original rock heap shows that something very complex that depends on every component being in the right place for it to exist can occur just by chance. To go a step further using the reasoning he says is behind the idea of "ID" we end up with the conclusion that a rock heap must have been designed to be a rock heap.

This probably doesn't worry Behe since he believes the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.In his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm762) he's been careful to say that while it is his personal belief that the designer is God, it's not part of the "scientific theory" of ID: Q Now, before we go in detail into your argument from irreducible complexity, I want to confirm some other aspects of how you understand intelligent design.

It does not identify who the designer is, correct?

A That's correct. Let me just clarify that. I'm talking about the scientific argument for intelligent design based on physical data and logic, yes.

Q You believe it's God, but it's not part of your scientific argument?

A That's correct. So while this sort of thing may not worry Behe personally, it's certainly a problem for ID as a coherent theory.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 100]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 04:41 AM

In his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm762) he's been careful to say that while it is his personal belief that the designer is God, it's not part of the "scientific theory" of ID: So while this sort of thing may not worry Behe personally, it's certainly a problem for ID as a coherent theory.

Yep and the cross-examiner did touch on this very matter. He brought up the fact that by saying something was designed for a certain purpose you are in fact making assumptions about the nature of the designer(s), but Behe tried to deny this.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 101]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 05:11 AM

No, not "presumably". Behe has stated very clearly that he does think God is the designer:

...snip...

Not quite my point, I know (because he's said so under oath ;) ) that he believes the intelligent designer is "God". And because he is also Catholic then I can assume he regards everything in the universe to have been designed by God so as far as he would be concerned there is a designer behind the (only apparent) random arrangement of a rock heap.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 102]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 22nd October 2005 06:11 AM

Q It says there, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly." That's the opposite -- that is directly contrasting the claim of gradualism made by Ernst Mayr, correct?

A The -- how shall I phrase this? The sentence there I read as saying that intelligent design can be consistent with; that the fact that the fossil records seems to have forms of life appearing abruptly, while it might cause problems for Darwinism, it does not cause problems for intelligent design, because intelligent design does not speak to how fast or how slow such things happen.

And so I see that as saying essentially an intelligent design proponent can take this data at face value and does not necessarily have to have secondary hypotheses to try to explain it.

Q That s how you read the -- something that starts, "intelligent design means."

A Well, again, as I said in my direct testimony, I don t think this was written very well, but I think the sense of that sentence is not hard to discern. :dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 103]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 22nd October 2005 06:28 AM

Q So this is back to the claim that you say intelligent design makes, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose."

Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.

...

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

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

Q I don t think I got a reply, so I m asking you, you ve made this claim here, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?

A Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

Q But it does not propose an actual mechanism?

A Again, the word "mechanism" -- the word "mechanism" can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.

Q So when you wrote in your report that "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism," you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.

A No, I certainly didn t mean to say that. I meant to say what I said in response to that last question, that while we don t know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process....

So additionally, I might say, that it also focuses on other proposed mechanisms that purport to explain the purposeful arrangement of parts. And so I think it is quite accurate to say that that s exactly where intelligent design focuses.

Q So it actually -- it focuses on other proposed mechanisms, by that you mean natural selection, don t you?

A No, just a natural selection, complexity theory and so on. But certainly the most widely accepted, and then the one that you would have to convince most people -- or explain to most people is not well supported is the one which is the currently accepted explanation of natural selection.

Q Okay. And so in terms of mechanism, it s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive description of the mechanism?

A No, I disagree. I say that while, again, while it does not give you a step-by-step description of how such things occurred, it does tell you something very important about the cause or the way in which these structures arose, and that was through the actions of an intelligent cause.

Q So, Professor Behe, why don t we go to your deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?

A Okay.

Q Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.

A Yes.

Q I asked you, "What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?"

A Yes.

Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures."

A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.

Q And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?

A I said "that s correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. 
 Now there's a lawyer who deserves his salary.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 104]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 22nd October 2005 06:30 AM

You know, maybe we should take ID'ers to court, instead of the other way around. It actually seems to be working quite well.... :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 105]
Author : Ed
Date : 22nd October 2005 07:00 AM

Don't know about that.  It seems to me that this guy could have been filleted but hasn't.  I, personally, would have explored whether or not he feels that it is permissible to lie to advance one's religion.  Dunno, it just appeared to me that he could have been humiliated.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 106]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 22nd October 2005 07:08 AM

Don't know about that.  It seems to me that this guy could have been filleted but hasn't.  I, personally, would have explored whether or not he feels that it is permissible to lie to advance one's religion.  Have you considered the possibility that he might say "no"? Dunno, it just appeared to me that he could have been humiliated. I think the judge can probably tell a snide personal attack from a hole in the ground.

The object is not to humiliate Behe, amusing though it is, but to get the right answers out of him. I think the lawyer's doing a good job.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 107]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 08:08 AM

And isn't he being cross-examined as an "expert witness"?  If so I would have thought the rules of the court would make it difficult to ask him questions outside his remit as an expert witness.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 108]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 22nd October 2005 08:56 AM

In fact the original rock heap shows that something very complex that depends on every component being in the right place for it to exist can occur just by chance. To go a step further using the reasoning he says is behind the idea of "ID" we end up with the conclusion that a rock heap must have been designed to be a rock heap.
Ah, but when you remove a rock at the bottom of the pile, you still end up with a pile of rocks. The definition of irreducibly complex has squirmed around over the years to deal with this. They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.

Duh. Who disagrees with that?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 109]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 22nd October 2005 09:02 AM

They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.

Can you find some references? It would be nice to document how they change their claims...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 110]
Author : RandFan
Date : 22nd October 2005 09:11 AM

Boy, smack me upside the head. I read the news every day, talk with typically well informed adults and am involved in the Politics and Current events forum and I have NO idea what the hell this is all about. How does this happen? Damn!!!
 
Ok, I've seen headlines with Dover and ID in them and I guess I didn't bother. So it's my fault. So sue me. I thought Dover was across the pond. Guess I thought wrong.
 
What's that? Yeah, I have a point, besides the fact that I'm completely clueless. I've checked out the links and so far I can only find current events. Is there anywhere to go for some background on this particular case?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 111]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 22nd October 2005 10:17 AM

Claus, you can find some of the history of the definition of irreducible complexity here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred

See section 4.2.

Also, in this paper, Dembski seems to have killed the idea of IC:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf

To determine whether a system is irreducibly complex therefore employs two approaches: (1) An empirical analysis of the system that by removing parts (individually and in groups) and then by rearranging and adapting remaining parts determines whether the basic function can be recovered among those remaining parts. (2) A conceptual analysis of the system, and specifically of those parts whose removal renders the basic function unrecoverable, to demonstrate that no system with (substantially) fewer parts exhibits the basic function. Not sure how we're going to demonstrate that no simpler system can perform the basic function. Ka-pow!

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 112]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 22nd October 2005 10:52 AM

Thanks.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 113]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 22nd October 2005 11:00 AM

Not sure how we're going to demonstrate that no simpler system can perform the basic function. Ka-pow!

Actually, Chaitin's "algorithmic information theory" tells us that this is impossible.  The question of "What is the smallest representation of an algorithm which computes a given function?" is undecidable in general.  If we think of a biological function as some kind of algorithm and DNA (or other organic molecules) as the code for this algorithm, we can't decide if there is a simpler (in the information theory sense of the word) system that performs the same function.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 114]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 22nd October 2005 11:21 AM

Ka-blam! Ka-pow! Ah, my foot, my foot! :toiletpap

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 115]
Author : Darat
Date : 22nd October 2005 12:27 PM

Ah, but when you remove a rock at the bottom of the pile, you still end up with a pile of rocks. The definition of irreducibly complex has squirmed around over the years to deal with this. They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.

Duh. Who disagrees with that?

~~ Paul

But consider if the heap of rocks was "supporting" a bank of earth, according to ID because we see the bank being supported by the heap it is reasonable to assume that the heap of rocks was designed to support the bank of earth. Yet when I remove the one rock the heap collapses and the earth bank is no longer supported.  Therefore, according to ID theory the heap of rocks was irreducibly complex. Apparently only one particular combination of the rocks in a heap could act as if they were designed to support the bank of  earth.

Crazy reasoning but hey I didn't invent creationism ID. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 116]
Author : RandFan
Date : 22nd October 2005 12:32 PM

Is there anywhere to go for some background on this particular case? RandFan,
 
Try Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) at Wikipedia.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 117]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 22nd October 2005 01:09 PM

But consider if the heap of rocks was "supporting" a bank of earth, according to ID because we see the bank being supported by the heap it is reasonable to assume that the heap of rocks was designed to support the bank of earth. Yet when I remove the one rock the heap collapses and the earth bank is no longer supported. Therefore, according to ID theory the heap of rocks was irreducibly complex. Apparently only one particular combination of the rocks in a heap could act as if they were designed to support the bank of earth. I think they would say that the combination of the bank and heap of rocks was IC. But your example points out the precise stupidity here. The heap of rocks could evolve, then perform as scaffolding for the evolution of the bank of earth, the combination all the while acting as a better and better dam.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 118]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd October 2005 08:37 PM

Good; I'd hate to think you necessarily thought that.

And now for something completely different:
Despite the addition of intelligent design to the curriculum, Dr. Nilsen denied repeatedly that reading the statement the board approved constituted teaching. However, when asked "Are students learning when they hear that statement?", he responded, "Yes."  Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, that man doesn't seem to have full change for a dollar.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 119]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd October 2005 01:26 AM

Day 12 --- morning (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html)

The Behe cross-examination continues.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 120]
Author : Mojo
Date : 23rd October 2005 02:06 AM

Good heavens, we're back on-topic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 121]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd October 2005 03:19 AM

THE COURT: How much more cross do you have?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: It will be inversely proportional to mentions of the Big Bang, I think.

THE COURT: So you're going to go all day.
:dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 122]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd October 2005 03:22 AM

This is cracking me up. Q. I'm going to see if we can reach an agreement on something here. You agree that this is a case about biology curriculum?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Not about physics, a physics curriculum?

A. It's not about a physics curriculum, but from my understanding, many issues that are being discussed here are particularly relevant to other issues that have come up in other disciplines of science.

Q. This is a case about what's being taught in biology class not physics class?

A. As I said, I agree that it is, but one more time, I think many things in the history of science are relevant to this, and they've happened in other disciplines as well.

Q. You've already testified you're not an expert in physics or astrophysics?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you might not know this about me, but I'm not either.

A. I'm surprised.

Q. So I'm going to propose an agreement. I won't ask you any questions about the Big Bang, and you won't answer any questions about the Big Bang. Can we agree to that, Professor Behe?

MR. MUISE: Objection, Your Honor. He's trying to limit the testimony of the witness by some sort of agreement. He's obviously testified and explained why the relationship of the Big Bang is so important. He just answered his questions to try to proffer some prior agreement to the witness that he can't reference factors of prior testimony in cross examination. That just seems inappropriate, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's your answer?

THE WITNESS: No. , I think references to the Big Bang are extremely appropriate to making clear why I think these -- making clear my views on these issues.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q. Fair to say, Professor --

THE COURT: There you go, Mr. Muise.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q. Fair to say, Professor Behe, that over the last two days of testimony, you've told us everything you know about the Big Bang that's relevant to the issue of intelligent design and biology?

A. Well, I'm not sure. I would have to reserve judgment.

Q. You might have some more?

A. Perhaps.

Q. Let the record state, I tried.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 123]
Author : chran
Date : 23rd October 2005 04:00 AM

Q. [...]Your argument is that,
even if the type III secretory system is a pre-cursor to
the bacterial flagellum, is a subset, the bacterial
flagellum is still irreducibly complex because that
subset does not function as a flagellum?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And, therefore, the bacterial flagellum must have
been intelligently designed?
A. Well, again, the argument is that, there is --
that when you see a purposeful arrangement of parts,
that bespeaks design, so, yes.
Q. And yesterday, you testified that, that doesn't
mean the bacterial flagellum was necessarily designed,
appeared abruptly in one fell swoop, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Could have been designed slowly?
A. That's correct.
Q. So under this scenario, at some period of time,
the bacterial flagellum wouldn't have had all of its
parts until the design was completed?
A. Could you say that one more time?
Q. Yeah. Under this scenario of slow design --
which was what I experienced with my kitchen -- at some
period of time, the bacterial flagellum wouldn't have
had all its parts until the design was completed?
A. That's right.
Q. And so without all its parts, it wouldn't be
functional?
A. That's right. Not as a flagellum, yes.
Q. So that is a phenomenon in both intelligent
design and natural selection?
A. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Q. In slow design, the bacterial flagellum has some
prior existence, it doesn't have all its parts, right?
A. Well, if -- until it has all its parts and it
starts functioning, I guess it's problematic to call it
a flagellum.
Q. It has some subset?
A. I guess things that will eventually be part of
the flagellum would begin to appear, yes.
Q. Just not function like a flagellum?
A. Yes, the system would not yet function as a
flagellum.
Q. Just like has been suggested for natural
selection?
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Just like has been suggested for natural
selection?
A. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Bwahahhaha! Talk about being backed up into a corner :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 124]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 23rd October 2005 04:53 AM

Oh Chran, that's just too precious! Where did this slow intelligent design come in? They can't allow that. That completely blows the argument.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 125]
Author : chran
Date : 23rd October 2005 05:06 AM

Where did this slow intelligent design come in? They can't allow that. That completely blows the argument. I totally agree. I don't think Behe thought this all the way through.

But seriously. I'm getting a man-crush on Mr. Rothschild.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 126]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd October 2005 05:19 AM

To be fair, if the flagellum is not essential to life, then it can be built bit by bit over many generations. Or not, as you please. This is one of those little areas of biology which ID "doesn't speak to". Darwinism, on the other hand, further requires that each step should be useful or neutral.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 127]
Author : burrahobbit
Date : 23rd October 2005 06:05 AM

Who IS this Mr Rothschild!! 

I suspect him of having a degree in Biology. 

While ID is not an issue in India (our creation myths being quite flexible) I have always been amazed that people would take such things seriously. 

By the way, I am happy to see astrology being declared  a science! My Grandfather would have been happier. He cast his own Horoscope, predicted he was going to die at 40 and planned his succession. He died at 70+ and continued to cast horoscopes till the end. (did not plan any actions based on them though_)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 128]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd October 2005 06:17 AM

Who IS this Mr Rothschild!! 

I suspect him of having a degree in Biology.  He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.

If the council for the opposing side hadn't volunteered, I'd feel quite sorry for them right now.  The inherent wackiness of the stuff they're forced to defend must make their job extremely difficult - PARTICULARLY since they're forced to claim it's actually true.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 129]
Author : Ed
Date : 23rd October 2005 06:36 AM

I totally agree. I don't think Behe thought this all the way through.

But seriously. I'm getting a man-crush on Mr. Rothschild.


Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there.  She has that come hither "make me stupid" look.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 130]
Author : Ed
Date : 23rd October 2005 06:42 AM

He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.



Which is the nubbin of the problem, isn't it?  We have so far failed in our education of our citizens as to what science is that IDers are not laughed out of the room the moment that they open their mouth.  The sad thing is that he appears to be one of the rare exceptions.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 131]
Author : chran
Date : 23rd October 2005 06:54 AM

Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there.  She has that come hither "make me stupid" look. Yes, as soon as I saw it I thought "avatar!"

Doesn't hurt that the tract it comes from, is particular stupid in its rhetoric.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 132]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 23rd October 2005 07:21 AM

For most interested citizens, this isn't science, it's religion. The fact that the ID muckety-mucks refuse to acknowledge that is of no importance to the average believer.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 133]
Author : Ed
Date : 23rd October 2005 07:42 AM

"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 134]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 23rd October 2005 09:20 AM

I totally agree. I don't think Behe thought this all the way through.

Well spotted.

"Slow design". I like that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 135]
Author : Ed
Date : 23rd October 2005 09:36 AM

Well spotted.

"Slow design". I like that.

Hmmmm....."slow design" and Not Young Earth...sounds to me like where we are now.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 136]
Author : Darat
Date : 23rd October 2005 12:08 PM

Posts split from this thread can be found here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46380).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 137]
Author : Darat
Date : 23rd October 2005 12:16 PM

"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?

And yet much was made of the fact in his expert testimony that he had presented his ideas at many prestigious science conferences attended by lots of "mainstream" scientist...

(Edited to add.)

Just read the conference and I now understand the different types of "conferences" they are referring to - good example of why I should go to the source before forming an opinion. :blush:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 138]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 23rd October 2005 12:19 PM

"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?

Could be interesting to know what he thinks would be a good forum.

A pulpit?

Here? :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 139]
Author : Darat
Date : 23rd October 2005 12:51 PM

I wonder has anyone else noticed the " uh-huh"s that seem to appear at shall we say the more troublesome points in Behe's testimony?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 140]
Author : Mojo
Date : 23rd October 2005 01:00 PM

Awkward questions also tend to be met with a request to repeat the question.  It's always handy to have a little extra thinking time. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 141]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 23rd October 2005 01:00 PM

That's...the way...uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 142]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 23rd October 2005 01:02 PM

Awkward questions also tend to be met with a request to repeat the question.  It's always handy to have a little extra thinking time. ;)

Hasn't he prepared his answers at all? Hasn't he anticipated the questions? 

He just waltzed in there, thinking he could persuade the court just like that?

That's arrogance we could only suspect from a bible-thumper.

..........waaaaaaaait........

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 143]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd October 2005 02:55 PM

Could be interesting to know what he thinks would be a good forum.

Obviously the court room, in front of the T.V. camera, in unreviewed books...

Sounds like science to me!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 144]
Author : Mojo
Date : 23rd October 2005 03:02 PM

Hasn't he prepared his answers at all? Hasn't he anticipated the questions? 

He just waltzed in there, thinking he could persuade the court just like that?I guess he's not used to this sort of thing.  You know, actually answering difficult questions.  Why do you think he's never offered any of this stuff for peer review?  Beyond, apparently, short phone conversations between his editor and his editor's wife's tutors: From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am233) 

Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?

A. Yes, I think that's correct.

Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?

A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.

... [snip] ...

[Professor Atchison wrote:] "She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.

I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later."

And then in the next session titled A Blessing Years Later, Dr. Atchison writes, "After some time, Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press, 1996, was published. It became an instant best seller and was widely acclaimed in the news media.

It is currently in its 15th printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I received the call about from the publisher. Could it be?

In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought." And, of course, the eminent biochemist who reviwed the portions of Of Pandas and People that had been written by Dr. Behe: from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189)

Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

A That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

Q So you were reviewing your own work?

A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

Q Which was your own contribution?

A That's -- yes, that's correct. 

:dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 145]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd October 2005 07:31 PM

Assuming, of course, that evolution will actually win out in this trial, I wonder how the opposing side will complain justice was violated?  Will it acknowledge the very embarassing blows it was dealt, or just ignore the entire episode?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 146]
Author : Ed
Date : 23rd October 2005 07:54 PM

Assuming, of course, that evolution will actually win out in this trial, I wonder how the opposing side will complain justice was violated?  Will it acknowledge the very embarassing blows it was dealt, or just ignore the entire episode?

<sigh>

"Legislating from the bench."

</sigh>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 147]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 24th October 2005 12:10 AM

I don't know how much more I can take.

This is killing me. 

:dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 148]
Author : Darat
Date : 24th October 2005 12:38 AM

<sigh>

"Legislating from the bench."

</sigh>

But they brought the action... oh I see what you mean. :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 149]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 12:38 AM

Actually, the article by Dr. Atchison that was read in court appears to contradict Dr. Behe's testimony at one point:

Behe (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am241): Q. And you found out his name later, correct?

A. That's right, yes.

Q. From your editor?

A. No. I think actually Professor Atchison himself contacted me later after the book came out. 

Atchison (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am274): In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought. If Behe already knew that Atchison's comments were "the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book," he must have been told about Atchison before they met.  Probably just a failure of recollection on somebody's part, but at least one of these doctors is wrong about this point.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 150]
Author : Darat
Date : 24th October 2005 12:51 AM

The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud.  Something I don't expect when I'm reading a court transcript, I've also become a junkie for this stuff - has TV beaten hands-down for entertainment value.

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 151]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 24th October 2005 02:42 AM

The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud.  Something I don't expect when I'm reading a court transcript, I've also become a junkie for this stuff - has TV beaten hands-down for entertainment value.

Any kind of entertainment.

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?

So far, a proponent of ID being scientific (http://www.skepticforum.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=472) has evaded a crucial question (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20229&highlight=#20229) for quite some time now.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 152]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 03:15 AM

The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud. I think you must have the parties the wrong way round.  The defendants in this case are the IDers.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 153]
Author : Darat
Date : 24th October 2005 03:20 AM

I think you must have the parties the wrong way round.  The defendants in this case are the IDers. Whoops a most minor and trivial mistake, hardly worth correcting.... :blush:

Obviously what I was referring to was that the prosecutors are defending the truth and therefore are defenders ->>insert smilie for digging hole<<<

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 154]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 06:24 AM

It looks as if some of these guys have got them bang to rights: Students evaluate evolution case (http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/10/22/news/news05.txt): Balzotti and other students disagreed with the way Dover presented the concept — reading a brief statement about it and not allowing discussion afterward.

“It’s kind of like they know that they shouldn’t be doing it, but they’re trying to get away with it,” Sarah Lemanski said.Maybe there is hope after all! :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 155]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 06:25 AM

->>insert smilie for digging hole<<<Can we have one of these please?  I can think of many times when it would have been entirely appropriate!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 156]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 06:29 AM

And here's Mike Argento (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90750/) again.

Some amusing stuff about the FSM, but also a very succinct assessment of the weakness of Behe's argument: It became clear this week, during Behe&#8217;s testimony. His scientific ideas were, well, hard to follow. But the gist of it was, there are things scientists haven&#8217;t figured out so the cause must be they were designed by some intelligent designer.

He claims, like other intelligent design leaders, that Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution, the idea that natural selection and mutation are responsible for the development of life as we know it on the planet, contains &#8220;gaps and problems.&#8221;

Scientists are the first to admit this. They&#8217;re the first to admit that there are a lot of things they don&#8217;t know. If they knew everything, as one said, they&#8217;d be able to retire.

Yet, Behe spends a lot of time pointing that out and very little pointing out any scientifically confirmed evidence of intelligent design.

Turning the tables, intelligent design isn&#8217;t just plagued by gaps and problems. It&#8217;s all gaps and problems. Behe claims natural selection can&#8217;t account for the development of complex biological structures. Yet it has, again and again. And when asked about that, he says, well, natural selection worked for some things, but not others.

One of his favorite biological systems is the immune system. He says scientists haven&#8217;t developed a case that the immune system arose through evolution. Under cross examination this week, he was shown 58 peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals describing aspects of the evolution of the immune system. He was shown eight books. He was shown immunology texts that include chapters describing the evolution of the immune system.

His response?

They&#8217;re not good enough.

So how many peer-reviewed papers has he produced on the topic?

None.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 157]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 24th October 2005 09:33 AM

His response?

They’re not good enough.

Yeah. That's the gist of his argument. He simply can't imagine that science has a pretty darn good answer, but since he doesn't understand it, others are simply....well, wrong!

Repeat that a few times: 

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong. 

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong. 

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong.

Who's the ignorant here?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 158]
Author : Darat
Date : 24th October 2005 09:40 AM

Can we have one of these please?  I can think of many times when it would have been entirely appropriate!

I think given the thread is discussing one of the major proponents of ID this is an appropriate thread to introduce the new smilie :dig:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 159]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 24th October 2005 10:07 AM

Now that's a friggin' smiley!

:dig::dig: :dig: :dig:

~~ Paul

:dig:

Any chance you could give it the synonym :behe: ?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 160]
Author : drkitten
Date : 24th October 2005 01:45 PM

He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.

Or someone who reads the expert reports very carefully, and discusses in detail with the experts on his own side exactly what the mistakes are and how best to bring them out.

I suspect both.  

But I also remember a quote from a relative's case (he was retained as an expert in one of these "dueling expert" cases), where his attorney asked for a recess for consultation with his own expert right after direct examination was finished, quote, "on the grounds that any lawyer who asks a question to which he does not already know the answer is incompetent," close quote.

The recess, of course, was granted.  The judge was apparently no fool either.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 161]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 24th October 2005 02:11 PM

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial? Here's the Discovery Institute's site (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:
While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design.
And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture (http://www.evolutionnews.org/). A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:
The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 162]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 24th October 2005 02:28 PM

Here's the Discovery Institute's site (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:
 
And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture (http://www.evolutionnews.org/). A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:I found another. A blog called ID the Future (http://www.idthefuture.com/) :rolleyes: with contributions by several big hitters. They also have a list of contributor websites on the right side of the page.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 163]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 24th October 2005 02:33 PM

I've noticed it's been difficult to retrieve some of the pages above, particularly those hosted by Discovery Institute. Makes me think they get a lot of traffic. :( 
 
I haven't found a good "other side" site with high traffic forums we can troll. Anyone else know of any?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 164]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 05:12 PM

OK.  The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned).  But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case.  Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?  

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea.  Have they done this?  

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 165]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 24th October 2005 05:26 PM

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense? 
 
I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this? 
 
Am I right in what I've said in this post?
 
I think we need a proper American lawyer here.
 
Brown, where are you?I'm not a lawyer, so I'm completely speculating, but I'd think in order to demonstrate ID as religion, they'd first have to establish that it's not science. Otherwise, you get:
"ID is religion."
"Nah-ah, it's science."
 
It seems that as they've been aggressively thrashing ID as science (and Behe as an expert witness) they've also been laying groundwork for a solid legal argument for ID as religion by showing ID's historical connection to other forms of creationism. If I understand correctly, teaching other forms of creationism has been deemed unconstitutional on the basis of their demonstrable Christian Fundamentalist roots combined with their demonstrably unscientific nature.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 166]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 06:07 PM

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being).  But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 167]
Author : Ed
Date : 24th October 2005 06:22 PM

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being).  But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

I think that they have shown that ID=Creationism (thru really slimey subterfuge) and it has been found that Creationism=Religion.  They have also shown that everyone and everybody in the least bit associated with ID has a religious political bias.  I think that they demonstrated the link and it between the concept (very important) and religion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 168]
Author : Mojo
Date : 24th October 2005 06:26 PM

I'd love to think that.  But I'm waiting for the verdict (and the appeals...).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 169]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 25th October 2005 12:53 AM

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 170]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 25th October 2005 03:42 AM

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.This seems to be the strategy. The held opinion (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html#Held) in Edwards v. Aguillard states:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." ....
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. ....The Behe bashing covers 1(a).
I have a feeling we'll see the focus of the case and the plaintiff's conclusionary statement crescendo on 1(b).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 171]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 06:32 AM

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense? 

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea.  Have they done this?  

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you? 

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

But, knowing this case will be appealed no matter which side wins, the plaintiffs are going beyond that to show that the Dover Board of Ed's actions violate the Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test) all on its own without relying Edwards v. Aguillard so they don't have to rely on a similarity to creationism in the appellate court. If the plaintiffs win on just the similarity to creationism, they could lose the appeal if the defendants can successfully argue that ID is not creationism.

The reason for showing that it is not science is two-fold: first, if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion (it has already been established that ID is a philosophical/theological argument as well as a "scientific" one, so there is no false dilemma); second, if there is no science, there is no loss by not teaching it in a science class. The ID'ers have been trying to hint at their persecution in the scientific community simply for suggesting that evolution might be wrong, when, in fact, their rejection is due to their lack of science.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 172]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 06:49 AM

New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf) the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 173]
Author : drkitten
Date : 25th October 2005 07:00 AM

New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf) the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.


Minor correction.  The DI introduced two briefs, one in its own name, and one in the name of the eight or so "scientists" whom the DI could scrape up to sign a statement supporting ID.  Only the first brief was struck -- stricken -- strucken -- striked -- thrown out.

Still, it's not a good sign for the defendants....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 174]
Author : drkitten
Date : 25th October 2005 07:13 AM

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Which, of course, is why the ID proponents are trying very hard to discredit Dr. Forrest; she's basically the only expert that can "connect the dots"  in her testimony.  She's the only expert to which the defense was unwilling to stipulate her qualifications.  They worked very hard during the voir dire to undercut her credibiliity by connecting her with political groups such as the Council for Secular Humanism (to the point where the judge had to slam the attorney rather hard).  They raised a completely inappropriate hearsay objection to her entire expert report and testimony (again, drawing a red card from the judge), and are now bending if not breaking the rules regarding amici briefs in order to get their rebuttal to Forrest into the record without risking having their own theologians undergo a searching cross-examination as Behe did.

And the reason can be summed up in a single question and answer:


Q.  Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion, that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical and theological claim?

A.  It is my view that at its core intelligent design is a religious belief.


She currently stands in the possibly unenviable position of being the only qualified "expert" on "methdological naturalism and the history and nature of the intelligent design movement."  As such, the statement that "intelligent design is a religious belief" stands essentially unopposed and unrefuted in expert testimony.

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand.  So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 175]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 08:02 AM

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record.... 
This is one of the things that makes reading the transcripts so enjoyable. Real scientists are used to having their ideas challenged and are very experienced in defending them (that pesky peer review process). Watching them very calmly and cooly endure the cross without being flustered and then watching Behe almost come apart at the seams makes it readily apparent he's never really had to defend his ideas in a scientific setting. The judge, at the very least, has to have the impression that Behe hasn't really thought this through. It also sheds some light on why Meyer and Dembski may not have wanted to go through cross examination.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 176]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 08:19 AM

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 177]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 25th October 2005 08:20 AM

GOD, I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 178]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 25th October 2005 08:23 AM

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

Let's just hope the judge can see that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 179]
Author : drkitten
Date : 25th October 2005 08:25 AM

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

He has, at least as recently as 2004.   (His CV is on-line if you want to look at what he's done.)

On the other hand, despite what you might thing, peer review is usually a fairly friendly process if you're doing straightforward, non-controversial work.   There's not much you will get criticized for in a paper entitled "Poly[dA]@poly[dT] forms very stable mucleosomes at higher temperatures," as long as your lab technique is acceptable.

I think what this really shows is that he's never tried to discuss his work at the "scientific meetings" he's been studiously avoiding.   Because you know that if he opened his mouth and this kind of bilge came out of it, some top-flight microbiologist would pwn him like the n00b he is during the question period.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 180]
Author : drkitten
Date : 25th October 2005 08:32 AM

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.


But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law.  It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, I think I disagree with your statement:


Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

What you describe is essentially the definition of religion (as proposed by the Georgetown theologian whose name escapes me).  If I can show that a substantial number of people have, in fact, taken "ID" on faith and made it the centerpiece of one's religious convictions" -- as Dr. Forrest testified, for example, in demonstrating how some of the ID proponents use John 1:1 as the starting poing for their "investigations" of evolution and the origins of life -- if I can show that, then I've basically demonstrated that it's a religion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 181]
Author : hammegk
Date : 25th October 2005 08:35 AM

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion 
Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 182]
Author : hammegk
Date : 25th October 2005 09:15 AM

Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words. 

Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me.  Have you considered writing Haiku?
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 183]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 09:34 AM

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Nope.  It's American Constitution vs. religion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 184]
Author : Ed
Date : 25th October 2005 10:14 AM

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 185]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 25th October 2005 10:21 AM

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 186]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 10:23 AM

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law.  It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights. 
Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 187]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 25th October 2005 10:26 AM

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things:
 
1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific.
 
or
 
2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific.  (such that astrology makes the cut :D )

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 188]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 25th October 2005 10:28 AM

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor.link?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 189]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 10:37 AM

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religionIndeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin: 

Way, way, way out of context, but whatever...

 I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you. 
There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 190]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 25th October 2005 10:49 AM

Chipmunk, I was about to tell you it was in a magazine, but it is online!

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/designers.html

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 191]
Author : m0nngis
Date : 25th October 2005 11:05 AM

GOD, I love this stuff. Heh, me too!

I think productivity at work has halved since I started to read the transcripts. :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 192]
Author : drkitten
Date : 25th October 2005 11:55 AM

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

I'm not unreasonable.  If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me.  I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 193]
Author : Ed
Date : 25th October 2005 01:12 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 194]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 25th October 2005 01:24 PM

No.  "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity.  "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 195]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 01:26 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural. 
I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 196]
Author : hammegk
Date : 25th October 2005 01:26 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.



Well, well! Look who arrived late to the party, looking smashing as always.

Originally Posted by hammegk (I'm paraphrasing, of course) :
I'm no creationist, but I sure do like their arguments!  
You are as wrong as you are irrelevant. :) 



Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.
Other see it differently. BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?



By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?
Unknown. I've never suggested it is or was.


For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?
That depends on one's understanding, or lack thereof. :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 197]
Author : Ed
Date : 25th October 2005 01:34 PM

No.  "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity.  "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.


I thought that is what I wrote.  Perhaps taking out the "known" which is implied:

"If there is currently no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

I could say

"If there is no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

Which implies that we do not, nor is it possible, to have a rational explination.  It seems that what they are arguing is that where we are now, from a scientific standpoint, is the pinnicle of understanding and that answers to things that Behe cited will never be forthcoming so we might as well not look.

so I go with... actually, I am not sure now.  What is the guiding principle of ID?  Once something is deemed to be "created" do they consider it blasphamy to investigate further?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 198]
Author : tsg
Date : 25th October 2005 01:38 PM

If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course. 
No.  That it is, as of yet, unexplained does not make it unexplainable.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 199]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 02:08 PM

BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight? We have creationist loons over here as well.  Consider me as a sort of amicus curiae, if you will.

Anyway, do you claim to be a US citizen?  If so, can you prove it to the sort of standard that you expect of others? ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 200]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 02:44 PM

Yes, although I choose not to do so, here.
Do you mean you choose not to claim to be a US citizen, or you choose not to prove it?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 201]
Author : Ed
Date : 25th October 2005 03:43 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.

Response:

If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.



I do not see whether or not I am a materialist has any bearing on the definition.  I am looking for the underlying principle of ID.  Is that it?  If not, correct it.



n.b. This thread probably has more reads than any other I have ever posted.  Sad really, since I stole the link from Mojo and got Darat to stickey it.  Ah well....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 202]
Author : Mojo
Date : 25th October 2005 03:55 PM

n.b. This thread probably has more reads than any other I have ever posted.  Sad really, since I stole the link from Mojo and got Darat to stickey it.  Ah well....And it was going so well until recently. ;) 

Perhaps there will be some more developments in the trial to discuss soon, and we'll be able to forget the recent irrelevancies.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 203]
Author : Ed
Date : 25th October 2005 03:59 PM

And it was going so well until recently. ;) 

Perhaps there will be some more developments in the trial to discuss soon, and we'll be able to forget the recent irrelevancies.


Yes it was and my question is a real one.  Cutting thru the crap, what are these guys saying?  Mojo, you have been close to this, what do you think?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 204]
Author : RandFan
Date : 25th October 2005 11:17 PM

Ok,
 
I've read through most of the transcripts a couple of times now. I'm curious about this exchange:
 

 
Q. 
Now you, in fact, have stated that intelligent 
design can never be ruled out, correct?
A. 
Yes, that's right.
 
Q. 
Now let's turn to your test here of whether 
bacterial flagellum could evolve through random 
mutation and natural selection. 10,000 generations, that's 
your proposal, correct?
A. 
Right.
 
Q. 
And it sounds like a lot, but you actually
testified that, that would just take a couple of years,
right?
A. 
Right.
 
Q. 
And, you know, based on your understanding of
normal laboratory procedures, even the best
laboratories, how much bacteria would be made a part of
that test?
A.
Oh, probably at the best, 10 to the 10th, 10 to
the 12th, at the outside.
 

 
Q. 
Now you haven't tested intelligent design
yourself this way, have you?
A. 
No, I have not.
Q. 
And nobody in the intelligent design movement
has?
A. 
That's correct.

Q. 
And nobody else has?
A. 
I'm sorry?

Q. 
And nobody else has, outside the intelligent
design movement?
A. 
Well, I'm not sure -- I don't think I would agree
with that. I think the experiments described by Barry
Hall were actually in an attempt to do exactly that. He
wanted to see if he could, in his laboratory, re-evolve
a lac operon. His first step in that process in the mid
1970's were the experiments that I discussed here
yesterday, knocking out the beta galactosidase gene.
His intention was, from things he has written
later, was to see how that would evolve and then knock
out two steps at a time, and eventually see how he could
get really the whole functioning system. But he had
such trouble with just getting that one step to go, and
since he could not knock out anything else, and get it
to re-evolve, he gave up.
And so I would count his efforts as a test of
that, and say that the test, you know, that it was, it
did not falsify intelligent design thinking.

Q. 
And I had actually made a blood pact with my
co-counsel not to ask you about the lac operon, but now
I had to violate it.
A. 
Too late.

Q. 
How many years has he done this experiment?
A. 
I think he was working on it for 20 years or so.

Q. 
In any event, that's the lac operon. But for
bacterial flagellum, you're not aware of that test being
done?
A. No.

Q. 
Certainly not by anybody in the intelligent
design movement?
A. 
No.

Q. 
Okay. So you can't claim that the proposition
that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed
is a well-tested proposition?
A. 
Yes, you can, I'm afraid. It's well-tested from
the inductive argument. We can, from our inductive
understanding of whenever we see something that has a
large number of parts, which interacts to fulfill some
function, when we see a purposeful arrangement of parts,
we have always found that to be design.
And so, an inductive argument relies on the
validity of the previous instances of what you're
inducing. So I would say that, that is tested.

Q. 
Professor Behe, you say right here, here is the
test, here is the test that science should do, grow the
bacterial flagellum in the laboratory. And that hasn't
been done, correct?
A. 
That has not been done. I was advising people
who are skeptical of the induction that, if they want to
essentially come up with persuasive evidence that, in
fact, an alternative process to an intelligent one could
produce the flagellum, then that's what they should do.

Q. So all those other scientists should do that, but
you're not going to?
A. 
Well, I think I'm persuaded by the evidence that
I cite in my book, that this is a good explanation and
that spending a lot of effort in trying to show how
random mutation and natural selection could produce
complex systems, like Barry Hall tried to do, is likely
to result -- is not real likely to be fruitful, as his
results were not fruitful. So, no, I don't do that in
order to spend my time on other things.

Q. 
Waste of time for Barry Hall?
A. 
I'm sorry?

Q. 
Waste of time for Barrie Hall?
A. 
No, certainly not a waste of time. It was very
interesting. He thought that he would learn things.
And he did learn things. But they weren't the things
that he started out to learn. He thought that he would
be able to see the evolution of a complex system. And
he learned how difficult that was.

Q. 
In any event, you have not undertaken the kind of
test you describe here for any of the irreducibly
complex systems you have identified?
A. 
I have not.

Q. 
And neither has anybody else in the intelligent
design movement? 
 


 
FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent. 
 
1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative? 
 
2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.
 
3.) How many generations would likely produce such a mutation.
 
Note to self: Don't simply cut and paste from the transcripts {whew}

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 205]
Author : aerosolben
Date : 25th October 2005 11:45 PM

Ok,
 
I've read through most of the transcripts a couple of times now. I'm curious about this exchange:
 

 
FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent. 
 
1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative? 
 
2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.

  It appears to me (I've only seen parts of the transcripts, though) that Rothschild is attempting to demonstrate the unscientific nature of ID; namely, that they have no interest in pursuing scientific test on the validity of the theory, but instead are attempting to "logically" assert its truth.

However, he's walking a fine line. On the one hand, Behe is half-admitting that he has no real scientific evidence for ID, just "inductive reasoning". On the other hand, the whole test itself is flawed, because it is assuming ID is true unless disproving evidence is discovered. A real test should be searching for positive evidence, not negative.

So, maybe good legally, even if not in the scientific community.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 206]
Author : hammegk
Date : 26th October 2005 05:36 AM

Reposting some comments that were split, but that belong in this thread:

Ed:
I do not see whether or not I am a materialist has any bearing on the definition. I am looking for the underlying principle of ID.  

hammegk: "You are correct that what you are has no bearing on the definition. It does have a bearing on the implications of the definition. 

The word "supernatural" has no meaning except to a dualist, or a materialist."


Edited in line with the split.

...snip...

tsg:
... as of yet, unexplained does not make it unexplainable. 

Er, yes, we agree. Do you suggest I said otherwise?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 207]
Author : Ed
Date : 26th October 2005 06:01 AM

God explains nothing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 208]
Author : drkitten
Date : 26th October 2005 07:38 AM

FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent. 
 
1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative? 

To establish evidence in favor of their position,  of course.  There's nothing wrong with running an experiment in which the expected result is a failure-to-find, as long as the experiment itself is well-designed and well-run.  This happens all the time in medicine, for example, especially in the various studies of "quack" practices.

More generally, a showing that a bacterial flagellum did not evolve in X generations in a pool of Y bacteria also gives microbiologists some hard numbers about the upper bound of the probability of evolution.  Again, this is useful and scientifically valid, especially considering the number of times argument-from-probability is thrown around in the ID community.
 

2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.

But this is part of the problem.  He's saying "look, here's my theory, a theory that is almost entirely unsupported by experimental data, and here's a proposed experiment to test my theory, and I think it's a waste of time to run my experiment."  

I'm sorry, Dr. Behe, but it's your (rule 8) theory, a theory that flies in the face of accepted science, and it's not worth your time to support your theory?  

Of course, as Rothschild pointed out elsewhere in his cross-examination, the difference between 10,000 generations of 10^12 bacteria and the postulated trillions of generations of 10^40 or so bacteria that nature is presumed to have at her disposal suggests that the power of Behe's proposed test is, in fact, close to zero -- the expected failure-to-find wouldn't mean much.  So in that case, it would be a  waste of time to run this particular experiment because it's not as well-designed as Behe would believe.
 

3.) How many generations would likely produce such a mutation.
 

We (scientists generally) don't know.  It's never been important enough to determine experimentall, and large enough that a Behe-style experiment would be very difficult and expensive to run properly..

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 209]
Author : CurtC
Date : 26th October 2005 08:57 AM

Even if someone did run a giant experiment to produce a flagellum, that would be considered as proof, by the ID proponents, that it took intelligence to create it. In this case, it would be the scientist.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 210]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 09:02 AM

CurtC is correct. A primary objection to Schneider's Ev program, which evolves binding sites on a chromosome, is that the model is embodied in a computer program that a human being wrote.

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/evj/

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 211]
Author : Darat
Date : 26th October 2005 09:33 AM

Even if someone did run a giant experiment to produce a flagellum, that would be considered as proof, by the ID proponents, that it took intelligence to create it. In this case, it would be the scientist.

This is another of the reasons ID against ID being considered science.  All science can be claimed to be "designed" therefore ID states that science can never falsify ID.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 212]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 26th October 2005 09:47 AM

More commentary by Mike Argento (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91282/) from yesterday, about witness Steve William Fuller.
 
I love this quote:
Anyway, Fuller said intelligent design "needed to be mainstreamed," which I guess is a polite way of saying that in its current embryological state, it rides the short bus of science.
 
:dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 213]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 26th October 2005 09:58 AM

CurtC is correct. A primary objection to Schneider's Ev program, which evolves binding sites on a chromosome, is that the model is embodied in a computer program that a human being wrote.  Which is an utterly ridiculous claim.  Either the scientist cheated, and fudged the program so that the "right" mutation would show up at the proper time and be propagated - or evolution is inherent to populations in which the traits of members are statistically associated with their remaining in the population, which is one way to state the basics of evolutionary theory.

If there was cheating involved, it should be relatively easy to check.  Examine the code, and if no fudging is found, run it several times.  Allowing for the uncertainties of stochastic results, the results of the earlier experiments should be repeatable.  If they're repeatable, and no cheats are found... well, it's a demonstration of evolution though natural selection.

(I thought there were already dozens of examples of A-life spontaneously evolving.  Am I mistaken in that belief?)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 214]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 10:14 AM

Actually, Dembski looked at the code for Ev and claimed he had found the trapdoor that let information in. Schneider modified the program to allow three options for the particular feature that Dembski objected to:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html)

There are plenty of examples of A-life evolving. I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 215]
Author : tsg
Date : 26th October 2005 11:18 AM

It appears to me (I've only seen parts of the transcripts, though) that Rothschild is attempting to demonstrate the unscientific nature of ID; namely, that they have no interest in pursuing scientific test on the validity of the theory, but instead are attempting to "logically" assert its truth.

However, he's walking a fine line. On the one hand, Behe is half-admitting that he has no real scientific evidence for ID, just "inductive reasoning". On the other hand, the whole test itself is flawed, because it is assuming ID is true unless disproving evidence is discovered. A real test should be searching for positive evidence, not negative.

So, maybe good legally, even if not in the scientific community. 

The problem with Behe's test is that it's simply shifting the burden of proof. It's little more than "I say it's true, prove me wrong". The fact is that ID has no experimental evidence to support the notion of irreducible complexity and, despite Behe's claims of it being quantifiable, whether a system is irreducibly complex comes down to a "god of the gaps" argument: "I don't see how it could have evolved, therefore it must be the result of intelligence". Rothschild's venture into this area is simply showing the court that they have not actually done any real research. They just aren't interested.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 216]
Author : drkitten
Date : 26th October 2005 12:56 PM

The problem with Behe's test is that it's simply shifting the burden of proof. 

Well, to be fair, the "burden of proof" is irrelevant here.

From a legal standpoint -- it's a civil trial, so the relevant term is "preponderance of the evidence."  

From a scientific and epistemological standpoint -- nothing can be proven empirically.  But we can show a hell of a lot of evidence for one side or another.  And I think that's what Rothschild is getting at.  There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.")  On the other side, there's little or nothing.

Behe is asking to be disproven.  

But he doesn't have to be disproven.  He just has to be shown to be less credible.  Offhand, I'd say that fifty peer-reviewed articles, eight or so research monographs, a half-dozen well-regarded textbooks to zero is a pretty good definition of "less credible," at least as measured by "thud" factor.  And the experiment he proposes could be run by anyone -- evolutionists have no reason to run it, but the creationists who would want to run it haven't.  More damningly, they don't even see interested in running it (what was Behe's term?  "A waste of time"), because they're not interest in getting evidence.

And this is true both for scientists and legal scholars.  The whole point of this discussion is to weigh all the evidence that anyone can bring to the table, whether creationist/IDer, evolutionist, IPU devotee,  Pastafarian, or Cthulhu worshipper (aka a snack). The problem is that the evolutionists brought an entire catering staff who they have been working with for years, while creationists are rummaging in their pockets for a spare throat sweet.  (And the Pastafarians point out that they have throat sweets, too, so there's nothing special there.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 217]
Author : tsg
Date : 26th October 2005 01:26 PM

Well, to be fair, the "burden of proof" is irrelevant here.

From a legal standpoint -- it's a civil trial, so the relevant term is "preponderance of the evidence."  

From a scientific and epistemological standpoint -- nothing can be proven empirically. But we can show a hell of a lot of evidence for one side or another. And I think that's what Rothschild is getting at. There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.") On the other side, there's little or nothing. 
From a scientific standpoint, Behe is shifting the burden of proof* by requiring others to disprove his claim (and providing no evidence to support it). From a legal standpoint, the fact that he is shifting the burden of proof is evidence that what he's doing is not science. Not that there's anything wrong with your statement, I just wanted to clarify mine.

*"Proof" is used loosely here and only because it is a form of logical fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 218]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 26th October 2005 01:30 PM

1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative?Because that's how science works; based on empirical observation, you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis and subject it to testing. One way to test your hypothesis is to see whether what you predict should not happen does, in fact, not happen. That's not trying to prove a negative, it's trying to prove the absence of a negative. This is important, because a huge chunk of science is eliminating that which is demonstrably false.

Behe cum suis claim that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and cannot be developed by a process of evolution. The obvious way to make sure that this hypothesis is not incorrect is to go into the lab and try to get a strain of bacteria to grow a flagellum. If the strain fails to do so, that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis is correct, but at least it shows that it's not incorrect. What Rothschild managed to do is illustrate the Behe et al. and aren't actually interested in trying to find out whether their hypothesis stands up to falsification; in other words, they are not practicing science. QED.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 219]
Author : SezMe
Date : 26th October 2005 01:31 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive.  Suppose a flagellum did appear.  What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 220]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 26th October 2005 02:20 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive.  Suppose a flagellum did appear.  What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"
Non-falsifiablity must be nice for these people.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 221]
Author : Mojo
Date : 26th October 2005 03:37 PM

There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.") I hesitate to mention this, but this sounds awfully like Hammy's approach to any evidence supporting evolution that's put in front of him.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 222]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 04:51 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive. Suppose a flagellum did appear. What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"
Especially if the IDer thought that God had front-loaded evolution.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 223]
Author : RandFan
Date : 26th October 2005 04:58 PM

Because that's how science works; based on empirical observation, you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis and subject it to testing. One way to test your hypothesis is to see whether what you predict should not happen does, in fact, not happen. That's not trying to prove a negative, it's trying to prove the absence of a negative. This is important, because a huge chunk of science is eliminating that which is demonstrably false. I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen? I'm kind of confused, if science doesn't hold something to be true then how much resources should be expended to prove that that something isn't true? How many experiments should the ID folks conduct? At what point do you conclude that they are interested in science?
 
Behe cum suis claim that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and cannot be developed by a process of evolution. The obvious way to make sure that this hypothesis is not incorrect is to go into the lab and try to get a strain of bacteria to grow a flagellum. If the strain fails to do so, that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis is correct, but at least it shows that it's not incorrect. What Rothschild managed to do is illustrate the Behe et al. and aren't actually interested in trying to find out whether their hypothesis stands up to falsification; in other words, they are not practicing science. QED. I agree that they are not practicing science but I'm not sure this really proves anything. If it is so simple and scientists hold the opposite then does it not stand to reason that scientists would also perform the experiment and prove that the ID crowd wrong? What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 224]
Author : RandFan
Date : 26th October 2005 05:04 PM

But this is part of the problem. He's saying "look, here's my theory, a theory that is almost entirely unsupported by experimental data, and here's a proposed experiment to test my theory, and I think it's a waste of time to run my experiment." But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)
 
I'm sorry, Dr. Behe, but it's your (rule 8) theory, a theory that flies in the face of accepted science, and it's not worth your time to support your theory? But it won't support his theory, that is the problem. No matter how many times he runs it you will say it is not enough. So the experiment is flawed from the start if we accept your premise. Rothschilds argument IMO is wrong.
 
Of course, as Rothschild pointed out elsewhere in his cross-examination, the difference between 10,000 generations of 10^12 bacteria and the postulated trillions of generations of 10^40 or so bacteria that nature is presumed to have at her disposal suggests that the power of Behe's proposed test is, in fact, close to zero -- the expected failure-to-find wouldn't mean much. So in that case, it would be a waste of time to run this particular experiment because it's not as well-designed as Behe would believe. Agreed and this is the point that I think is appropriate.
 
We (scientists generally) don't know. It's never been important enough to determine experimentall, and large enough that a Behe-style experiment would be very difficult and expensive to run properly..Yes, so what is the point of demanding that the ID crowd conduct the experiment an experiment that will not prove anything to anyone?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 225]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 05:05 PM

What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?
An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food?

Evolution is primarily an historical science, at least now. If IDers want to use that as "evidence" against it, fine. Heck, ID is an historical pseudoscience, too.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 226]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 05:09 PM

I just want to remind everyone that Behe, Dembski et al haven't even provided a logical/probabilistic proof that the flagellum is irreducible. There is nothing that has been shown to be irreducible. Why should science run around trying to demonstrate that irreducible complexity can be overcome? They might as well worry about showing that New Jersey mud slime can be overcome.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 227]
Author : hammegk
Date : 26th October 2005 05:52 PM

.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 228]
Author : RandFan
Date : 26th October 2005 06:18 PM

An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food? Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?
 
Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything. 
 
I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 229]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 26th October 2005 06:21 PM

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn. What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 230]
Author : fishbob
Date : 26th October 2005 06:48 PM

Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?
 
Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything. 
 
I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

My take is that Behe's proposed experiment is a smoke screen.  He can hold it up for the general public and proclaim that the non-ID science establishment failed to even attempt to falsify IC, that there is a conspiracy to keep ID down, that he is the victim of the status quo.  

Sells a lot of books  (I think I saw in the trial transcripts that he has sold more than 400,000 copies of his book already).  ID been very very good for Behe.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 231]
Author : hammegk
Date : 26th October 2005 07:08 PM

What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 232]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 26th October 2005 10:13 PM

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 233]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 26th October 2005 10:35 PM

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory".

He ducks out of this by asking why other people don't test his "theory" by doing this experiment.

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory", and that no-one else is going around pretending that it would.

To summarize his argument:

"My theory that pigs have wings would be falsified if someone could spend two years standing on one leg and whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. So if I'm wrong, why don't my opponents prove me wrong by devoting two years to unipedal whistling?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 234]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 26th October 2005 11:06 PM

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

I don't recommend basing your arguments on computing theory or evolutionary computation, Hammy.  It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 235]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 26th October 2005 11:32 PM

Fuller told the court that one of the problems of science is with the very definition of "scientific theory," which is the idea of well substantiated explanations that unify a broad range of observations... "Does a theory have to be well established to be scientific?" he said. "That means the dominant theory would always be."YES.
:dl:
I can't wait to see the transcripts of this one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 236]
Author : Mojo
Date : 27th October 2005 12:47 AM

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so? And here we come to one of the recommendations that are repeatedly made to potential challenge applicants: before you apply (or in this case before you announce your "theory") make sure that you have done proper tests yourself; this may prevent you looking rather silly in the long run.

As another example, no decent lawyer would dream of going into court relying on a particular case without making sure that the case hadn't been overruled.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 237]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 27th October 2005 12:53 AM

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory".

He ducks out of this by asking why other people don't test his "theory" by doing this experiment.

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory", and that no-one else is going around pretending that it would.

To summarize his argument:

"My theory that pigs have wings would be falsified if someone could spend two years standing on one leg and whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. So if I'm wrong, why don't my opponents prove me wrong by devoting two years to unipedal whistling?"

Yep. Typical believer argument. They fear the results of a test that would prove them wrong, so they try to turn the tables on their opponents.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 238]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 27th October 2005 02:11 AM

Yep. Typical believer argument. They fear the results of a test that would prove them wrong... No, the problem is that the test would prove nothing.

Imagine he spent two years wasting his time with bacteria like he suggests. He then publishes a paper of which the precis, if he is honest, will read:Two years is not enough time for bacteria to develop, from nothing, a structure for locomotion specified in advance by me, and anyone who chose could have told me that two years ago. Let's be honest, I knew that myself. My finding therefore confirms standard evolutionary theory (which predicts the negative result actually achieved, since bacteria without flagellae have no similar structures to evole into flagellae) and has no bearing on my "Intelligent Design" nonsense, since Intelligent Design makes no predictions whatsoever about what can or cannot evolve, and indeed has no empirical content whatsoever.  Why did I waste my time like this?And this finding will fail to rock the academic world.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 239]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 27th October 2005 03:07 AM

The goal of The Discovery Institute is to replace science with religion:

Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one. She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is &#8220;to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.&#8221;
Source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/)

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. 

...

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. 
The full document here. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 240]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 27th October 2005 03:09 AM

I don't know if this has been posted:

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word &#8220;creationism&#8221; had been replaced by &#8220;intelligent design&#8221;, and &#8220;creationist&#8221; simply replaced by &#8220;intelligent design proponent&#8221;.

&#8220;Forrest&#8217;s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,&#8221; said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

...

Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the &#8220;switching&#8221; of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court&#8217;s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges. 
Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061)


Drafts of the textbook, &#8220;Of Pandas and People,&#8221; written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District&#8217;s biology curriculum.

...

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term &#8220;creation&#8221; was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term &#8220;design&#8221; was mentioned in the published edition.

&#8220;They are virtually synonymous,&#8221; she said.
Source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 241]
Author : Ed
Date : 27th October 2005 03:56 AM

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

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

The onus here is on the ID'ers.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 242]
Author : hammegk
Date : 27th October 2005 05:09 AM

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

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

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


a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)
If you are convinced you are a self-coding Turing machine, what else?


b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.
Damn shame the ugly word "design" is required for your belief to make any sense.

c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.
Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 243]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 27th October 2005 05:56 AM

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Ev was indeed designed to see if information could evolve. But your glib response is too simplistic. The question is whether the model is reasonably realistic, or whether it contains an inadvertant backdoor to smuggle in the information. Having programmed the Java version, I do not believe there is a backdoor. 

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

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

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

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 244]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 27th October 2005 06:19 AM

Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? ;)

Yes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 245]
Author : drkitten
Date : 27th October 2005 06:44 AM

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

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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 246]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 27th October 2005 08:09 AM

Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.
All of it (meaning life)? And all the time? Also, how do you define the anthropic principle and more importantly, why use it here?

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.
Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 247]
Author : Dragon
Date : 27th October 2005 09:08 AM

Good question.

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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 248]
Author : c4ts
Date : 27th October 2005 02:40 PM

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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 249]
Author : petre
Date : 27th October 2005 04:00 PM

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

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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 250]
Author : petre
Date : 27th October 2005 04:16 PM

And for a seperate point, a seperate post.

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 251]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 27th October 2005 04:27 PM

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 252]
Author : petre
Date : 27th October 2005 04:32 PM

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 253]
Author : ohms
Date : 27th October 2005 05:27 PM

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 254]
Author : H'ethetheth
Date : 28th October 2005 02:46 AM

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

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

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

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life.  I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent.  This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.
I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability.
What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field :eek:. What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are?
Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".
I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station.

Hail Adams, the visionary.

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 255]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 03:10 AM

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet: Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 256]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 28th October 2005 03:28 AM

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
STOP! STOP!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

:dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 257]
Author : Moose
Date : 28th October 2005 05:08 AM

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:

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

   . o O ( They're screwed. )
:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 258]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 28th October 2005 05:26 AM

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 259]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 05:27 AM

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 260]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 06:47 AM

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see. Near enough! Q (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm719) I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you...  :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 261]
Author : Flo
Date : 28th October 2005 06:55 AM

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 262]
Author : headscratcher4
Date : 28th October 2005 07:00 AM

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

Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution 

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate;_ylt=AuqKXaTR2.dYFpcJc7b32mWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras!  Instruments of Satan!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 263]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 07:12 AM

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate;_ylt=AuqKXaTR2.dYFpcJc7b32mWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras!  Instruments of Satan!I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 264]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 28th October 2005 07:19 AM

Slight tangent:

Intelligent design loser in moot court (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051028/NEWS21/510280359)

In a mock courtroom case that revolved around the concept of intelligent design, a fictitious junior high school teacher likely would have lost his bid to teach the controversial theory.
The case, which is similar to actual court cases, including one federal trial being held in Pennsylvania, involved an eighth-grade teacher who taught intelligent design despite a school district policy prohibiting the concept.
However....
But Judge Carr stressed that their decision was not an indication on how they would rule if an actual case involving intelligent design or creationism versus evolution came before any of them.
Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.

For what it's worth.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 265]
Author : drkitten
Date : 28th October 2005 07:27 AM

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


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

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 266]
Author : headscratcher4
Date : 28th October 2005 07:31 AM

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

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 267]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 28th October 2005 07:34 AM

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

Is that cruel of me?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 268]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 08:11 AM

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

Do not make false statements to one another; because you have put away the old man with all his doings... Colossians 3:9
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:14
I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth." 1 John 2:21

And most importantly...
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 269]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 08:38 AM

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

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? I was wondering about this.  I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment.  It is.  Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours."

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 270]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 08:39 AM

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 271]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 08:42 AM

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant? And why didn't the seventeenth century translators notice that they were inerrant and mention it?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 272]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 08:43 AM

From another column (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/) by Mike Argento: It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism."

D'oh! :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 273]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 08:45 AM

So where are the transcripts?

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 274]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 09:19 AM

But it's worse than just "not science."  These are supposedly "Christians..." 
Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?


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

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



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


Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
Agreed, yet appearance via perception is all we have to work with sfaik.


The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for complexity" or any striving at all,
No, it doesn't.


Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random? 

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. :jaw-dropp 




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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 275]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 09:24 AM

Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party.

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 276]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 28th October 2005 09:26 AM

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

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. :jaw-dropp
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 277]
Author : drkitten
Date : 28th October 2005 09:31 AM

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

Why should "random" be unique in this regard?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 278]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 09:37 AM

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?


Why should "random" be unique in this regard? 
Oh! You made a funny! :D :D :D   ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 279]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 28th October 2005 09:44 AM

Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?
Implications... such as?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 280]
Author : Mojo
Date : 28th October 2005 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Pastor Bentonit
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify. Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random? 

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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 281]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 10:11 AM

Mutation and natural selection are not the same process.  

The depth of your understanding defies belief. :rolleyes: 



Implications... such as?
That's where the "thinking" comes in ... yours, not mine. 

Does Cramer's Transactional Interpretation (or even Sum_over_all_paths) seem random recalling that no time elapses during the event?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 282]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 28th October 2005 10:14 AM

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?
This bit of logic is used by many creationists. Indeed, the timing of specific environmental pressures is random with respect to the rest of the universe. But that doesn't matter, does it? What matters is that that environmental pressures last for a long time, long enough to nonrandomly select the more-or-less random mutations that occur in genomes embedded in that environment.

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.
It might to some extent, but what does it matter?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 283]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 10:21 AM

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

For future reference, I recommend:

a) Reading the post you are responding to.
b) Making sure you understand all the words used in that post.
c) Making sure you understand all the words used in the post when you string them together in the same way the author of the post strung them together.
d) Trying to incorporate some thoughts about that post in your response to it.
e) Making sure your response actually makes sense to other native English speakers (as opposed to being a meaningless jumble of incoherent nonsense unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.)

I also note you didn't take issue with my post about Genetic Programming being un-designed despite the fact that humans obviously designed genetic programming.  Could it be that you don't understand the subject at hand?  Or can you not define "design" sufficiently well?  Or both?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 284]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 10:33 AM

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

RNA available for mutation?  Go find a biology textbook.  You need to do some reading.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 285]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 10:43 AM

This thread is meant to be about the ID trial. Hasn't it been split once already to provide a suitable receptacle for hammy's incontinent drivel?

Good point.  Hammy is boring.  The trial is endlessly entertaining.

So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 286]
Author : drkitten
Date : 28th October 2005 10:53 AM

So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?

Because they had to.

Buckingham's statements, as reported in the press, using words like "creationism" and statements about "two thousand years ago, somone died on the cross for us; won't someone take a stand for Him?" (I apologize if that's a misquote; I didn't bother to cross-check.) are direct and clear-cut evidence about the religious motivations of the government officials who made the policy.  By extension, it's clear-cut evidence that the government policy itself is motivated by religious, not secular, purposes, violating the first prong of the Lemon test.

Without some way to refute those newspaper reports, the game is as good as over.   And the only person who can credibly testify about what Buckingham said is Buckingham himself.  (Imagine if the defense tried to refute those statements without Buckingham's testimony.  Wouldn't you find that a little suspicious?)

I suppose another strategy might have been for the entire board to try to distance itself from Buckingham -- "Well, he may have had religious motivations, but I agreed with the proposal for sound pedagogical reasons, which I am inexplicably unable to articulate at this moment due to an acute confusion between whether my foot belongs in my shoe, or my mouth."  However, I really doubt that dog would hunt either; the judge is demonstrably no fool. 

Other than that, I think that all the defense can really hope for is to muddy the waters enough to make a credible case on appeal.  I honestly don't see (from my reading of the transcripts) how the trial judge could make any finding other than for the plaintiffs.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 287]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 11:06 AM

Other than that, I think that all the defense can really hope for is to muddy the waters enough to make a credible case on appeal.  I honestly don't see (from my reading of the transcripts) how the trial judge could make any finding other than for the plaintiffs.

It just seems like nobody did their homework or got their stories straight (in Behe and Buckingham's cases, it seems like they didn't even bother getting their stories traight with themselves!)  It couldn't be any more obvious these people are dishonest.  I really don't see how they could hope to get an appeal at this point.

What were they thinking?  Does it really just simply boil down to their being blinded by faith?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 288]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 11:12 AM

RNA available for mutation?  Go find a biology textbook.  You need to do some reading.
Pedants are so interesting ... I tossed in rna to cover all terran life as it's usually defined by y'all.

For future reference, I recommend:

a) Reading the post you are responding to.
b) Making sure you understand all the words used in that post.
c) Making sure you understand all the words used in the post when you string them together in the same way the author of the post strung them together.
d) Trying to incorporate some thoughts about that post in your response to it.
e) Making sure your response actually makes sense to other native English speakers (as opposed to being a meaningless jumble of incoherent nonsense unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.)
I asked what peer-reviewed studies you based your "all Christians" thought on. Was I too quick for you?

note you didn't take issue with my post about Genetic Programming being un-designed despite the fact that humans obviously designed genetic programming. Could it be that you don't understand the subject at hand? Or can you not define "design" sufficiently well? Or both?
So much to repond to, so few of me. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I do like that "designed un-designed design" concept.;) 

 It might to some extent, but what does it matter?
IIRC there are some studies that imply microbes mutating at faster rate when stressed (er, and at pre-selected specific locales as well), yet the idea seems a bit too Lamarchian for The Theory.



And to all now dancing in the streets in glee, Scopes won the day and held it for The Theory many decades. Assuming ID losses this trial, how long this time until the next assault as Religion(vs. Science) tries again. :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 289]
Author : Ed
Date : 28th October 2005 11:20 AM

The history of science is the history of dead religions"

....Oscar Wilde

...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 290]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 11:31 AM

I asked what peer-reviewed studies you based your "all Christians" thought on. Was I too quick for you?

Yes.  You were too quick to lie and try to stuff words in my mouth.  Like I said, read the original post before you respond.  I never said "all Christians," but you still quote me as saying exactly that.

Buckingham and Behe are most certainly self described Christians and are most certainly liars.  How do they justify this to themselves?  Why is there not an uproar from the Christian community about these people who purport to represent the religion in public?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 291]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 28th October 2005 11:35 AM

IIRC there are some studies that imply microbes mutating at faster rate when stressed (er, and at pre-selected specific locales as well), yet the idea seems a bit too Lamarchian for The Theory.
If mutation and selection can conjure up something diabolical, it will. I won't even be surprised if things slightly Lamarckian are discovered. All you need is some mechanism to modify sex cells in a "controlled" manner. I believe there is already evidence that structures in sex cells other than DNA carry information inherited by offspring.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 292]
Author : Dan Beaird
Date : 28th October 2005 11:41 AM

...So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?
It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing. 
 
I think the defense would have been happier to have him spend the trial buried under a rock on some remote planet. I think everyone ought to get together and sign thank-you cards to the defense counsel and witnesses for shredding every vestige of credibility that ID claimed to have. Maybe we can give them some Darwin fish for their cars too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 293]
Author : H'ethetheth
Date : 28th October 2005 11:44 AM

I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy. Though I tend to agree with this basic message, out-of-the-box thinking should stop where unsupported and unfalsifiable speculation starts, especially where the latter is combined with lots of grossly inappropriate finger pointing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 294]
Author : drkitten
Date : 28th October 2005 12:27 PM

It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing. 
 

According to the rather-garbled transcripts available from the NCSE (http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/), he was called as a defense witness.  

Not that that means much.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 295]
Author : Spidey13
Date : 28th October 2005 12:39 PM

Hey guys.  There's a really funny article at Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2128755/?nav=tap3) by William Saletan comparing Dr. Behe's testimony to a Monty Python sketch. 

Last paragraph:  

So, this is my theory, which belongs to me, and goes as follows. All intelligently designed things are brought about by an intelligent designer through a process of intelligently conducted design. If it's good enough for Monty Python, it's good enough for biology class.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 296]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 28th October 2005 12:43 PM

Miss Anne Elk! :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 297]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 28th October 2005 12:53 PM

Miss Anne Elk! :D
... who is an expert on elk-- dinosaurs!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 298]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 28th October 2005 01:00 PM

Phooey. You are the author who neglected to use any qualifier. Got peer-review to support even "most" or "many" Christians? That is, actually back up your statement.Where did delphi_ote use terms like "most" or "many"? He noted that Behe and Buckingham are self-professed Christians, that Christian scripture contains several prohibitions on telling falsehoods, and noted the apparent discrepancy between Behe and Buckingham's self-professed adherence to Christianity and their failure to avoid activity prohibited by scripture. The evidence to back up that statement is there for all of us to see, in the trial transcripts for starters.

Stop trying to be clever, hammy; you haven't got what it takes to pull that off.

I might add that your instruction to Chipmunk Stew to "either add something, or stfu" is the height of chutzpah coming from someone the majority of whose posts add exactly zero value to the conversation, consisting of messages to the effect that "you're wrong, but I'm not going to argue why; instead, you have to come up with the arguments I can't produce myself."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 299]
Author : bagtaggar
Date : 28th October 2005 01:05 PM

Hammy, can you prove to us that Creationism and Intelligent design qualify as science, and belong in the science curriculum for high school students?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 300]
Author : headscratcher4
Date : 28th October 2005 01:13 PM

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

How does that work when the "out of the box" thinking is designed specificallly to get you back to dogmatic regurgitation of liturgy...for the expressed motives of the ID movment isn't scientific, it is to bannish 
"materialist" science and to return to education founded in religious dogma...and than they can, once again, turn on each other like they've done for thousands of years.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 301]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 28th October 2005 02:01 PM

Egads! I&#180;m away for a couple of hours and it&#180;s troll heaven! Oh how fun these internets are! However, natural selection keeps on being anything but random. Oh, and there are many mutational mechanisms, all of them not strictly random either...and of course, there is no known mechanism of ID, short of those guided by humans, apes, crows etc, i.e. living organisms of the natural world. Now, let&#180;s get ourselves a couple of fresh Kitzmiller vs. Dover transcripts and laugh our collective guts out. And btw, Hammegk, why not join us? It&#180;s great fun!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 302]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 28th October 2005 02:47 PM

It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing.

That would explain a lot.  Any idea where you heard that, Dan?

Also, can anyone explain to me why Buckingham can't get in trouble for perjury for this?  I'm definitely not Mr. Law, but his false statements seem to be a little too convenient to not be deliberate.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 303]
Author : bagtaggar
Date : 28th October 2005 03:26 PM

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 304]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 03:41 PM

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?
Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


Today, some read the evidence of nature and find no evidence for the existence of a Deity. Richard Dawkins, the contemporary biologist, notorious atheist, penned a book with the title "The Blind Watchmaker". He argues that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". In the context of the warfare between evolution and creationism in the United States, the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.
 

The history of the anti-evolution debates in the United States is less about biology and more about morality. Going back to the 1925 Scopes Trial, the progressive politician, William Jennings Bryan, got involved largely because of his objections to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which at the time were widely used to justify any number of social injustices. Thirty states had eugenics laws. Indeed, the "science" most used to justify Nazism was first published in the peer-reviewed journals of the United States.

Today, the anti-evolution arguments are quite similar -- evolution equals materialism equals atheism equals nihilism equals immorality. The last Supreme Court case to examine this question, the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard ruled against Creation Science not on the basis of the science, but that it was a sectarian religion and thus could not be taught in the public schools. The anti-evolution forces regrouped, reorganized, and united around a "science-only" tactic - calling evolution "just a theory" and requesting equal time for Intelligent Design Theory. The old Creation Science arguments have been resurrected, but without mention of the Bible or officially naming the reputed designer.
 

 The problem, however, is not with the term "intelligent". The "intelligence" of nature is not in the eye of the scientific beholder, it is in the phenomena themselves. This "intelligibility" is the precondition for science. The metaphor of "design", however, is much more problematic.  Besides, God is either everywhere present in all processes of creation or God might as well be nowhere.


source http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?9284

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 305]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 28th October 2005 03:50 PM

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease? That was a "no".

Back on topic, does anyone know where I can find the latest transcripts on a normal webpage instead of this pesky .pdf?

I'm getting serious withdrawal symptoms.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 306]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 28th October 2005 04:20 PM

Yes, please, more transcripts!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 307]
Author : Ed
Date : 28th October 2005 04:36 PM

Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.



The difference is that one is completely justified in saying to Dawkins "prove it" and he would have to comply or retire.  I would love believers in absolute truths and omnipotant beings to be as self assured and not have to resort to verbal legerdermain.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 308]
Author : hammegk
Date : 28th October 2005 04:45 PM

I see. And you find that Dawkins has proved "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."?

And more to the point, you also find it so, provably?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 309]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 29th October 2005 06:41 AM

I hadn't run across that thinking before. I'd need to know more, but at first glance it might make more sense than 'natural selection' as y'all define it.
Here you go:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050323/01

Any such non-DNA inheritance is still under the influence of natural selection, of course.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 310]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 29th October 2005 06:45 AM

Back on topic, does anyone know where I can find the latest transcripts on a normal webpage instead of this pesky .pdf?
Pesky, you say?

Talkorigins has them in HTML format:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 311]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 29th October 2005 06:58 AM

Behe plays it dumb, loses:Q: And that's not what the Darwinian theory suggests, correct? It does not project that the sequence is in that order, liner, tuna, frog, turtle, chicken, horse, correct? That's not what Darwinian evolution states, correct?
A: You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.

... (agonising minutes later) ...

Q: But when Pandas says: "to use the classic Darwinian scenario amphibians are intermediate between fish and the other land dwelling vertebrates", that's not a correct characterization of the theory of evolution, is it?
A: No, that isn't, no.I like this bit:Q: But archeologists are involved in human design, so...
A: So he would have to conclude it had a human designer, correct?
Q: Not necessarily.
Mr Muise: Object. I believe counsel just testified.
Q: It seemed like so much fun I wanted to. :dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 312]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 29th October 2005 08:07 AM

This is getting surreal. Dr. A., where is the transcript with those bits?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 313]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 29th October 2005 08:23 AM

You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.

Behe didn't say that. He did not say that.

Show me where he said that.

My head is exploding....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 314]
Author : hammegk
Date : 29th October 2005 08:30 AM

Any such non-DNA inheritance is still under the influence of natural selection, of course.

~~ Paul
Damn. I'd just been taken to task elsewhere for mentioning rna & mutation, too. delphi_ote: Interesting, huh?


So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about? ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 315]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 29th October 2005 10:29 AM

It just gets better and better!

Heather Geesey, a Dover Area School Board member, said she came to believe intelligent design was a scientific theory based on the recommendations of Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham - both members of the board's curriculum committee.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15475356&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 316]
Author : Mojo
Date : 29th October 2005 10:50 AM

More from Geesey: “You can teach creationism without its being Christianity,” the Dover Area school board member wrote in a letter to the editor in the June 27, 2004, York Sunday News. The judge seems to be on the ball: Geesey testified that she recalled Buckingham and fellow board member Alan Bonsell discussing intelligent design at the June 2004 meetings. That contradicted her sworn deposition, in which she said board members hadn’t named what alternatives should be presented to balance evolutionary theory.

When Walczak questioned the discrepancy, Geesey said her letter to the editor, along with Eveland’s, had jogged her memory.

At the end of cross-examination, Jones was not satisfied and he began to question the witness himself.

Saying he was confused, Jones asked her to explain specifically how the letters triggered her memory. “I ask you because intelligent design is not mentioned in either letter,” he said. http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92176/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 317]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 29th October 2005 11:06 AM

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 318]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 29th October 2005 11:35 AM

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...

Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.

The Evolutionist science side isn't trying to cover up facts, so they probably have it easier.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 319]
Author : 69dodge
Date : 29th October 2005 01:06 PM

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8AMSession.pdf, p. 15:

A. He had asked us more than once if we teach man comes from a monkey.  In response to that in utter frustration I looked at Mr. Buckingham and I said, "If you say man and monkey one more time in the same sentence, I'm going to scream."  He did not do that, and I didn't have to.

Q. And that's because you're Italian, Mrs. Spahr, is that right?

A. Sicilian.

Q. I'll remember that.

A. Let's clarify that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 320]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 29th October 2005 01:13 PM

So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about? 
That would depend entirely upon whether you are counting human effects as selection pressure. We are part of nature, after all.

Now you guys are starting to make this transcript stuff up. There is no way that it's really this absurd. We're through the looking glass for sure.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 321]
Author : 69dodge
Date : 29th October 2005 01:32 PM

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am490

cross examination of Behe

Q. And so in the case of prokaryotes, which you said was a good example of what you were studying, 10 to the 16th in one ton of soil?

A. Yes.

Q. So a few tons of soil, and we've gone past that 10 to the 30th?The lawyer apparently thinks that 1030 is roughly double 1016.  oops.

And there's a long exchange starting at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html#day12am1087.  Too much to quote, but I can't figure out the lawyer's point.  I don't think he knows what his own point is.  He ends up saying, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html#day12am1197:

Q. Sounds like a bigger mistake than Dr. Doolittle made, Professor Behe?

A. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Q. Well, you spent a lot of time trashing Dr. Doolittle and his work, his article in the Boston Review. Your mistake here is quite a bit more substantial than misinterpreting a mice study, isn't it?

A. I'm not even quite sure what you are referring to as my mistake.

Q. I'll withdraw that question, Professor Behe. [...]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 322]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 29th October 2005 02:01 PM

The lawyer apparently thinks that 1030 is roughly double 1016.  oops.

He might not be mistaken if doubling the amount of soil squares the number of prokaryotes for some geometric reason.

ETA Actually reading the transcript there makes it clear it probably doesn't! ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 323]
Author : ShowMe
Date : 29th October 2005 05:05 PM

Pesky, you say?~~ Paul

I imagine, if you are a proponent of ID as scientific, that those .pdf transcriptions would be damn pesky.

Then again, converting them to html isn't going to help in that respect....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 324]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 30th October 2005 12:59 AM

This is getting surreal. Dr. A., where is the transcript with those bits?It can be found in this damaged .pdf file (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf), much of which is legible.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 325]
Author : Ed
Date : 30th October 2005 04:45 AM

I can't copy it but read the first Q&A on p. 73 wherein Dr. Behe uses Science Fiction as a rationale.....odd man.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 326]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 30th October 2005 06:58 AM

I can't copy it but read the first Q&A on p. 73 wherein Dr. Behe uses Science Fiction as a rationale.....odd man.

Finally, someone who agrees with me that Star Trek Design Theory should be taught in the classroom!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 327]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 30th October 2005 07:09 AM

Another fun article on the trial:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/11/65535

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 328]
Author : Ed
Date : 30th October 2005 08:25 AM

In following a link concerning tax protesters I found this quote which is particularly germane, I think:

In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges. 

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time. 

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for "absurd." 

The frustration of judges is well described in the following opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal raising some of the ridiculous constitutional claims described in this FAQ: 

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and leglistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984). 
The court not only ruled against Crain, but imposed a damage award against him (essentially a fine) of $2,000 for bringing a frivolous appeal. Id at 1418. 

So, when a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side.. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#purpose

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 329]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 30th October 2005 09:10 AM

Another fun article on the trial:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/11/65535

~~ Paul

Has anyone ever nailed Behe on his stupid mountain/Mt. Rushmore nonsense?

"So the mountain range wasn't designed?  The designer didn't make these mountains?  Oh he did make the mountains?  How can you tell?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 330]
Author : Jeff Corey
Date : 30th October 2005 09:56 AM

I thought this might be relevant. If not, its still funny.
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 331]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 30th October 2005 09:59 AM

Thanks for that, Corey--I thought the same when I read it this morning.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 332]
Author : bagtaggar
Date : 30th October 2005 10:15 AM

I know it's a little off topic, but:

I think we can all safely say (except for hammy), that evolution qualifies as science whether or not you personally believe it.

It has all the componants of the scientific method.

I'd like to ask hammy again, can he point out how ID is science? Or rather, who has ever demonstrated that it is?

A laundry list of nitpicky complaints against a robust scientific theory doesn't make ID science.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 333]
Author : Mojo
Date : 31st October 2005 03:27 AM

A laundry list of nitpicky complaints against a robust scientific theory doesn't make ID science.Well, ID isn't really any more than this itself.  The basic argument seems to be "If Darwinian evolution doesn't explain this, it must have been designed."  See Behe's first answer in this recent interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1567967,00.html), for example: So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 334]
Author : Mojo
Date : 31st October 2005 03:37 AM

I wonder if anyone ever said something along the lines of "if Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 335]
Author : Mojo
Date : 31st October 2005 04:21 AM

I've just noticed that Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) has transcripts of days 13 to 15 (Nilsen and Fuller) and a damaged pdf of day 16 am (Buckingham).

Fuller's cross includes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm.html#day15pm94):A. Let me see if I understand what I said. :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 336]
Author : Darat
Date : 31st October 2005 04:47 AM

I've just noticed that Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) has transcripts of days 13 to 15 (Nilsen and Fuller) and a damaged pdf of day 16 am (Buckingham).

Fuller's cross includes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm.html#day15pm94)::D

I am being serious but why has he been put forward?  The man seems incapable of answering questions even in his area of expertise.

(ETA)


Q. You would agree that methodological naturalism has worked well for science?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree that it's largely responsible for most of the scientific progress we've seen?

A. No.

Q. If you could turn to Page 175 of your deposition. I'm going to read your answer there starting on Line 23. You say, I'm not doubting that methodological naturalism has worked for science and that it's largely responsible for lots of science that we've got, maybe even most of that we've got. Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes. I said maybe



Q. And is it fair to say that you think the National Academy of Science's definition of a scientific theory is too static and too restrictive?

A. And this is -- remind me again. I'm sure I've commented on it, but can you remind me what that definition is?



Q. And your counter-definition is a little bit different, and it would be an explanatory conception --

A. Can you direct me to a page? You just want to tell me? Okay.

Q. An explanatory conception of a range of phenomena and also that could serve as a basis for a research program, for an empirical research program.

A. Yes. That sounds good, yeah.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 337]
Author : Mojo
Date : 31st October 2005 04:49 AM

I guess he's the best they can manage.

Most of their other "experts" seem to have run away.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 338]
Author : Darat
Date : 31st October 2005 04:56 AM

And the judge has a great sense of humour:


Q. And what you're saying is that it's got no chance in the scientific community, the only chance it has is for a federal judge to order that it be taught in the schools?

A. Look, I'm --

MR. GILLEN: Objection to the characterization of his testimony, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Well, I am going to disagree with it. Sorry.

THE COURT: The best thing you can do when Mr. Gillen objects is not answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, sorry.

THE COURT: That doesn't help him. So we'll let that pass and we'll move on.

MR. GILLEN: I'll withdraw the objection.

THE COURT: I guess so. Mr. Walczak can proceed. That's known as the too-helpful witness.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

THE COURT: But who you're helping depends on your answer. Mr. Walczak, you may proceed.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 339]
Author : Darat
Date : 31st October 2005 05:01 AM

Q. I'm going to start reading with the question on Line 2. Quote, But what is your understanding of these counter-examples? Is it that they have -- that critics have taken these counter-examples and used some probabilistic method to determine what happened to them, or have they been raised as examples that Dr. Dembski needs to apply his method to to show that it works at all? And your answer is, Yes, the latter. I mean, but is this damning? Yes, I mean, I agree with you.

A. No, no, I'm not referring to that it's damning. I mean that the latter -- I'm not saying that the fact that they have raised counter-examples to -- suggests his method doesn't work at all. I am agreeing that that's the nature of the counter-example. I am not agreeing to it being damning.

Q. But you're saying that Dembski needs to apply his method, and he hasn't done that to the counter -- he hasn't applied his method to the counter-examples, and that's damning?

A. Let me just read this. Can you restate the question now? I've sort of -- restate the question, please, now that I've understood what I've said.

:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 340]
Author : Darat
Date : 31st October 2005 05:06 AM

I'm meant to be doing some work but...


Q. And then, therefore, intelligent design is better?

A. Well, I don't know. Does he exactly say that?

Q. Well, I think that's what you said.

A. Well, I mean -- did I say that?

Q. Why don't you turn to Page 168 of your deposition. If you'll look at Line 21.

A. Yes.

Q. The question, Therefore, intelligent design is the best explanation? Answer: Yes, that's roughly what's going on.

A. Yes, I see. So the idea being that I'm saying -- he's saying it's -- you know, if it's not natural selection, it's therefore intelligent design. Okay. But Miller does the same thing in reverse when he tests Behe's experiment.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 341]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 31st October 2005 05:20 AM
Thread Title : A little aside

I've been having a conversation with an ID proponent via email. The usual cruft, but we've also been discussing Schneider's Ev program (she contacted me because of Ev). She asked a question that prompted me to run a different sort of model, and I thought the results were interesting.


> So, Ev is evolving a new function. Yet, during
> ‘stasis’, at no given time the same configuration
> (sequence) for the gene (and, so, for the protein) is
> reached across the population (and, certainly, neither
> for the corresponding DNA binding sites). Rather, most
> organisms in the population have different sequences,
> which also keep changing in time for all organisms. In
> nature, basically all members of any given population
> have identical configurations for any given function
> (the corresponding genes, etc., are identical). This
> fact alone should invalidate the model, which simply
> predicts something that does not happen in nature.
> Just as expected from the evolutionist model for
> evolution, isn’t it?  

Not all members have identical genes. There are a few different alleles. The reason this doesn't happen in the standard Ev model is because the mutation rate is orders of magnitude higher than it is in nature.

However, I ran a model with a large chromosome (2,048 bases) and few binding sites (8). This reduces the mutation rate per base. Here I am looking at generation 18,130 and I have a sequence logo of TTG_CC. Now let me step a bit ... the same creature remained the best for 37 generations. Now the new best creature has a sequence logo of TTG_Cc. That's an allele, wouldn't you say? More stepping ... that creature only lasted a few generation, but the new best one has TTG_CC. Same allele as the first one. ... Next creature, same allele. He lasts for a long time. ... Next creature, TTG_Cc. Two alleles so far. Let me step many generations ... 

In about 2,000 generations I saw four alleles: TTG_CC, TTG_Cc, TTG_cC, and TtG_CC. Pretty cool, huh?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 342]
Author : sphenisc
Date : 31st October 2005 05:24 AM

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





And most importantly...

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

Why is it they never seem to read their own book?  Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior?  

Romans 8:1  Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 343]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 31st October 2005 05:53 AM

STOP! STOP! MY HEAD IS EXPLODING!!

This is pure torture...(of a perversely funny kind...)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 344]
Author : Mojo
Date : 31st October 2005 06:15 AM

In his redirect examination, Fuller and the School board's lawyers are employing the "persecution" fallacy: Q. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm2.html#day15pm973) Earlier Mr. Walczak asked you some questions which looked at other sorts of scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts, and there was a suggestion that the case with intelligent design could be the same.

Do you see the situation confronted by intelligent design proponents as different from that of, say, the proponents of plate tectonic theory?

A. Well, I think there's a lot more opposition at the moment to intelligent design theory in terms of being able to get the institutional resources to be able to reach the critical mass to mount a research program. We also have Fuller trying to turn the whole thing on its head and saying (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm2.html#day15pm980) that ID should be taught because it isn't a properly developed scientific theory: But I think at the moment, because it's so -- there's such restricted access to it and there are so few people who have an incentive to work on it, that it isn't able to develop those kinds of connections. And so that's why I would say it does need to be mainstreamed. They really ought to try to make up their minds...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 345]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 31st October 2005 06:34 AM

In other words, if we could indoctrinate a bunch of high school kids into ID, they might go to college and do research on it. That way we could get more research done.

I propose we do the same thing for Flying Spagetti Monsterism. It needs research, doesn't it?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 346]
Author : Pastor Bentonit
Date : 31st October 2005 06:40 AM

In other words, if we could indoctrinate a bunch of high school kids into ID, they might go to college and do research on it. That way we could get more research done.

I propose we do the same thing for Flying Spagetti Monsterism. It needs research, doesn't it?

~~ Paul
At least it needs some of this grated Parmesan cheese...mmmmmm, Parmesan :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 347]
Author : Dan Beaird
Date : 31st October 2005 01:06 PM

That would explain a lot. Any idea where you heard that, Dan?...
 
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Been a busy weekend. I've heard it a few places, here's one source:
 
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php
 

Update: It turns out there's good reason for my bafflement - Buckingham was not a defense witness but a prosecution witness called out of turn. Apparently for scheduling purposes they could not get him to Pennsylvania to appear during the plaintiff's case, so they had to interrupt the defense case and call him as a plaintiff's witness. So that clears up the confusion there. I certainly understand why we called him to the stand.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 348]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 31st October 2005 02:02 PM

Also, can anyone explain to me why Buckingham can't get in trouble for perjury for this?  I'm definitely not Mr. Law, but his false statements seem to be a little too convenient to not be deliberate.I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, but perjury charges resulting from civil suits are exceedingly rare, mostly because the only alternative is they be ridiculously common. Most civil suits are a matter of one party's word against the other, so obviously only one can be telling the truth in court; the upshot of this is that, logically, every party who loses a civil suit could be charged with perjury, and it's generally thought that that would be excessive.

That said, Buckingham is arguably lying under oath concerning actions performed in his capacity as a public official (namely, an elected member of a school board), so there's a case to be made that it would be in the public interest to investigate him for perjury. After all, if a public offiicial feels he needs to dissemble about his performance, it's a safe bet he hasn't been doing his job properly, and the public deserves to know.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 349]
Author : drkitten
Date : 31st October 2005 02:15 PM

I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, but perjury charges resulting from civil suits are exceedingly rare, mostly because the only alternative is they be ridiculously common. Most civil suits are a matter of one party's word against the other, so obviously only one can be telling the truth in court; the upshot of this is that, logically, every party who loses a civil suit could be charged with perjury, and it's generally thought that that would be excessive.


My understanding is also that they're incredibly difficult to prosecute.  As I read the various reported details,  although I certainly get the idea and the impression that Buckingham is a lying cheese-weasel, I don't think I can actually prove that any given statement is a lie.  Almost everything he says is attributed to simple mis-remembering, backed up by an acknowledged and provable drug problem.  

Do I believe that it's likely that he really has that poor a memory, while still being able to function in normal society?  No.  Can I prove it to the standards required in a criminal trial?  Probably not?  Would prosecuting him for perjury be seen as unnecessarily vindictive?  Probably so.   Would I recommend it if I were the local DA?  Almost certainly not.

Would such a prosecution be in the best interests of justice?  Possibly so -- at the very least, if he were tried, convicted, and sent up the river for a few years, that would definitely send a message to any other school boards that are thinking of lying their way out of the Lemon test.  But the benefit is so small, and the chance of it happening it so remote -- and the chance of the local citizens putting up with it before voting the DA out of office -- are such that I doubt it will, or should, happen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 350]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 31st October 2005 02:22 PM

I couldn't agree more with your assessment, drkitten, with the exception that, as an owner of a highly adorable ferret who will eat damn near anything he sees humans eat (he's kind of dog-like that way), I object to your characterisation of Buckingham as a "cheese weasel" on the grounds that this insulting to mustelids.
But other than that, spot on!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 351]
Author : drkitten
Date : 31st October 2005 02:59 PM

I just found how the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage#Testimony) is presenting the Dover trial, and it's rather interesting.

The ACLU is presenting all the testimony (in rather broad terms; they are not especially quick off the block, and some of the transcripts are garbled).  The DI, by contrast, is specifically presenting only the direct examination of their own witnesses, and only the cross-examination of the plaintiffs'.   They're also presenting the text of their various amicus briefs, not bothering to tell anyone that one of the briefs was rejected, and they're presenting Dembski's expert witness report, without bothering to mention that Dembski is no longer testifiying, and is therefore irrelevant.

If anyone wants to know just how dishonest the DI is, this may be a good way to show it....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 352]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 31st October 2005 03:44 PM

I just found how the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage#Testimony) is presenting the Dover trial, and it's rather interesting.
 
The ACLU is presenting all the testimony (in rather broad terms; they are not especially quick off the block, and some of the transcripts are garbled). The DI, by contrast, is specifically presenting only the direct examination of their own witnesses, and only the cross-examination of the plaintiffs'. They're also presenting the text of their various amicus briefs, not bothering to tell anyone that one of the briefs was rejected, and they're presenting Dembski's expert witness report, without bothering to mention that Dembski is no longer testifiying, and is therefore irrelevant.
 
If anyone wants to know just how dishonest the DI is, this may be a good way to show it....Unfortunately, if DI's regular readers are anything like my relatives, they are regular readers because DI presents only what they are looking for, the affirming view, which appeases their discomfort with dissent.  They will be suspect of any claims of DI's dishonesty and will accept any spin DI puts on such claims.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 353]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 31st October 2005 04:08 PM

Romans 8:1  Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "God's messengers?" They are counterfeits of the real thing, dishonest practitioners masquerading as the messengers of Christ. Nor do their tactics surprise me when I consider how Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is only to be expected that his agents shall have the appearance of ministers of righteousness--but they will get what they deserve in the end.
Deuteronomy 18:20-21 A prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 354]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 31st October 2005 04:16 PM

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Been a busy weekend. I've heard it a few places, here's one source:
 
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php


Thanks for that, Dan.  It's always good to have the facts at our fingertips.  In light of this information, Buckingham's confused testimony makes a lot more sense.

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 355]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 31st October 2005 04:25 PM

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?Because it's a civil trial, and the Fifth Amendment states that on person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 356]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 31st October 2005 05:47 PM

Because it's a civil trial, and the Fifth Amendment states that on person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Seems logical enough then that perjury is right out in a civil trial.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 357]
Author : rwguinn
Date : 31st October 2005 08:11 PM

Unfortunately, if DI's regular readers are anything like my relatives, they are regular readers because DI presents only what they are looking for, the affirming view, which appeases their discomfort with dissent. They will be suspect of any claims of DI's dishonesty and will accept any spin DI puts on such claims.

Does the phrase "There are some things Man is not meant to know" ring a bell with anyone?
That, to me, is the thrust of ID. GODDIDIT, so there is no reason to investigate further. Let's stop meddling in "Things man is not meant to know"

"saints preserve us!":D

or, my favorite bumper sticker: "Lord, protect me from your followers"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 358]
Author : Dan Beaird
Date : 1st November 2005 06:46 AM

Thanks for that, Dan. It's always good to have the facts at our fingertips. In light of this information, Buckingham's confused testimony makes a lot more sense.
 
I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?
 
He couldn't take the fifth unless the questions were couched in such a way that a truthful answer could be used to convict him in a criminal trial. Since nothing he's done is a crime per se there is no protection under the fifth.
 
I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 359]
Author : Mojo
Date : 1st November 2005 08:09 AM

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 360]
Author : Flo
Date : 1st November 2005 09:17 AM

On the one hand, school board members can use this to defend against the charge that they were motivated by religious belief in introducing intelligent design or creationism into the biology curriculum. If they were motivated by religion, how come none of them ever heard of the Ninth Commandment &#8212; you know, the one about bearing false witness?

On the other hand, it's really a sad day for America when public officials can no longer lie convincingly enough to get it past a federal judge.

I blame the public schools. I mean, just look at some of the bozos in charge of them. 


Beautiful, just beautiful :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 361]
Author : EvilSmurf
Date : 1st November 2005 09:20 AM

I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct?  Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

I'm not a lawyer, I haven't played one on TV (I have on the stage, but that's another matter) but this is what I seem to remember.

Direct Examination - you answer questions from the lawyer who called you to the stand, the lawyer who called you can not ask leading questions (unless they are entered as a hostile witness, where the rules of cross examination apply, as Buckingham was). The standards for relevance are a bit heavier too.
Cross - The other lawyer gets to question you, the stands for relevance are pretty lax, really, under cross, we could have asked him if he's ever been convicted of grave-robbing and said it spoke towards the character of the witness.
Re-Direct - The lawyer who calls you gets to ask you more questions, with the same rules as direct examination. This usually means that something has come up in cross that was unexpected and your lawyer wants to ask another question to clear things up.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 362]
Author : DavidJames
Date : 1st November 2005 09:20 AM

I was expecting him to say, "I did not have sex with that panda."classic

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 363]
Author : tsg
Date : 1st November 2005 09:28 AM

This was my favorite bit:

That was when the judge started asking him to try to explain — um, how should I phrase this? — certain gaps and problems with his testimony.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 364]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 1st November 2005 09:35 AM

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.The Dover Panda Trial.  Now that's good marketing.  Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 365]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 1st November 2005 09:43 AM

The Dover Panda Trial.  Now that's good marketing.  Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

...starring...?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 366]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 1st November 2005 10:25 AM

When a judge starts grilling a witness about inconsistencies in his testimony, and asks him if he knew he was under oath --- that's quite unusual, isn't it?

Kind of like a big flashing neon sign over the man's head saying "PERJURY".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 367]
Author : Mojo
Date : 1st November 2005 11:07 AM

It's certainly not good...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 368]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 1st November 2005 11:12 AM

A case of perjury per jury.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 369]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 1st November 2005 01:09 PM

Of Pandas and People (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/qid=1130875138/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8984643-2537509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I enjoyed the user reviews, pro and con.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 370]
Author : Blondin
Date : 1st November 2005 01:49 PM

...starring...?
Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 371]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 1st November 2005 02:11 PM

Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

James van Praagh disagrees.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 372]
Author : Euromutt
Date : 1st November 2005 03:23 PM

A case of perjury per jury.I dunno about perjury, for the reasons stated earlier, but I suspect a couple of school board members may be skating dangerously close to getting slapped with contempt of court charges.
And fortunately, this is a "bench trial"--no jury involved.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 373]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 1st November 2005 08:06 PM

How did they expect to get away with this lie?  They're amoral and stupid.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 374]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 2nd November 2005 12:11 AM

How did they expect to get away with this lie?  They're amoral and stupid.

Paranormal beliefs compels you to lie.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 375]
Author : rjh01
Date : 2nd November 2005 01:23 AM

I am just trying to work out what the judge will say if he says the ID people win.  Am finding this task very hard.  I mean how do you decide for a side that appears to be not very honest?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 376]
Author : Darat
Date : 2nd November 2005 01:27 AM

I'd have to say the quality of the transcripts is superb, the prosecutors are excellent and the judge has a very dry sense of humour.  Why isn't this trail televised?  I'd pay-to-view it!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 377]
Author : Ed
Date : 2nd November 2005 05:48 AM

...starring...?

Keanu Reeves and Lawrence  Fishbourne.  
 

With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

http://www.carrottop.com/merchandise_pix/c_top_8x10_red.gif
I'm tellin' ya, it's science"

Incidentially, when the Michael Jackson trial was going on, E Network (I think) did a dramatized reading of the transcripts nightly with actors playing all of he roles in a "courtroom".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 378]
Author : Ed
Date : 2nd November 2005 05:50 AM

James van Praagh disagrees.

So does Schwartzie.  What did he call it "a non-corporal co-investigator" or some such crap?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 379]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 2nd November 2005 06:14 AM

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 380]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 2nd November 2005 06:17 AM

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul



That has to be the best candidate for the Pigasus Awards....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 381]
Author : Darat
Date : 2nd November 2005 06:23 AM

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 382]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 2nd November 2005 06:37 AM

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

Why don't they simply put God on the stand? Get the whole thing settled, once and for all?

Or find someone who speaks in tongues....handling snakes, too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 383]
Author : Darat
Date : 2nd November 2005 06:46 AM

I'm surprised when Buckingham (?) took the stand and he started to swear "by Almighty God", there wasn't a rumble of thunder and a voice from above saying "You can leave me out of this!"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 384]
Author : Mojo
Date : 2nd November 2005 08:31 AM

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education, and 8 of the 9 members of the Dover School Board are up for re-election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110100875.html

Around town, one billboard erected by the current school board exhorts voters to "support academic freedom." Huh?  "Academic freedom?"  Aren't they the ones who want teachers to read out a statement about ID against the objections of the teachers?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 385]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 2nd November 2005 08:35 AM

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education,Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday).  I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results.  I'll go back to being patient.  :boxedin:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 386]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 2nd November 2005 08:49 AM

With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

For bad science, dial down the center!

http://www.1000miles.com/tvcm/callatt.jpg

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 387]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 3rd November 2005 05:47 AM

Oh, it will definitely be interesting.  One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate.  Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips.

If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade.  If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site),  Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex,  complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969!

So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now.  "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur.  You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots.  Do you disagree with Dr. Miller?  Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago?  Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?"

Cherry-picking "ancient" science is one of their favorite games. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to keep up with all of this, but I hope you are right. The courts do present a good forum for unmasking pap, but, alas, an exceptionally poor forum to decide anything scientific. And, as much as I'd love to hear that last line from counsel, that would only get an immediate, sustained objection from opposing counsel.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 388]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 3rd November 2005 05:49 AM

Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday).  I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results.  I'll go back to being patient.  :boxedin:

Have you heard any of the back-story about the Dover board of ed? It is delightful, aggravating and very telling.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 389]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 3rd November 2005 06:59 AM

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 390]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 3rd November 2005 10:28 AM

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul
Paul,

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke.

For those who haven't yet seen it, Seed is newly re-launched. The premiere issue is graphically slick and well-written. I think it is a must-read for all skeptics. The magazine's credo tips you off: "Science is culture." This is what Discover (and others) might have been had it not been overrun by the irrational and the panderers.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 391]
Author : Mojo
Date : 3rd November 2005 10:47 AM

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke. I assume the article isn't online.  Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 392]
Author : Moose
Date : 3rd November 2005 10:49 AM

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:


Q. I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A. Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q. It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

The Court: You'd have to include me, though.


Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 393]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 3rd November 2005 11:00 AM

I assume the article isn't online.  Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?
I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 394]
Author : Mojo
Date : 3rd November 2005 11:12 AM

I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations.  The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 395]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 3rd November 2005 11:15 AM

Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations.  The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.
That sounds familiar. All to.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 396]
Author : petre
Date : 3rd November 2005 12:47 PM

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:



Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury.  That's why ID has practically no chance :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 397]
Author : Moose
Date : 3rd November 2005 01:47 PM

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury.  That's why ID has practically no chance :)

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh. 

Fly on the ceiling, then?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 398]
Author : petre
Date : 3rd November 2005 02:25 PM

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh. 

Fly on the ceiling, then?

I think we'll have to settle for transcripts for now :)

Which is why it's so irritating that some aren't fully readable.  I tried using the exact software that generated it, I even downloaded a free trial of .pdf repair software.  Nothing seemed up to the task of drawing out all the text.

So, what are the odds someone isn't properly setting the binary flag before using FTP? :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 399]
Author : Matilda
Date : 4th November 2005 07:26 AM

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 400]
Author : petre
Date : 4th November 2005 07:52 AM

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

Until someone more familiar with law gets here, you'll have to settle for me.

Juries are advised not to make any evaluation of evidence presented until the end of the trial and deliberations begin.  I'm not so sure judges follow the same guideline.  I would think the judge is very aware of exactly what aspects of the case need to be considered, and noted them as they came up.

It will take a little time for him to note the important pieces of evidence that he'll apply tests to and to write up his decision on each.  I would say if the trial concludes today, the judge would have his notes together and be ready to rule next week, say Tuesday or Wednsday.  A lesser case he might have ruled on late Monday, but given the likelyhood of appeal from both sides, I expect he'll try to be as complete as possible in his ruling.

Or maybe he'll be like Judge Judy, take a comercial break, then come right back with a verdict :P

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 401]
Author : Betenoire
Date : 4th November 2005 07:55 AM

I had noticed the attorney for the school board essentially saying "ID is a religion" in a Salon.com article a week or two ago and thought "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if Rothschild went all Darrow-Bryan on him?"  (I actually e-mailed Rothschild with this idea, but I don't believe for an instant he read it, or that I gave him some great insight).
When he had Bonsell up there, though, he did say, "You know, in an interview with Salon, your attorney said..."  That made me so happy.

I wonder if their closing arguments will be available online.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 402]
Author : Matilda
Date : 4th November 2005 08:10 AM

Thanks Petre. :) I'm just not good with suspense. I start twitching after a while.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 403]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 4th November 2005 08:35 AM

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.
Thank you so much for that, Mojo. I haven't had the time to keep tabs on this trial, and I truly appreciate your brightening my day with that link.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 404]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 4th November 2005 10:47 AM

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 405]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 4th November 2005 11:09 AM

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

Brilliant!

You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks!  We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 406]
Author : Spidey13
Date : 4th November 2005 09:49 PM

I don't know if this has been linked here yet.  Fairly funny.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41260

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 407]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 5th November 2005 07:13 AM

"Monkey called as witness fails to identify anyone in courtroom as his descendant."

I hope they brought in a talking monkey, otherwise, well, no wonder.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 408]
Author : thatguywhojuggles
Date : 5th November 2005 01:57 PM
Thread Title : In the news...

From here:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5evolutionnov05,0,6531970.story


 Following closing arguments, Jones thanked both sides, telling the lawyers, ''Every single one of you made me aware of why I became a lawyer and why I became a judge. &#8230; Your advocacy was so impressive to me.''

He urged the lawyers to submit final documents within the next 21 days, saying he'd like to reach a verdict by year's end.

Gillen noted that Friday marked the 40th day since the trial began and asked Jones whether 40 days and 40 nights was his intent.

''That was an interesting coincidence,'' Jones retorted, then paused. ''But it was not by design.

The courtroom erupted into laughter and applause and Jones stood up and left.

I wonder how many IDiots started clapping and cheering just from hearing the word "Design" only to, half-way through the clapping and cheering, finally understand the meaning behind that comment.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 409]
Author : rjh01
Date : 5th November 2005 02:11 PM

What!  No decision until the end of the year!  What happened to the decision after the commercial break?  At least he will give a decision within a month and a half.  I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 410]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 5th November 2005 08:37 PM

Does anyone know if Vegas has official odds on the outcome?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 411]
Author : Pidge
Date : 6th November 2005 02:49 AM
Thread Title : I'm sure you've heard these before, but

Halon's Razor (reference wikipedia (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon))
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

and Vernon Schryver's play on Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor (reference wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws))
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

I can see these applying to a number of defence witnesses...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 412]
Author : Diamond
Date : 7th November 2005 02:21 AM

Not having discovered Mike Argento until recently, it's been a hilarious pleasure reading his commentaries on the trial.

Barring a miracle, the greatest result would be a finding of fact that "Intelligent Design" is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. It would be incredible, given the lamentable testimony given by the defendants, that the judge would find against the plaintiffs. If Michael Behe is the best the defendants could come up with, then the FSM help them.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 413]
Author : Mojo
Date : 7th November 2005 04:18 AM

Here's another (http://ydr.com/story/mike/93047/) Argento column.  It seems from this one that the defense lawyers were getting on the judge's nerves somewhat: Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, objected on the grounds of hearsay.

Muise began to respond, mentioning the "public record," and the judge cut him off, asking, "Do you mean newspaper articles?" Muise and his cohorts have a standing objection to the admission of newspaper articles into the record, a dispute that will be settled today, and the judge said if Muise was going to rely on newspaper articles, it seemed to be a change in strategy, to say the least.

Muise started to say something and the judge cut him off, delivering a verbal slap upside the head: "Don't insult my intelligence." 

There's also another transcript on the ACLUPA (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm) site which I hadn't noticed before (Day 18 AM: William Buckingham) and Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) now has the day 18 PM session, with Alan Bonsell's cross-examination and the judge quizzing him about his possible perjury.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 414]
Author : Ed
Date : 7th November 2005 05:29 AM

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing.  He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?"  and the judge said "not in my courtroom".  

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 415]
Author : Mojo
Date : 7th November 2005 06:04 AM

Nice to see the creationists fighting among themselves (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3003&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage): The lead attorney defending the Dover district, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, has made several statements inaccurately characterizing both the position and the actions of Discovery Institute regarding the Dover case. We are issuing the following statement in order to correct the record...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 416]
Author : Betenoire
Date : 7th November 2005 08:05 AM

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing.  He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?"  and the judge said "not in my courtroom".  

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

Best that he take his time and close every possible loophole that could be exploited for an appeal.  His ruling need not be wrong to get overturned, just legally slightly erroneous.  Hope his ruling is iron-clad.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 417]
Author : petre
Date : 7th November 2005 09:28 AM

What!  No decision until the end of the year!  What happened to the decision after the commercial break?  At least he will give a decision within a month and a half.  I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

How could I have underestimated the US Court system's ability to add paperwork to every step? :)  I forgot that the lawyers for the ID side still have to file their brief to have all scientific knowledge stricken from the record, since it is not yet a complete model of the universe :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 418]
Author : Diamond
Date : 7th November 2005 10:18 AM

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom". 

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

That's from the forthcoming third edition of "Of Pandas and Men". The first said:

"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

The second, published after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism was religion and not science said:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

The next version 3.0 will have the sentence:

"Sudden appearance means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands, etc."

Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer:

 As Eric Rothschild, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Panda Trial, asked in court, "Will we be back in a couple of years for the 'sudden appearance' trial?"
 	Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Not on my docket."

 
 
 
All of the above quotes from Argento's column "Of Behe and Mammary Glands" (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90504/)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 419]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 7th November 2005 10:26 AM

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 420]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 7th November 2005 12:00 PM

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 421]
Author : Spidey13
Date : 7th November 2005 12:16 PM

Does anyone know if any of the slides/exhibits that were used during the trial are available online.  I'm about halfway through the transcripts and I would really like to see some of these if it's possible.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 422]
Author : Ed
Date : 8th November 2005 06:32 AM

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

Good idea.  I just did.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 423]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 8th November 2005 07:03 AM

Good idea.  I just did.
I hope you signed it "God." He'd be very happy to know he has a fan upstairs. Might even send you some article reprints via John Edward.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 424]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 8th November 2005 07:27 AM

Dover school board elections are today.  Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.  

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 425]
Author : drkitten
Date : 8th November 2005 07:39 AM

Dover school board elections are today.  Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.  

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win.  Can I get some action down on this?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 426]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 8th November 2005 07:40 AM

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win.  Can I get some action down on this?
I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date).  Here's to hoping.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 427]
Author : drkitten
Date : 8th November 2005 08:01 AM

I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date).  Here's to hoping.

You're on.  Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 428]
Author : Moose
Date : 8th November 2005 09:16 AM

Loser gets the state of New Jersey. 
Don't they always? :D

Looking forward with great interest to the results of both the verdict (in December, hopefully) and the school board elections.

Dr. Kitten, Upchurch, could I get in on the action with the "alternative" Planet X bet? I'll throw Toronto, Ont and Surrey, BC into the pot. The other loser can get Don Cherry.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 429]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 8th November 2005 10:20 AM

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.
Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 430]
Author : tsg
Date : 8th November 2005 10:29 AM

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it. 
Testimony from the trial indicates that many of the current fundies were elected on a "fiscal responsibility" campaign. They were evidently undertaking a major construction project during the last election that got bungled somehow (as many public construction projects are wont to do). I highly doubt any of them ran on a "get religion back in school" platform. But now that their true colors are apparent, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Personally, I don't expect much.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 431]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 8th November 2005 12:28 PM

You're on.  Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.Sweet.  I could finally upgrade my Arpanet!
Loser gets the state of New Jersey.A tad extreme, but as long as I have Funkytown, I'm happy.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 432]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 8th November 2005 12:30 PM

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people?Well, to tsg's point, this whole mess wasn't around during their last vote.  Maybe they knew about their school board's religious tendencies, maybe they didn't.  Point is, we'll know how they feel about the whole thing now.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 433]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 8th November 2005 12:32 PM

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 434]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 8th November 2005 12:37 PM

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

But if you win, you can change the loser's title to whatever you want...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 435]
Author : headscratcher4
Date : 8th November 2005 01:06 PM

I've a stupid question about all of this...did anyone ever ask Behe (sp?) or his supporters if something/one less than God could be responsible for the design he finds?

I mean, why does it have to be the "ultimate" god on high designer?

Maybe the "design" he sees was sort of the GM of the 1980's Intelligent Design shop...it would explain a lot.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 436]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 8th November 2005 01:09 PM

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 437]
Author : headscratcher4
Date : 8th November 2005 01:13 PM

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different.  Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 438]
Author : Darat
Date : 8th November 2005 01:15 PM

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different.  Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

I'm sure you know the answer but...

Because he already believes in God and is only interested if his "question" can be answered with "God".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 439]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 8th November 2005 01:20 PM

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins.  Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself.  I could be mistaken.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 440]
Author : ranson
Date : 8th November 2005 01:31 PM

I, myself, signed up for the ACLUPA's one-time email alert for the Dover ruling.

An I hope Mike Argento shows up and takes a look here.  I've rarely laughed harder at a humor columnist (possibly Lewis Grizzard, but that's been a long time).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 441]
Author : tsg
Date : 8th November 2005 01:31 PM

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself.  I could be mistaken. 
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'."

What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 442]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 8th November 2005 01:39 PM

Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God.  I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 443]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 8th November 2005 01:56 PM

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 444]
Author : drkitten
Date : 8th November 2005 02:00 PM

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Yes.  Like much of the rest of the defense testimony, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 445]
Author : tsg
Date : 8th November 2005 02:01 PM

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God? 
Or not enough. No ID'ers don't believe it isn't not God.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 446]
Author : hammegk
Date : 8th November 2005 02:24 PM

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.



... it relies on a supernatural creator ... 
For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 447]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 8th November 2005 02:30 PM

[QUOTE=CFLarsen;1264778]Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?
QUOTE]
They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 448]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 8th November 2005 05:47 PM

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.
 
For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 449]
Author : tsg
Date : 8th November 2005 09:55 PM

Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here (http://ydr.com/page/politics/dover/). 

From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill.

Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it.

In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost.  Take that for what you will.

These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats.

ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 450]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 8th November 2005 11:20 PM

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

Rrrrright. Not without a condition. :rolleyes:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 451]
Author : Mojo
Date : 9th November 2005 01:18 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html :D :D :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 452]
Author : Dragon
Date : 9th November 2005 01:41 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html :D :D :D and Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Teaching_Intelligen_Design:_Dover_PA_school_board_election_results)
All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 453]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 9th November 2005 01:22 PM

I win!  Internet, come to Papa!

But I'll be a good winner, so free title changes are still on me.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 454]
Author : Ducky
Date : 9th November 2005 01:57 PM

As I posted here, (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=47265) my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn&#8217;t just about ideology.

&#8220;Some people felt intelligent design shouldn&#8217;t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,&#8221; he said.



You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 455]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 9th November 2005 02:10 PM

As I posted here, (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=47265) my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:




You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding.

Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 456]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 9th November 2005 04:53 PM

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?Well? Am I close?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 457]
Author : hammegk
Date : 9th November 2005 05:40 PM

"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea ;)).  :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 458]
Author : Mojo
Date : 10th November 2005 01:18 AM

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case?  If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision.  Where does this leave the case as a precedent?  What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 459]
Author : sphenisc
Date : 10th November 2005 04:21 AM

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

I can sign up for that as well.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 460]
Author : vbloke
Date : 10th November 2005 04:49 AM

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1564377,00.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 461]
Author : Ed
Date : 10th November 2005 04:53 AM

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case?  If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision.  Where does this leave the case as a precedent?  What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.  The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 462]
Author : Dragon
Date : 10th November 2005 04:58 AM

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1564377,00.html
Delicious, especially the last two paragraphs - :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 463]
Author : Mojo
Date : 10th November 2005 06:20 AM

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.  The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.That's the problem.  It won't go up to a higher court.  Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 464]
Author : Ed
Date : 10th November 2005 06:33 AM

That's the problem.  It won't go up to a higher court.  Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

I guess that it can be cited as case law but there is nothing binding, I think.  It depends on how well the judge supports his decision.  If he can flay the Board with a detailed analysis of their arguments it will have some influence I am sure.  After all, if he can see thru their arguments and make his reasoning clear, then it would be up to another judge to go him one better if they disagree on the outcome.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 465]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 10th November 2005 08:45 AM

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?  

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win.  That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 466]
Author : Spidey13
Date : 10th November 2005 10:58 AM

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111005/homework-is-just-a-theory.gif

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 467]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 10th November 2005 11:32 AM

That's the problem.  It won't go up to a higher court.  Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

It is in federal court so it would be considered a persuasive authority rather than a mandatory authority.  Still, better than nothin I say.

If it DID go to trial in Kansas and they contradicted the Dover ruling, perhaps the Supreme Court would hear a new case directly to put the issue to rest once and for all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 468]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 10th November 2005 11:47 AM

to put the issue to rest once and for all.
That's optimistic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 469]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 10th November 2005 11:48 AM

That's optimistic.

You're wrong.  That's insane.

Edit:  What the hell was I thinking?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 470]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 10th November 2005 11:53 AM

Behe made it look easy.  Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)
As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen. 

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 471]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 10th November 2005 11:57 AM

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?  

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win.  That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

I believe you could drop the case, but only in theory.  It would be at the discretion of the court and they would be very unlikely to grant a withdrawl at this stage since it wouldn't serve the public interest.

Did I say "very unlikely"?  I meant "basically impossible".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 472]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 10th November 2005 11:59 AM

Behe made it look easy.  Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)
Funny, considering that the very possibility of speculation into mechanisms destroys his argument.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 473]
Author : Mojo
Date : 10th November 2005 12:08 PM

Behe made it look easy.  Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen. 

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.  :dl:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 474]
Author : DavidJames
Date : 10th November 2005 12:08 PM

Behe made it look easy.  Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)His comments are unbelievable.  Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts.  Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 475]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 10th November 2005 12:10 PM

Behe made it look easy.  Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)

%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most.  Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 476]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 10th November 2005 12:12 PM

His comments are unbelievable.  Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts.  Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.
What?  You expect him to stop cherry-picking now?  It'd ruin his career.  ...sorta.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 477]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 10th November 2005 12:30 PM

As someone on this forum is fond of saying, the problem with intellectual KO's is that the recipient usually doesn't notice them.

In Behe's mind, all of the stupid things he believes make perfect sense.  From that perspective, it's clear he performed brilliantly on the stand.  To be able to recognize he was made a fool of, he'd have to be able to recognize that he's spewing nonsense.

This inability to view one's own beliefs objectively is why a lot of scientific progress involves waiting for the oldguard to die off.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 478]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 10th November 2005 12:39 PM

It'd ruin his career.  ...sorta.

Actually, he'd just be doing his job.  He's a professional moron.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 479]
Author : drkitten
Date : 10th November 2005 01:08 PM

Actually, he'd just be doing his job.  He's a professional moron.

You know, I think that's deeply unfair.  

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university.  If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 480]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 10th November 2005 01:25 PM

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university.  If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?  That they're employed at the same department as a professional moron?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 481]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 10th November 2005 01:30 PM

Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he?  His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason.  The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 482]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 10th November 2005 01:32 PM

Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he?  His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason.  The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist.  Ah, the joy of tenure!

Behe is a perfect example of why tenure should be removed.  University faculty are still vulnerable to retaliation from the administration in a thousand other ways, so tenure doesn't make academics immune to persecution, and it makes it virtually impossible to get rid of utter fools.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 483]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 10th November 2005 02:59 PM

In related news. NPR just ran a story on "Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom".  Mostly centered around Sternberg publication of an intelligent design article...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Sternberg was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."

At first he heard rumblings of discontent but thought it would blow over. Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 484]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 10th November 2005 03:47 PM

Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this.

No, they aren't.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 485]
Author : catbasket
Date : 10th November 2005 03:51 PM

In related news <snip> "Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."
Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says her group did consult with Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid. 

"Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the creationist cause by being associated with this journal that published a creationist paper."

Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian official -- Sternberg did not really suffer. 

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."
Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 486]
Author : Ducky
Date : 10th November 2005 03:53 PM

Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??


Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?


He should have known better than to publish that crap if he has two PhD's in biology.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 487]
Author : thatguywhojuggles
Date : 10th November 2005 04:14 PM
Thread Title : Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
...
 "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"
...
 "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there,"
...
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1300761


This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself.  Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add:  I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion.  Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 488]
Author : Ducky
Date : 10th November 2005 04:18 PM

This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself.  Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add:  I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion.  Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?


I seriously hope he gets cancer.

That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 489]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 10th November 2005 04:22 PM

I'd prefer Robertson be struck by lightning on a clear day. I think I'll see if I can recruit a mad scientist to make it happen, since there doesn't seem to be an omnibenevolent being intent on electroshocking that nutbar into sanity. Or ashes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 490]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 10th November 2005 04:43 PM

No, they aren't.
Exactly. I think that comment is quite interesting and very suggestive of a creationist agenda. At the very least, it is suggestive of a clueless journal editor.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 491]
Author : catbasket
Date : 10th November 2005 05:03 PM

... don't ask for His help because he might not be there.
Could I have another portion of irony, please? That was delicious.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 492]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 10th November 2005 07:06 PM

That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming.  I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong.  Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem.  Unreasonably determining what to hate is.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 493]
Author : Ducky
Date : 10th November 2005 07:23 PM

I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong.  Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem.  Unreasonably determining what to hate is.


In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer

And I unreasonably hate the following:

Kevin Federline, who can't spell his name properly.
Jell-o
Dr. Suess
mushrooms
wombat shaving
penis envy
Ford Taurus' made in the 1990's
reality TV
spandex
infomercials
ebonics


Looks like I have some work to do on rectifying my unreasonable hate.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 494]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 10th November 2005 08:27 PM

In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer

And just where am I on that list?!  When a guy works this hard, he expects a little credit!

I now unreasonably hate the following:
fowlsound

:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 495]
Author : Ducky
Date : 10th November 2005 08:30 PM

And just where am I on that list?!  When a guy works this hard, he expects a little credit!

I now unreasonably hate the following:
fowlsound

:D


You were included with "mushrooms." ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 496]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 10th November 2005 08:31 PM

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case?  If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision.  

The new school board is supposedly on record saying they will not appeal a ruling against the old school board.  The old board members have no power.

Even if the plaintiffs lose, the newly elected board members will most likely reverse Pandas vote.

Where does this leave the case as a precedent?  What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

It would be persuasive only.  Other district courts wouldn't be bound but would be encouraged to follow precedent.

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

Normally you can't go directly to the SCOTUS.  It is especially weird if you just won your case.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 497]
Author : tsg
Date : 10th November 2005 08:37 PM

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?

It was about teaching religion in a public school.  There's nothing in the Constitution preventing a Board of Education from teaching bad science.  There is against teaching religion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 498]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 10th November 2005 09:07 PM

Exactly. I think that comment is quite interesting and very suggestive of a creationist agenda. At the very least, it is suggestive of a clueless journal editor.

Not clueless, no.  He has a creationist agenda, plain as day.  You'll find his name (along with several other familiar names) on this list:

http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php

He most certainly appears to have abused his position:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/sternberg-replies.html

His duplicity and persecution routine make me ill.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 499]
Author : MRWiffen
Date : 11th November 2005 03:59 AM

I found this article this morning bushwatch.net/uhler.htm (still to new to post proper links.

 Who politicized the Kansas Board of Education and the recently ousted board members at Dover Area High School in Pennsylvania? Conservative zealots; some of whom have even admitted to not understanding intelligent design—and who certainly do not understand what constitutes genuine science. 

The site is very left wing, I would change conservative to religious, with that change it does still make it's point.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 500]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 11th November 2005 04:13 AM

bushwatch.net?

That sounds positively like a porn site.

........

Yep. Political porn. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 501]
Author : DavidJames
Date : 11th November 2005 09:04 AM

The site is very left wing, I would change conservative to religious, with that change it does still make it's point.Or more accurately, Republican ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 502]
Author : catbasket
Date : 11th November 2005 09:25 AM

Ok, so it turns out that Sternberg (poor little victim of all those nasty scientists) is a Fellow of the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ... along with Behe, Dembski and others whose names you will probably recognise.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty (author of the NPR story) is the NPR's religion correspondent and turns out to be a member of the World Journalism Institute

Have you heard of the "World Journalism Institute"? Probably not. It's an organization of journalists committed to helping members "accurately" report "the work of God in today's world." In other words, they are committed to reporting events from a conservative, evangelical Christian perspective.

<snip>

What was that again about the "liberal media elite" and how the NPR is a bastion of "liberal news coverage" that fails to give adequate consideration to conservatives - especially to conservative religion? One of the members of the WJI is Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR's religion correspondent. Curious.Quote taken from -
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2004_03.htm?iam=dpile_100  (ETA - the post marked 09:00)

Explains a lot methinks.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 503]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 11th November 2005 09:46 AM

I think it's time to start writing letters to NPR.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 504]
Author : Eos of the Eons
Date : 11th November 2005 10:43 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

*cough* I thought ID "was science" *cough*

So, here we have IDiots contradicting themselves again.  *ID is science* they try to tell us.

Then when they get mad, they forget their little mantra.

Oh, and somehow natural disasters are punishments for us puny mortals by this "loving god".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 505]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 11th November 2005 10:54 AM

I think it's time to start writing letters to NPR.

Make sure you read my second link there if you're steamed.  It'll put you into the red.

As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 506]
Author : fishbob
Date : 11th November 2005 11:24 AM

%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most.  Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.

I read somewhere, I think in the Dover trial transcripts, that Behe has sold more than 400,000 copies of his Black Box book.  Therefore ID = serious financial gain.  The ID leaders all seem to be quite well off.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 507]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 11th November 2005 12:04 PM

I had wondered why the NPR stories kept referring to the controversy over "the origins of life".  Now I know:  NPR's religion correspondent is a member of an organization specifically dedicated to spreading Christian Fundamentalism through the mass media.

Expecting a religion correspondent to lack religious opinions is unreasonable, but a certain amount of dispassionate objectivity is called for.  How is actively trying to promulgate the "Christian viewpoint" conducive to that requirement?!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 508]
Author : KingMerv00
Date : 11th November 2005 12:56 PM

I read somewhere, I think in the Dover trial transcripts, that Behe has sold more than 400,000 copies of his Black Box book.  Therefore ID = serious financial gain.  The ID leaders all seem to be quite well off.

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying?  Behe is in it for the bling?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 509]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 11th November 2005 01:56 PM

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying?  Behe is in it for the bling?
You don't get the bling just teaching at a university...



eta: I'm so white.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 510]
Author : tsg
Date : 11th November 2005 02:24 PM

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying?  Behe is in it for the bling? 
If by "bling" you are including "power", yes, absolutely.

The Discovery Institute wants nothing less than a complete theocratic state with themselves as the head.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 511]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 11th November 2005 02:42 PM

The Discovery Institute wants nothing less than a complete theocratic state with themselves as the head.

If I hadn't read them saying essentially just that myself, you'd sound like a conspiracy nut.

And just to go back over our recent conversation topics, we've been discussing a journal editor that acted questionably in order to push through a flawed intelligent design article because he sympathized with their cause, and we've also been discussing a journalist who covered the journal editor's story in an biased way because she also sympathizes with the intelligent design cause.  Both are members of religious organizations that publicly endorse intelligent design.  Both actions were in some way furthered by government actions and political appointments.  The organizations these folks belong to are funded by and allied with fundamentalist religious groups.  All involved have the same goal: keeping unpleasant scientific facts from a generation of children.

Why do people invent conspiracy theories?  I find reality has enough intrigue...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 512]
Author : rjh01
Date : 11th November 2005 03:41 PM

Will the trial make a good movie?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 513]
Author : Dragon
Date : 11th November 2005 04:00 PM

Will the trial make a good movie?Working title -"Inhibit the Mind".



Thank you, I'm here all week.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 514]
Author : tsg
Date : 11th November 2005 04:38 PM

ETA: I misread your post (I thought you were accusing me of being a conspiracy nut), but I'll leave it anyway since I think it's important for people to know exactly where ID is coming from and so I can back up my own claim.

If I hadn't read them saying essentially just that myself, you'd sound like a conspiracy nut.

[...]

Why do people invent conspiracy theories?  I find reality has enough intrigue... 
Don't take my word for it.  They've said so themselves.  Look here (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) and make up your own mind.

A few choice quotes:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. 
From their "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary":
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. 
[...]
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. 
From their "Governing Goals":
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. [emphasis mine] 
And from their "Twenty Year Goals"
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral    and political life. [emphasis mine] 
And this gem from their "Five Year Objectives":
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory. [emphasis mine] 
Pay particular attention to that last one. They want laws to be based on Intelligent Design, a religious view, for which they are the primary source of "research" . That is a theocratic state with them in control. This is no conspiracy theory, these are their own words.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 515]
Author : JamesM
Date : 12th November 2005 07:28 AM

Ok, so it turns out that Sternberg (poor little victim of all those nasty scientists) is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ... along with Behe, Dembski and others whose names you will probably recognise.

what is the ISCID? Does it have an avowedly anti-evolutionary or pro-ID agenda?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 516]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 12th November 2005 07:55 AM

what is the ISCID? Does it have an avowedly anti-evolutionary or pro-ID agenda?Take a look at the website that delphi_ote linked.  Fascinating.  Very carefully does not mention anything that would allow one to pin them down in such a category...until you look at the Journal.  Then it is crystal clear--this is an intelligent-design group.  Not only are the usual suspects there, writing the usual things, but lesser players are contributing additional ID materials.  

So even though their stated purpose is to provide "a forum for free and uncensored inquiry into complex systems", their de facto purpose is to provide a forum for Intelligent Design.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 517]
Author : JamesM
Date : 12th November 2005 08:42 AM

look at the Journal.  Then it is crystal clear--this is an intelligent-design group.

Wow, you're right. I hadn't looked at the journals.

I just noticed Henry Schaefer's name on the list of ISCID fellows. And he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute, too. He is a very very big noise indeed in quantum chemistry. I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 518]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 12th November 2005 09:58 AM

I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

He's definitely a Jesus freak:
http://leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html

And this leaves me wondering...

Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?
Henry F. Schaefer III
Table of Contents
...

5.          Climbing Mount Improbable: Evolutionary Science or Wishful Thinking? .................................77 
...

http://apollostrust.com/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 519]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 12th November 2005 11:25 AM

So even though their stated purpose is to provide "a forum for free and uncensored inquiry into complex systems", their de facto purpose is to provide a forum for Intelligent Design.  And by "free and uncensored", they mean "will tolerate whatever pro-ID arguments are put there and otherwise ignore modern biology".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 520]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 12th November 2005 03:14 PM

Brilliant!

You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks!  We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.I hope the judge has read Pat Robertson (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/robertson_evolution)'s remarks on the subject. I should think they'd help him make his mind up.

My little playlet continues...

Act II

Enter Pat Robertson.

PR: We're GREEKS, I tell you, GREEKS! We like retsina, sodomy, and right angled triangles!

[Sings]: 

Se gnoriso apo tin kopsi,
Tou spathiou tin tromeri, 
Se gnoriso apo tin opsi, 
Pou me via metra tin yi. 
Ap' ta kokala vialmeni, 
Ton Ellinon ta iera,
Ke san prota andriomeni,
Haire, o haire, Eleftheria!

I AM SO F***ING GREEK THAT IF YOU LOOK UNDER "GREEK" IN THE DICTIONARY THEY HAVE A PICTURE OF ME TALKING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY AND BUGGERING A SLAVE BOY! Oh, and Zeus will use his magical powers to smite everyone who rejects our gift of a wooden horse.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 521]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 12th November 2005 05:40 PM

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city. -Pat Robertson

That's okay.  They'll know the disaster is coming because of science, they'll know how to react because of science, and they'll know how to recover because of science.  They might even be able to prevent the disaster because of science.

When a disaster is in your area, turn to rational thought. It's much more productive than bloviating about your angry imaginary friend.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 522]
Author : Ed
Date : 12th November 2005 08:26 PM

bloviating 

:)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 523]
Author : HeyLeroy
Date : 13th November 2005 01:47 PM

I SO wish I still had a copy of National Lampoon magazine from about twenty years ago.  They published a cartoon that depicted a circle of what appeared to be lizards, standing in a tight huddle on a beach.  One of the lizards was glaring suspiciously over his shoulders into the treeline.  The caption was "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution".  

Grr, I wish I still had it!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 524]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 13th November 2005 10:21 PM

If you guys aren't regular Panda's Thumb readers, you're missing the laugh of a lifetime:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/dembski_finds_t.html

Demsbski making a complete fool of himself.  It's a riot!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 525]
Author : CFLarsen
Date : 14th November 2005 12:17 AM

He may be advocating "Intelligent Design", but he could use a bit of "smart" himself....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 526]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 14th November 2005 06:22 AM

Great link! Thanks, Delphi.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 527]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 14th November 2005 10:43 AM

If you guys aren't regular Panda's Thumb readers, you're missing the laugh of a lifetime:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/dembski_finds_t.html

Demsbski making a complete fool of himself.  It's a riot!
That is sooooooooooooooo utterly sad. Only the fact that so many are falling for his tripe makes its sadness pale in comparison.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 528]
Author : drkitten
Date : 14th November 2005 10:51 AM

The final sessions transcripts are now available at aclupa.blogspot (see OP for details of web address).  These include the closing argument for the defense.

It's every bit as shallow and stupid as one might have hoped/feared.  Classic use of the "evolution is a mere theory, not a fact" lie,  lots of "well, the board members did this, but you can't infer the the board's intentions from what the individual members did,"  "documents are irrelevant because actions speak louder than words,"  and the classic quote

"How can adding books to the school library be a bad thing?  It is not."

as though that were the only issue in the case.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 529]
Author : Diamond
Date : 14th November 2005 01:27 PM

....and the classic quote

"How can adding books to the school library be a bad thing?  It is not."

as though that were the only issue in the case.

OK, I'll add:

The Koran
Justine
Ulysses
Mein Kampf
The Woman's Guide to Anal Sex

How can this possibly be a bad thing?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 530]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 14th November 2005 06:01 PM

Mein Kampf"There are two theories about the existence of a Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy, and teaching both will improve students' critical thinking abilities and make the study of history more interesting for them. HEIL HITLER! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! DEUTSCHLAND DEUTSCHLAND UBER A-ALLES... oops, I just 'mispoke'. Obviously despite these few words quoted out of context, the Big Evil Jewish Conspiracy Theory is in no way Nazi or anti-semitic... whew... I think I got away with that one."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 531]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 14th November 2005 06:06 PM

How can this possibly be a bad thing?

As long as you make sure to explicitly endorse the material contained in these books in class I see no problem with your idea.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 532]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 14th November 2005 06:06 PM

I'm suing the Adequate County School Board just so I can hear Dr. Adequate testify about the scientific nature of the Intelligent Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy Theory.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 533]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 14th November 2005 07:45 PM

Oops. Did I say "Jews"? How last year of me. I misspoke again. I should have said "Intelligent Cosmopolitans". This theory of course has nothing to do with Jews whatsoever.

It may be my personal belief that the Intelligent Cosmopolitans behind history, economics, and culture are Jews, but my strictly scientific hypothesis is that these things all have a designer IT'S THE JEWS, MEIN FUEHRER, DIE JUDEN, JA! JA! ... excuse me... [wrenches right arm down in a Dr Strangelove kind of way] but this scientific hypothesis of the "Intelligent Cosmopolitans" does not mention any particular race. It could even be space aliens I'M TAKING ABOUT JEWS DAMMIT... ooos, misspoke again. Yes, aliens! Evil, miscengenating HOOK-NOSED ALIENS... oops, I'm off again.
___________________________________

(Note: "Cosmopolitans" is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews" when they want their intended audience, but not the casual observer, to know that they're being anti-semitic.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 534]
Author : rjh01
Date : 15th November 2005 12:00 AM

I see no problems with putting the ID book in the fiction section of the library.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 535]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 15th November 2005 06:09 AM

I note that the acronym for Intelligent Cosmopolitans is IC. Veeeerrry interesting.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 536]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 15th November 2005 06:50 AM

(Note: "Cosmopolitans" is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews" when they want their intended audience, but not the casual observer, to know that they're being anti-semitic.)  Ironic, considering that 'cosmopolitan' means "one whose allegiance is not given to any particular city-state, but is a citizen of the universe".  It hasn't been an accurate codeword since the formation of Israel.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 537]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 15th November 2005 07:13 AM

As long as you make sure to explicitly endorse the material contained in these books in class I see no problem with your idea.
Delphi? Did you really miss Diamond's irony? I can't believe that. It was meant to be fed back to (read: shoved back down the throats of) those making the original comment, and it was meant to be clearly unacceptable in their eyes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 538]
Author : hammegk
Date : 15th November 2005 07:25 AM

Hmmm. Did someone miss the irony of delphi_ote's response?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 539]
Author : drkitten
Date : 15th November 2005 07:46 AM

Ironic, considering that 'cosmopolitan' means "one whose allegiance is not given to any particular city-state, but is a citizen of the universe".  It hasn't been an accurate codeword since the formation of Israel.

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?  

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 540]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 15th November 2005 08:06 AM

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?  

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate.  But this codeword is being applied to Jews who do give their allegiance to Israel.  Thus the inaccuracy.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 541]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 15th November 2005 08:10 AM

Delphi? Did you really miss Diamond's irony? I can't believe that. It was meant to be fed back to (read: shoved back down the throats of) those making the original comment, and it was meant to be clearly unacceptable in their eyes.

Let's treat the books exactly like Pandas and People and take time out of the day to give the students the impression that the contents of these books is an adequate substitute for what's being taught in science class.  I'm sure the intelligent design advocates will have no problem with this.

I think it's a great idea.

P.S.  As with my previous post, this post is sarcasm.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 542]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 15th November 2005 08:30 AM

P.S.  As with my previous post, this post is sarcasm.Are you being serious?  Surely, you don't mean that?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 543]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 15th November 2005 08:48 AM

Are you being serious?  Surely, you don't mean that?
Shirley he jests?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 544]
Author : Cleon
Date : 15th November 2005 09:05 AM

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?  

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate.

Yeah, I'll testify to that. :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 545]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 15th November 2005 11:49 AM

How long has Creationism and ID been around? No research worth a damn.

But with Flying Spagetti Monsterism we have serious work going on:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/fasting-breakin.html

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 546]
Author : Eos of the Eons
Date : 15th November 2005 07:19 PM

Something must be done.  I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness.  My son still hates spaghetti!  He wouldn't have a bite!  Any advice?  He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 547]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 15th November 2005 07:38 PM

Shirley he jests?

Come now.  Let's not bring Shirley into this!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 548]
Author : fishbob
Date : 16th November 2005 12:48 AM

Something must be done.  I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness.  My son still hates spaghetti!  He wouldn't have a bite!  Any advice?  He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(The noodle directed scepticism of youth can often be assuaged by cheese.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 549]
Author : Moose
Date : 16th November 2005 06:00 AM

Something must be done. I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness. My son still hates spaghetti! He wouldn't have a bite! Any advice? He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

No worries. Pastafarians aren't gluten-snobs like some religions. It is enough to partake of any sort of pasta dish, from the creamy Fettucini Alfredo, through the educational Alphabet Soup, right down to the ever-humble KD/Mac-and-Cheese for the starving students/artists among the faithful. It is all suitably reverential in the eyes of Him, our most Noodly Creator. 

After all, the sacred offerings of Saint Boyardee come in over fourty varieties worldwide.

It's all good.

rAmen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 550]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 16th November 2005 06:27 AM

His Noodliness is ever munificent. She is pleased with whatever you eat, even if not pastafarious, as long as you merely give a sidelong glance to the sky while chowing down.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 551]
Author : Ed
Date : 16th November 2005 08:20 AM

Something must be done.  I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness.  My son still hates spaghetti!  He wouldn't have a bite!  Any advice?  He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

crucify him crucify him

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 552]
Author : Betenoire
Date : 16th November 2005 08:28 AM

*sings, a la Elmer Fudd* Kill the sinnner, kill the sinner, kill the sinnnner...



If your son doesn't know a question on a test, he shouldn't come crying to His Noodliness, 'cause the FSM might not be there for him.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 553]
Author : Diamond
Date : 16th November 2005 10:13 AM

We haven't had a poll on this and I think the time has come....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 554]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 16th November 2005 10:30 AM

Come now.  Let's not bring Shirley into this!
Agreed, so long as we're talking about Shirley, the Pastafarian.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 555]
Author : pgwenthold
Date : 16th November 2005 12:41 PM

Wow, you're right. I hadn't looked at the journals.

I just noticed Henry Schaefer's name on the list of ISCID fellows. And he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute, too. He is a very very big noise indeed in quantum chemistry. I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

Yeah, he's fine as long as he sticks with computational chemistry.  Other than that, he is out there.

(he started at Berkeley but didn't stay there too long.  Didn't quite fit in...)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 556]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 17th November 2005 01:40 PM

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?  
To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 557]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 17th November 2005 02:08 PM

To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)
Wow! While I don't blame the new board for trying this, the old board still needs to answer for its bull. It is a shame the answer, slapping and fines need to be at the expense of the new board. And, of course, a judicial decision squarely against this garbage would be a wonderful shot over the bow of ID's weenie little paper boat, and I would rather see the caliber about to be shot, then have to wait for round II.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 558]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 17th November 2005 02:49 PM

To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)

You KNOW how the ID community is going to spin this... awful awful awful.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 559]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 17th November 2005 02:53 PM

You KNOW how the ID community is going to spin this... awful awful awful.
Wah! The g-d secular humanists won't let us be heard. We will prevail as soon as we rid 'murica of the pinkos in the closet. Oops, sorry, wrong decade! Rid 'murica of the cults of Satan responsible for secular humanism and its handmaiden, Science. It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'! Am I right, brothers? Can I get a witness?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 560]
Author : Hellbound
Date : 17th November 2005 02:57 PM

Am I right, brothers? Can I get a witness?

Judging from this trial, yes, but not a good one.

:D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 561]
Author : Mojo
Date : 17th November 2005 05:40 PM

It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'! And they both end in an "n" as well.  If you assume that all words end after five letters.  It is a sign, brothers!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 562]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 17th November 2005 07:04 PM

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper.  Today's editorial cartoon?


http://www.cagle.com/working/051110/dickwright.gif


So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 563]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 17th November 2005 07:19 PM

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?  Write in and complain.  Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance.  It's the perfect setup, after all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 564]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 17th November 2005 07:25 PM

Write in and complain.  Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance.  It's the perfect setup, after all.I've already been looking online to do so.  Looks like I actually have to put pen to parchment, though...but thanks for the Dawkins tip--I had gone a completely different direction.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 565]
Author : hellaeon
Date : 17th November 2005 07:42 PM

These zealots sicken me. This is just ignorance. that link about the discovery institute makes me VERY angry. All the valid arguement goes out the window in the end and the final say is because of their belief. Belief based on assumptions. I do not like religions.

Welcome to the dark ages.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 566]
Author : teacher
Date : 17th November 2005 08:53 PM
Thread Title : ID/Evolution/Big bang

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 567]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 17th November 2005 08:57 PM

The one I tend to think is easiest is the "always there" for matter. Of course, the closer you get to t=0, the weirder t gets. As I understand it, the idea of creation ex nihilo having a place in science is a creation ex nihilo by religion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 568]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 17th November 2005 09:01 PM

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:
Very Very quick response...the beginnings of the universe are not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

The formation of Stars & origin of heavy elements...is not something that is covered by natural selection.

The Origin of Life is not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term...

Teacher...each of these areas has scientific hypotheses attempting to explain them.  They may be strongly supported, they may not.  What they absolutely are not, is relevant whatsoever to Evolution by Natural Selection.

I don't know whether I addressed your question, but I thank you for letting me vent just a little bit more about mine...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 569]
Author : teacher
Date : 17th November 2005 09:03 PM

Many thanks Bronzedog, that would make sense. Hope to join in a lot in future threads on various topics, and you seem to be a regular (2164 posts). Have some particular favourite topics, e.g. healing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 570]
Author : teacher
Date : 17th November 2005 09:10 PM

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 571]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 17th November 2005 09:20 PM

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959.  Mostly limericks, I assure you.
To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God.  "Explains"?  I think "I don't know" is the best that we have, although there are some promising possibilities.  The possibilities are, IMO, plausible enough that the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of some supernatural force, but that is just my (correct) opinion.
Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.I (and most probably, "we") would love to hear your story!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 572]
Author : Spidey13
Date : 17th November 2005 09:23 PM

Mostly limericks, I assure you.

Not lately, buddy.  Get your butt over to that thread!  It's been dead lately.

OK, you can get back on topic now.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 573]
Author : teacher
Date : 17th November 2005 09:28 PM

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 574]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 17th November 2005 09:50 PM

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion.










But I digress.

Another trippy thing I suddenly remembered hearing: Creation ex nihilo might be possible scientifically, after all: When you add it all up, the universe is nothing: All the forces and such cancel each other out. So, even starting with nothing, the universe still obeys conservation. Of course, I don't know if that's really true, or just one of those things some people randomly think up.



All this time and cosmology stuff makes my head hurt. (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Archive/Jun04.php?date=19)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 575]
Author : Kiless
Date : 17th November 2005 10:52 PM

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?
 
It's 1.44 in the afternoon here (and a slow day), so I'll see if I can help.
 
a) Also interested in your story - perhaps the Forum Community one or even this one on how you came to be so many things! :)
b) The search function up the top is useful, although the 
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/forumdisplay.php?f=5) forum area is good too as a start.
As for other theists, there's quite a nice bunch around here... I'm certain if you started up a) you'll find some reply to you. :) Otherwise I'll prod them with a stick or something, being a teacher myself and all. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 576]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 17th November 2005 10:54 PM

b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing? Hi, welcome.

As far as "healing" goes, that word covers a lot of things. Are we talking crystals? homeopathy? magnetic insoles?

Lots of things are called "healing" by their practitioners.Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site? There are various theists and deists who post here: for example, I believe that a couple of the heros of the Homeopathy Wars have faith.

"Skeptics" is a loose term. I think that the mood of the forums is much more pro-science than anti-religion: and so as long as people find science to be compatible with religion, they're on my side.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 577]
Author : Kiless
Date : 17th November 2005 10:54 PM

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion
 
I just didn't want my compliment of your lovely avatar to detract attention from my birthday present to you, a large iron coathanger. :) It's currently strung over the Sydney Harbour, let me know when you're coming to collect it! :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 578]
Author : chran
Date : 18th November 2005 05:52 AM

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?No, it's just funny! :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 579]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 06:20 AM

Merc, don't forget to mention that the "complete void in space" has nothing to do with how we think our universe happened. So the artist must be talking about a different universe. Perhaps in that universe Swatches do evolve.

Hi, I'm an idiot. I have no idea about any of this stuff, so I think I'll draw a cartoon illustrating my ignorance. Then we can all laugh at ... evolution!

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 580]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 06:51 AM

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.  Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 581]
Author : hammegk
Date : 18th November 2005 07:06 AM

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. 
I'm amazed! We agree on something. :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 582]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 18th November 2005 07:20 AM

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.  Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
What definition of natural selection are you using?  Certainly not any that I am familiar with.  Darwin's summary is:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

So...I don't see how this can possibly apply to the beginnings of the universe, the formation of stars, metals, etc., or even to abiogenesis.  Only after these things have happened can we possibly have the IF conditions which define natural selection.

I look forward to your explanation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 583]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 18th November 2005 07:21 AM

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.  How so?  Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 584]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 07:21 AM

I'm amazed! We agree on something.
I agree, too! It's a giant love-fest!

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 585]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 07:23 AM

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material. As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.

I wouldn't use the term natural selection for this, just because it causes confusion with a term that already has the world confused. But it's something similar to selection. I'd also avoid using the term evolution in other contexts.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 586]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 18th November 2005 07:43 AM

But it's something similar to selection.I have to disagree.  The formation of a new star based on the material of old star is not dependant upon the old star's ability to survive in its environment.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 587]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 08:24 AM

How so?  Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.  No, it doesn't.  Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 588]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 08:27 AM

As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.  That's not really a good example.

A better one would be osmosis.  Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert.  Or a sand-sifter.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 589]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 18th November 2005 08:29 AM

A better one would be osmosis.  Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert.  Or a sand-sifter.How in the world are those examples of natural selection?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 590]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 18th November 2005 08:35 AM

No, it doesn't.  Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.
So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 591]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 18th November 2005 09:00 AM

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

Who cares what he had to say about evolution?  It's not like he wrote the book on the subject.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 592]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 18th November 2005 09:05 AM

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.
Or anyone else's, for that matter, since it completely leaves out the mechanism in natural selection that interrupts "the persistance of arrangements".

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 593]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 09:41 AM

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.

 Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?
In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 594]
Author : petre
Date : 18th November 2005 10:05 AM

What I noted was the very first sentence of the cartoon:

Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space.

I'm not aware of any currently supported theory that includes this.  Any that I have heard of make it quite clear that time, space, and matter are all related.  Time could not exist without the other two, therefore there was no time before the existance of matter.

It's just bad form to begin any point with a faulty model of the opposing view.  I believe there's a word for that, starts with a straw- and ends with a -man :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 595]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 10:13 AM

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.


In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context.  Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.  

Living organisms persist only if they can continue to accrue energy.  The original competition was in who could actually reproduce, and at that time the only energy was in other organic molecules.  The original was chemical evolution by sustained reaction.  The more molecules that accrued, the more chance of persisting; rather the antithesis of rocks being beaten down.  It would be as if rough rocks had a better chance of washing downstream; you would end up with more rough rocks than not in a given environment.  The rounding is not a selection pressure; the differential is.  

Now, this is not to say sedimentation is evolution; it represents a selection pressure.  A sieve in sand is similar in this regard, as there are some grains that get past while some do not. But this is only part of the equation; it is selection pressure, it is not evolution.  Evolution comes about when there is more than one molecule vying for available energy as a means of survival.  The larger ones persist, then the ones that can fold so they are harder to break apart, then the ones of those that can more efficiently fold and unfold with temperature changes to both guard and assemble more energy.  Eventually, some have folding sequences that curve and actually cover other sequences during vulnerable times, or that form a ribozyme that clips at other sequences (the first predator).  

From there it is steps along the way, with selection pressure being the gate, but mutation and reproduction being the driving force to create a new generation.  Without change, a new selection pressure could cause an end to this process.  Without reproduction, the process stops.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 596]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 10:16 AM

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper.  Today's editorial cartoon?


http://www.cagle.com/working/051110/dickwright.gif


So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?
They left out the last line: "That one REALLY shows my total ignorance!"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 597]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 10:49 AM

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.
Well, the ones that can't see above themselves are beaten down by falling rocks, right? Yes, I understand that "selection pressure" does not mean physical pressure.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 598]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 11:10 AM

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.  (raises eyebrow)  Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms.  Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 599]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 18th November 2005 12:40 PM

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.I know you've already given what you think are examples of this, but could you please expain how these are examples?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 600]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 12:58 PM

I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 601]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 01:05 PM

Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert.  Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes.  Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing.  Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa.  Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

You really shouldn't need me to explain how a sand-sifter is an example of selection.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 602]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 01:51 PM

I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul

No, because this is just establishing that some in a population encounter situation x, and some do not.  If you said solar radiation put more momentum on low metal dust than high metal dust, that is selection pressure because it serves to winnow a population, essentially sorting it by properties.  Where water lands is random chance, and is not selection pressure.  It is going to either flow or evaporate; that's not material to selection at all.

It is winnowing and sorting by the properties of the subject that is selection pressure.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 603]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 01:54 PM

Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes.  Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing.  Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa.  Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

You really shouldn't need me to explain how a sand-sifter is an example of selection.
First, your instance above is an example of a distribution, not a selection.  It establishes properties within a population, but does not serve to select some based on those properties above others. 

A sand sifter is an example of selection pressure.  The particles larger than the size of the opening in the sifter pass through, others do not.  It is selection pressure for those grains and particles below a certain size, and one has effectively sorted the group based on a property of the group.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 604]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 02:32 PM

It is winnowing and sorting by the properties of the subject that is selection pressure.
And the location of an object is not one of its properties? Location has a lot to do with biological natural selection. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, location may make all the difference to survival.

I agree that it is more interesting to consider selection based on intrinsic properties that are "carried with the object." But I'm not sure why the term need be restricted to that situation.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 605]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 03:51 PM

And the location of an object is not one of its properties? Location has a lot to do with biological natural selection. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, location may make all the difference to survival.
 
I agree that it is more interesting to consider selection based on intrinsic properties that are "carried with the object." But I'm not sure why the term need be restricted to that situation.
 
~~ Paul
 
You've been talking about selection pressure, yes? First, let's suppose you have two populations with distribution like so that describes population (vertical bar) and a property (horizontal bar). 
 


Population 1
|    _
|   / \ 
|__/   \__
 
Population 2
|    _
|   / \ 
|__/   \__

 
Population one will experience a disaster, population two will experience selection pressure based on the property. Both currently are bell-curve distributions in this ideal scenario. Now, let's look at the graphs after the disaster and selection pressure based on the property. 
 

Population 1
|    _
|   / \ 
|__/   \__
Population 2
| 
|_/\______
 
Note something? Population one is now just a sub-set of the previous population. While total numbers have changed, the distribution of properties (other than location ) has not. Population two, however, has experienced a population change based on prevalence of the property determining which of the population was removed and which remained. 
 
To represent selection pressure it needs to be a factor that by its nature is represented in the objects, or else one is simply dealing with an indeterminate population - there is nothing to select for or against. It is completely random. Location alone is not enough. A property of the object that determines location would be, because after the event one population would be reduced, and the distribution would no longer be uniform or return to a uniform equilibrium.

With location-only, it is binary: either the population dies, or it does not.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 606]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 05:13 PM

To represent selection pressure it needs to be a factor that by its nature is represented in the objects, or else one is simply dealing with an indeterminate population - there is nothing to select for or against. It is completely random. Location alone is not enough. A property of the object that determines location would be, because after the event one population would be reduced, and the distribution would no longer be uniform or return to a uniform equilibrium.
Okay, I'm happy to go with this. We won't consider an accidental attribute of objects to be something that is subject to selection pressure. However, this means that when we speak of the processes behind evolution, we have to list mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, ..., and the luck of location.

Note something? Population one is now just a sub-set of the previous population. While total numbers have changed, the distribution of properties (other than location ) has not. Population two, however, has experienced a population change based on prevalence of the property determining which of the population was removed and which remained.
-
...
With location-only, it is binary: either the population dies, or it does not.
Population 1 might not just become a simple subset, but two disjoint subsets 1a and 1b. By choice, but also possibly by luck, the distribution of properties might not be uniform between the two subsets. Imagine, for example, that the mating practices of the creatures are such that the two populations end up each with one primary founder. Then the gene pools can go their separate ways. Would we not call this selection?

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 607]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 18th November 2005 06:23 PM

Nope, never mind, I'm full of crap. Natural selection is defined to operate on heritable differences between individuals. I should not use the term for anything else, and if I want to talk about selection in a nonbiological context, I'd better be careful with my terminology.

Thanks for the kick in the butt, Pat.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Hold on! It appears that the definition of genetic drift covers accidents of location. So I was, like, double extra wrong.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 608]
Author : hammegk
Date : 18th November 2005 07:20 PM

I'd posit that the selection pressure that controls evolution from Big Bang to now are only the laws of physics. The quark-gluon plasma condensed as only it could have done, elements formed under the same strictures, stars formed subject to cosmological 'evolution' resulting in heavy elements, chemistry follows the plan, and on to us today. In this universe, why is any outcome other than intelligence possible? That is selection pressure in the grand view.

We could go on and on; galactic location, sunsize & type, planets & orbits needed, we know water based life appears (once for sure), etc. 

This still does not address why the subtle changes we all agree are micro-ev seemingly undergo the drastic & rapid changes to provide new (macro-ev) species.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 609]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 18th November 2005 07:40 PM

I'd posit that the selection pressure that controls evolution from Big Bang to now are only the laws of physics. The quark-gluon plasma condensed as only it could have done, elements formed under the same strictures, stars formed subject to cosmological 'evolution' resulting in heavy elements, chemistry follows the plan, and on to us today. In this universe, why is any outcome other than intelligence possible? That is selection pressure in the grand view.

We could go on and on; galactic location, sunsize & type, planets & orbits needed, we know water based life appears (once for sure), etc. 

This still does not address why the subtle changes we all agree are micro-ev seemingly undergo the drastic & rapid changes to provide new (macro-ev) species.

Your contention here seems to be that the laws of physics do not allow for drastic and rapid change.  I see that quite often in nature, actually.

Your argument against a version of evolution you've created yourself doesn't even work, and that's just downright sad.  If you can't win at a game where you make the rules as you go along, how can you ever hope to win a real contest?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 610]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 18th November 2005 08:19 PM

(raises eyebrow)  Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms.  Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.
Mmmmmkay...but those other ways do not come under the definition of the term "natural selection".  It may well be that selection of some sort is happening naturally...but the term "natural selection" is narrowly defined, and does not include these others.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 611]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 10:26 PM

Mmmmmkay...but those other ways do not come under the definition of the term "natural selection".  It may well be that selection of some sort is happening naturally...but the term "natural selection" is narrowly defined, and does not include these others.  So what would you call these selections made by nature?  Non-artificial selection?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 612]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 18th November 2005 10:27 PM

First, your instance above is an example of a distribution, not a selection.  There is a change in the distribution because of the selection pressures.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 613]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 18th November 2005 11:59 PM

There is a change in the distribution because of the selection pressures.
But there is no selection pressure defined in this example. No properties of the population are distinguished as being selected; it's a description of what happens to the entire population.  A population as a whole has a rate of death.  This is not a selection pressure; it is an observation of the entire population, and does not refer to any sub-set or other properties.  It is not representative of selection pressure because, like the disaster example. it does not establish some property in the population that is selected for or against; it is a description of the population as a whole changing over time.  Rocks get rounder.  People die.  Objects fall.  These are not examples of selection pressure.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 614]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 19th November 2005 12:03 AM

Nope, never mind, I'm full of crap. Natural selection is defined to operate on heritable differences between individuals. I should not use the term for anything else, and if I want to talk about selection in a nonbiological context, I'd better be careful with my terminology.

Thanks for the kick in the butt, Pat.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Hold on! It appears that the definition of genetic drift covers accidents of location. So I was, like, double extra wrong.
For the record, I never meant to imply anyone was full of anything, and I'd like to say these conversations helped me to get clear the concept in my own mind, and how it could be applied in a nonbiological situation.  So, thanks in general :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 615]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 19th November 2005 05:54 AM

For the record, I never meant to imply anyone was full of anything, and I'd like to say these conversations helped me to get clear the concept in my own mind, and how it could be applied in a nonbiological situation. So, thanks in general.
I did not take your statements as a commentary on my crapological status. Nevertheless, I was misusing terminology and now I, too, am clear. Not in the Scientological sense, of course. :D

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 616]
Author : hammegk
Date : 19th November 2005 06:35 AM

Your contention here seems to be that the laws of physics do not allow for drastic and rapid change.  I see that quite often in nature, actually.
Now if you just understood what you read. From the Big Bang through all cosmology - novas, supernovas, black holes; planet formation, geology, weather - through and including The Theory itself all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.

The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists.


Your argument against a version of evolution you've created yourself doesn't even work, and that's just downright sad.  
Got some data to back up that wrong assertion?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 617]
Author : Upchurch
Date : 19th November 2005 08:10 AM

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)

But Cashman alleged the night of the race that one of the machines at Friendship Community Church in Dover Township appeared faulty. And since Cashman lost by 99 votes - 2,526 votes to Rehm's 2,625 - that one machine could theoretically have made a difference in the race.

County solicitor Mike Flannelly said that he and county elections commissioner John Scott met with Cashman, Rehm and the two men's lawyers.

Flannelly said that the county has not opened the voting machine to check for a malfunction and that it has no intention of doing so unless instructed to by court order. While the county has not officially acknowledged any malfunction, Flannelly said, he's willing to acknowledge that one appears likely.

That's because the voting machine registered somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 votes for all of the other candidates, but only one for Cashman.
Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes.  There are still more against than for it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 618]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 19th November 2005 08:23 AM

But there is no selection pressure defined in this example. No properties of the population are distinguished as being selected; it's a description of what happens to the entire population.  It's the states that are being selected, not the rocks themselves.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 619]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 08:36 AM

Now if you just understood what you read. From the Big Bang through all cosmology - novas, supernovas, black holes; planet formation, geology, weather - through and including The Theory itself all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.Since you don't have a definition for "micro-ev vs. macro-ev", "significant event", or "catastrophic", this statement is entirely meaningless.
 
You could easily and reasonably argue that life itself was the significant, catastrophic event, and everything that followed was just a natural consequence of that singular event. Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 620]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 08:47 AM

You could also argue that there have been catastrophic events such as viral epidemics or large heavenly bodies striking the Earth which have at times accelerated the pace of transitions through forms and led to "significant" or "drastic and rapid" change.
 
Your argument has a real definition problem.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 621]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 19th November 2005 08:59 AM

It's the states that are being selected, not the rocks themselves. Okay, so let's take a look at the example and what states exist. 
Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness. 
I'll start with the population diagram again, with population as the x-axis and roundness as the y. 
We'll start with a population of rough rocks. 


|   _
|  / \
|_/   \__
|________

 Now, we expose them to river water wear and tear.


|    _
|   / \
|__/   \_
|________


Versus having a person walking along the river select for round rocks
 
 
|    
|     _ 
|____/ \_
|________

 
Because we've not really selected for anything in the first diagram, all we've done is shift the population as a whole.  There is no selection pressure winnowing the population based on an attribute, but rather a shift of all of the population one direction.  This differs from selection pressure in that there is no population reduction.  The states are not being selected independant of the objects, as if states are selected there is no population.  It is the population of physical objects in those states which determines what your population is, oddly enough.  Without a population, one has a pressure with no subject to be selected.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 622]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 19th November 2005 09:01 AM

The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists.

Care to point me to a place where a scientist has said that?  You seem to enjoy inventing your opponent.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 623]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 19th November 2005 09:05 AM

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)


Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes.  There are still more against than for it.
Now, one vote for Cashman and ninety for all of the others... well, I'd say that's either selection pressure or God's will...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 624]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 19th November 2005 09:09 AM

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)


Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes.  There are still more against than for it.

Clearly the satanists rigged the machine.  Only through Pat Robertson's appeals to the almighty God was the deception revealed.  Praise Jesus!

Think that'll be on the 700 Club next week?

By the way, why is it we can't get elections right in this bastion of democracy?  Seems like we should get the whole counting thing down ourselves before we try exporting our democracy.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 625]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 19th November 2005 09:11 AM

Clearly the satanists rigged the machine.  Only through Pat Robertson's appeals to the almighty God was the deception revealed.  Praise Jesus!

Think that'll be on the 700 Club next week?

By the way, why is it we can't get elections right in this bastion of democracy?  Seems like we should get the whole counting thing down ourselves before we try exporting our democracy.
Home schooling.  I blame home schooling.;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 626]
Author : hammegk
Date : 19th November 2005 10:46 AM

Care to point me to a place where a scientist has said that?  You seem to enjoy inventing your opponent.
Should I now infer that mutation and selection is not 'slow'? What part of The Theory suggests otherwise? Obviously the fossils do.

I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.



Since you don't have a definition for "micro-ev vs. macro-ev", "significant event", or "catastrophic", this statement is entirely meaningless.
To you, apparently. Hopefully a brighter bulb grasps the import and responds to it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 627]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 19th November 2005 10:54 AM

No really, Hammy, it's meaningless. We don't understand what you are saying. We argue incessantly over the meanings of words without making any forward progress.

As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying: Hey! This evolution thing just can't possibly produce whatever it is *I* think exists. Much too complicated. Can't get started. Everyone to get from street!

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 628]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 11:25 AM

Hopefully a brighter bulb grasps the import and responds to it.You mean, hopefully someone agrees with you that you said something important. This dim bulb responded:
 
"You could easily and reasonably argue that life itself was the significant, catastrophic event, and everything that followed was just a natural consequence of that singular event. Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?"
 
"You could also argue that there have been catastrophic events such as viral epidemics or large heavenly bodies striking the Earth which have at times accelerated the pace of transitions through forms and led to 'significant' or 'drastic and rapid' change."
 
Care to correct me, o enlightened one? You can do it here or in that other thread you abandoned after apparently conceding the argument.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 629]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 19th November 2005 12:19 PM

Should I now infer that mutation and selection is not 'slow'? What part of The Theory suggests otherwise? Obviously the fossils do.

Obviously you can infer whatever you damn well please if you're not interested a conversation about evolution.  If you'd like to have an intellectually honest conversation, I challenged an assertion you made.  The burden of proof is on you.  If you want to talk about scientists that "don't allow drastic & rapid change," point one out to me.  You can't start making inferences yet, because nobody knows what you're talking about.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 630]
Author : hammegk
Date : 19th November 2005 12:29 PM

...  You can't start making inferences yet, because nobody knows what you're talking about.
Of course I can, even though I agree with you that nobody here understands what I said. :) 


How about tackling this one: I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.
Or is that meaningless for y'all too? ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 631]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 19th November 2005 12:44 PM

explosive cycles of mutation

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 632]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 01:15 PM

Of course I can, even though I agree with you that nobody here understands what I said.There are at least a couple possible answers to the question "Why doesn't anyone understand me?" 
 
They include:
1. I'm smarter than everyone else.
2. I'm vague and incoherent.
eta: 3. I never answer clarifying questions...at least without generating more vagaries requiring further clarification.
 
Clearly, you believe the correct answer is "1" in your case. So, rather than smugly implying in every other post that we're just too stupid to appreciate the nuggets of wisdom that you keep dropping at our feet, try a different tactic, like spelling out WHAT THE F:)K YOU MEAN in language that can't readily be misinterpreted.
 
All your clever barbs with the winking smileys don't stick if no one knows WHAT THE F:)K YOU MEAN.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 633]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 19th November 2005 01:21 PM

I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.
Yup, that would be meaningless to me. Now, if you'd mentioned quantum mechanics ...

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 634]
Author : hammegk
Date : 19th November 2005 02:26 PM

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?


1. I'm smarter than everyone else.
2. I'm vague and incoherent.
eta: 3. I never answer clarifying questions...at least without generating more vagaries requiring further clarification.

You forgot 4. I have a different set of understandings (and mis-understandings) than someone else does. 

I accept 2: for 3, try asking a real, non-rhetorical question.

1. Nope, and most likely below par in this bunch. :confused: 


Yup, that would be meaningless to me.
Why? It seems straight-forward to me.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 635]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 05:28 PM

for 3, try asking a real, non-rhetorical question.Okay:
 
"Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?"
 
(It wasn't rhetorical the first two times, either.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 636]
Author : hammegk
Date : 19th November 2005 06:08 PM

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 637]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 19th November 2005 07:20 PM

Why? It seems straight-forward to me.
I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 638]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 07:59 PM

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question.My question addresses this:
 
all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.from which I inferred that you consider relatively major ("macro-ev") biological changes "significant events", but not relatively minor ("micro-ev") ones. What makes one "significant" and the other not? 
 
This is key because your assertion was that "all significant events are catastrophic", from which you concluded that "macro-ev", being a significant event, must have a "catastrophic" mechanism (correct me if I'm mistaken, please.)
 
So in addition to the question in bold above, here's another that's not rhetorical, but relies on an answer to the first: What qualifies as "catastrophic" when analyzing the mechanism behind a significant event?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 639]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 19th November 2005 08:26 PM

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question. HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

And you couldn't?

Well you still can't.

So why are you blabbering about concepts you admit you can't define?

We're going to have to split this thread for a third time, aren't we? Because hammy wants his gibberish to have centre stage. Again.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 640]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 19th November 2005 08:40 PM

Because hammy wants his gibberish to have centre stage. Again.I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 641]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 19th November 2005 09:05 PM

So what would you call these selections made by nature?  Non-artificial selection?
I would call them whatever label was appropriate which might vary from case to case.  What I would not do is call them something that sounded right but which has a particular technical definition fitting only one of the phenomena.

In behaviorism, Skinner (perhaps unwisely, perhaps wisely) used some fairly common words in new and technically defined ways, giving us the phrases negative reinforcement and positive punishment, each of which makes perfect sense within the system, but which may sound either oxymoronic or nonsensical in casual conversation.  Indeed, I have seen business textbooks which (quite improperly) switch the two terms, apparently because the author confused something that sounded right with something that had a specific technical definition.

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply.  The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different  uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported.  It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 642]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 20th November 2005 12:04 AM

Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?

Alright.  Now I see where the confusion comes in.  Punctuated equilibrium isn't caused by increased/decreased mutations.  To give a quick rundown of the concept, I'll steal a couple quotes from talkorigins here:

the period of transition between parent species and daughter species is short compared to the period of time a species exists as a distinct form

significant adaptations developed or accentuated in the daughter species can lead to the rapid dispersal and establishment of a daughter species throughout the range of the ancestral species, or into new ranges. The ecological processes of dispersal and succession can occur very quickly compared to evolutionary processes of change.

So how does this relate to "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 643]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 20th November 2005 12:52 AM

I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts. Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.

If hammy wants to blather on about his unique undiscoverable genius, then he can start a thread about it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 644]
Author : hammegk
Date : 20th November 2005 07:50 AM

I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.

~~ Paul

Ask BillHoyt. He made the initial suggestion -- one I agree with in the sense significant and rapid mutation points exist. Cats are not Dogs, critters above the K-T boundary break with those below. We could always discuss the Mid-Cambrian Explosion -- a few million years at most produced phenotypes we still don't understand -- the the actual time involved is unknown. The canid phenotype has been prodded to produce extreme body-types in just a few thousand years.


Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.


HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

And you couldn't?

Well you still can't.
Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"?


Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.
So are my comments. You just don't understand your opponents. :) 


delphi_ote: I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 645]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 20th November 2005 09:27 AM

Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.Just because major change can be produced by gene-splicing, doesn't make such a major, one-time overhaul a requirement for major change. Other catastrophic occurrences are known, too. Mass extinction, anyone?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 646]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th November 2005 11:45 AM

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply.  The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different  uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported.  It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely.  And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned.  "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction.  Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms.  It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 647]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 20th November 2005 11:59 AM

And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned.  "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction.  Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms.  It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.
Again, Darwin's summary of natural selection: 
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

This is the process.  The result of this process is evolution.  Unless you wish to argue that river rocks reproduce and inherit, with variability, characteristics from their progenitors, and that the environment can only support so many rocks...then your example simply do not fit the definition.  

You say that only evolutionary biology uses this term this way.  Can you provide examples of other areas using this technical term in other ways?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 648]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 20th November 2005 12:05 PM

Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"? I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety.So are my comments. But you are just reciting the same tedious nonsense you always recite when we discuss biology. You haven't even tried to make it relevant to the goings-on in Dover, you've just taken another opportunity to bore us with your dreary, hopeless monomania.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 649]
Author : hammegk
Date : 20th November 2005 01:13 PM

I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety. 

And the reproductively isolated varieties mutate & get selected, remaining varietal. Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

My understanding is that at the microbiology level, the action occurs not in groups in isolation but in groups of mixed partners-- the more, the merrier.


I'm not the only monomaniac in these discussions. If you find me boring, try Ignore.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 650]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 20th November 2005 02:28 PM

I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

Do I dare ask what you're talking about and how it relates to punctuated equilibrium or your earlier claim that "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 651]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 20th November 2005 03:25 PM

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.Wrong. It remains an unfalsified theory.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 652]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 20th November 2005 05:33 PM

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.
Funny, it works in all the A-life programs I've heard of... But I suppose if I linked to one, you might redefine "useful". And as for species, you've done an excellent job of rendering your null hypothesis unfalsifiable by rejecting all definitions of "species" we have observed speciation with, and refusing to come up with a definition yourself. I suppose next you'll come up with a psychic prediction that I'm going to die in the future.

You know, I feel like I've learned more about irreducible complexity than Behe and most IDers from playing Armored Core than they have in their entire education. After all, I started out building up my AC to a multiweapon heavyweight, and got it all the way down to an irreducibly complex underweight. Even doing so during all the environmental changes through the series. (Big one for me: Energy and back weapon crisis of AC3: They removed the "Plus Powers" that cut down on booster energy use and the one that allowed bipeds to use back cannons while moving.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 653]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th November 2005 07:30 PM

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

(1) IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
(2) IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
(3) IF there is variability of traits, and
(4) IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive[/i]

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive.  (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 654]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 20th November 2005 07:33 PM

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive.  (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)
Not me, Darwin.  This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 655]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th November 2005 07:41 PM

Not me, Darwin.  This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely.  No, you're not.  For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population.  Voila!  Evolution!

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes.  That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution.  Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

There's really not much else to be said.  I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum.  You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 656]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 20th November 2005 07:50 PM

No, you're not.  For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population.  Voila!  Evolution!
That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before.  My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc.  

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes.  That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution.  Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.
Did you find sources in which things other than reproducing organisms are said to undergo "natural selection"?  A journal where physicists use the term for the process of birth, death, rebirth of stars, for instance, would be enough for me to say I am wrong.  I have only seen the term used as Darwin defined it, except by Creationists.

There's really not much else to be said.  I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum.  You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.  So far, all you have done is assert.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 657]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 20th November 2005 07:54 PM

That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before.  So?  What's your point?  (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)

My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc.  Not necessary.  A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.

I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.  So far, all you have done is assert.  :rolleyes:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 658]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 20th November 2005 07:59 PM

So?  What's your point?  (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)
Asked and answered.  You even quoted it.  Where I use the phrase "my point is..."

  Not necessary.  A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.
Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only mechanism of evolution.  The change in distribution of traits--evolution--does not mean that the process behind it was natural selection.

  :rolleyes:I note that you have thus far declined to produce a source using the term as you do.  That would have been a much more effective comeback than :rolleyes:.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 659]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 20th November 2005 08:22 PM

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition.  You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?

Don't do it yourself!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 660]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 20th November 2005 08:51 PM

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?
 
Don't do it yourself!Delphi, I think you must be having trouble creating your own quantum reality. If your energy field was fully charged you'd be able to see that pebbles evolve.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 661]
Author : c4ts
Date : 20th November 2005 08:54 PM

I'll just pop Magneurol pills until my aura turns so blue I can shoot chakras out of my highly evolved nostrils.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 662]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 12:53 AM

No, you're not.  For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population.  Voila!  Evolution!

If no individuals die, or are removed, and the population only relies upon which reproduces faster, the upper limit of the population supportable by available energy is reached.  Once that limit is hit, either some start to die or there is no population change.  It has to do with replacement by death in animals because with other populations, the populations are relatively static, and the only way to winnow is removal without replacement.  In animals, replacement is also necessary, and explains why populations persist. If traits were not passed generation to generation, the selection pressure would not cause a population change as a new random group would be culled each time.    

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes.  That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution.  Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

Environmental effects on a population are not selection unless part of the population is removed.  Whether it is by competetive disadvantage or no, eventually some has to be replaced or again one reaches a static equilibrium. 

There's really not much else to be said.  I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum.  You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Your argument is incorrect, as has been shown several times.  A blanket effect upon a population without differentiation is not selection.  Death is a process in a population; only when it affects disparately based on traits of the population does it become a selection mechanism.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 663]
Author : Ed
Date : 21st November 2005 06:29 AM

And the reproductively isolated varieties mutate & get selected, remaining varietal. Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

My understanding is that at the microbiology level, the action occurs not in groups in isolation but in groups of mixed partners-- the more, the merrier.


I'm not the only monomaniac in these discussions. If you find me boring, try Ignore.

I am sorta curious.  Do you have a better explanatory model than evolution or are you simply pointing out areas for further research?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 664]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 06:46 AM

If no individuals die, or are removed, and the population only relies upon which reproduces faster, the upper limit of the population supportable by available energy is reached.  You're assuming there is such a limit - true about the real world, but not necessary for the argument.

Environmental effects on a population are not selection unless part of the population is removed.  Whether it is by competetive disadvantage or no, eventually some has to be replaced or again one reaches a static equilibrium.  No one is talking about that - the whole point is that the environmental effects are selective, affecting some trait combinations more than others.  An environmental pressure that acts on a whole population equally obviously will not result in evolution.

Your argument is incorrect, as has been shown several times.  A blanket effect upon a population without differentiation is not selection.  That's not my argument.  You've resorted to building strawmen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 665]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 06:49 AM

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition.  You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?  No, which is why I'm objecting to the improperly limited use advocated in this thread.

'Natural selection' whenever elements of the environment acting upon a population create a differential viability of trait groupings in that population.  The population does not need to be alive, or reproducing; there does not need to be replacement or loss.

Biology only uses the term to refer to living organisms because biology only deals with living organisms.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 666]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 06:54 AM

Asked and answered.  You even quoted it.  Where I use the phrase "my point is..."  That's just a restatement of your position.  It doesn't follow from your objection, which in itself leads to no substantive conclusions.  You objected for the sake of objecting.

Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only mechanism of evolution.  The change in distribution of traits--evolution--does not mean that the process behind it was natural selection.  Sexual selection, for example.  But sexual selection only applies to things that have sex, and anything vulnerable to sexual selection will necessarily also be vulnerable to natural selection.

Natural selection is the most basic cause of evolutionary change.  If you can tell us about an even simpler cause, and then explain why it is not included in the concept of 'natural selection', do so.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 667]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 07:04 AM

Biology only uses the term to refer to living organisms because biology only deals with living organisms.
I keep hoping you will post an example of physicists using the term for stars (or pebbles, for that matter).  I seriously would like to learn that I am using the term too narrowly, that all this time I have been in error.  That would be cool.  But thus far, the only examples I have found have been in Biology, and thus far you have not provided any others.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 668]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 07:09 AM

That's just a restatement of your position.  It doesn't follow from your objection, which in itself leads to no substantive conclusions.  You objected for the sake of objecting.
No.  You suggested eliminating 1 & 2.  My point was that 1 & 2 define natural selection as working on organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors.  Stars do not.  Pebbles do not.  You have removed from Darwin's definition those things which make your examples inappropriate.  Your "improperly limited use" is, in fact, the accepted technical definition; the use which you are advocating, by eliminating parts of the technical definition, is an "improperly broad use".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 669]
Author : hammegk
Date : 21st November 2005 07:33 AM

Do you have a better explanatory model than evolution or are you simply pointing out areas for further research?
I'm in full agreement with the parts of The Theory that are fact based, which include inheritance, mutation, survival and on to the offspring.

I accept that common ancestor has reasonable basis, although the actual number of abiogenesis events needed to represent viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes -- and all rna/dna life -- is unknown. Parallel development vs common ancestor is as yet poorly defined.

Another area of interest is the implication in microbiology, sfaik, that environmental stress 'encourages' mutation, and those mutations are not random but occur at specifically defined locations. Are these hints of Lysenkoism in action, and if so, do similar pressures effect mutation in even the most complex creatures?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 670]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 21st November 2005 07:35 AM

Let's see what we can find out about natural selection in fields other than biology.

Neither of my physics dictionaries mention it.

Lee Smolin gave a keynote address at the international meeting on genetic algorithms in 1999 titled "Natural selection in physics and cosmology." Here's a bit about it:

http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/many_worlds/default.asp

And he wrote a book, The Life of the Cosmos, which talks about universe reproduction and selection via black holes:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195126645/002-9670325-1999231?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Googling "natural selection in cosmology" brings up a few hits.


~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 671]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 07:57 AM

Let's see what we can find out about natural selection in fields other than biology.

Neither of my physics dictionaries mention it.

Lee Smolin gave a keynote address at the international meeting on genetic algorithms in 1999 titled "Natural selection in physics and cosmology." Here's a bit about it:

http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/many_worlds/default.asp

And he wrote a book, The Life of the Cosmos, which talks about universe reproduction and selection via black holes:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195126645/002-9670325-1999231?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Googling "natural selection in cosmology" brings up a few hits.


~~ Paul
From your first link:
Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist who has made significant contributions to the search for a quantum theory of gravity. A professor of physics at the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University, he is one of a small number of scientists actively seeking to reconcile - or "unify" - general relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity, and quantum mechanics, the prevailing theory of matter and motion developed in the 1920s. Among his most fruitful ideas is the loop formation of quantum gravity, which he developed with Carlo Rovelli and other physicists. It led to the prediction that space has a certain discrete or atomic structure at very small distances. He also has worked on cosmology and, in particular, proposed a hypothesis called "cosmological natural selection," in which Darwinian principles of evolution are applied to the universe, providing a possible explanation for some of the properties of the elementary particles and forces. His conjecture is that our universe forms part of an infinite chain of self-reproducing universes whose physical laws evolve through natural processes of self-organization. The black holes created by collapsing stars lead to the creation of new regions of space and time. These events resemble the big bang, and, indeed, the big bang in our past is assumed to be one such event. Dr. Smolin has hypothesized that the daughter worlds that emerge from "dark stars" may differ in small, random ways from their parents. But if, and to the extent, that changes of even the slightest degree affected the production of black holes, evolutionary pressure would favor universes with many of them. I stand partially corrected.  "Cosmological natural selection"...It does, though, sound as if Smolin's hypothesis proceeds from the narrower biological definition of "natural selection", rather than from a broader one which does not include reproduction.  Here, "daughter worlds" and "parents" are specifically hypothesized.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 672]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 21st November 2005 08:25 AM

Smolin's ideas bring us to a question about selection pressure. There really isn't any pressure in his analogy to natural selection, in the sense that black hole-sparse universes would be killed before they can reproduce, because there is no environment in which the universes reside. Rather, it is simply the case that universes with many black holes will reproduce at a greater rate. 

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 673]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 08:31 AM

I keep hoping you will post an example of physicists using the term for stars (or pebbles, for that matter).  I seriously would like to learn that I am using the term too narrowly, that all this time I have been in error.  That would be cool.  But thus far, the only examples I have found have been in Biology, and thus far you have not provided any others.  Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life?  Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader.  Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.

You don't understand your own arguments.  Points 1 and 2 did not define natural selection as applying to reproducing organisms.  They were just statements of how natural selection applies to reproducing organisms.  As I've pointed out several times before, the conclusion of that argument follows even when those assumptions are eliminated.

One final note:  quit it with the appeals to authority.  Creationists are the ones who argue that because modern biology doesn't use the exact same concepts in the exact same way that Darwin did, Darwinian evolution has been rejected.  If you're not willing to apply reason to the perfectly acceptable English words and derive valid conclusions from them, don't bother replying.  Natural selection can operate on reproducing organisms in more ways than it can on static populations, but it's still natural selection.  If natural selection cannot be applied to a population, no other forms of selection can either - NS is the broadest and most inclusive conceptual form of selection there is.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 674]
Author : Bronze Dog
Date : 21st November 2005 08:33 AM

Another area of interest is the implication in microbiology, sfaik, that environmental stress 'encourages' mutation, and those mutations are not random but occur at specifically defined locations. Are these hints of Lysenkoism in action, and if so, do similar pressures effect mutation in even the most complex creatures?
No, those are fictional. During environmental stress, "good" mutations are just more likely to stick around than they are in stable times, when a species is already doing well. "Bad" mutations are also more likely to be weeded out. The mutation rate is the same. The environment changes, and with it, the selection pressures that act on those mutations.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 675]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 08:55 AM

Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life?  Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader.  Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.
First...why do creationists do this?  Because it is part of a rhetorical divide-and-conquer strategy to attack on several fronts and take advantage of, say, a biologist's ignorance of cosmology and vice versa.  Second, I never limited natural selection to living organisms, merely to reproducing (with heritability) organisms.  I have posted on here (months ago) about a wonderful example of natural selection in teddy bears.  The means of reproduction was human-mediated, but it fit all of the criteria for natural selection.  And your last sentence...unless the non-living substances fit the criteria (reproducing, with inheritable characteristics), then natural selection does not apply until those criteria are met.  

You don't understand your own arguments.  Points 1 and 2 did not define natural selection as applying to reproducing organisms.  They were just statements of how natural selection applies to reproducing organisms.  As I've pointed out several times before, the conclusion of that argument follows even when those assumptions are eliminated.
Right...when you redefine it, it fits more examples.  

One final note:  quit it with the appeals to authority.  Creationists are the ones who argue that because modern biology doesn't use the exact same concepts in the exact same way that Darwin did, Darwinian evolution has been rejected.  If you're not willing to apply reason to the perfectly acceptable English words and derive valid conclusions from them, don't bother replying.  Natural selection can operate on reproducing organisms in more ways than it can on static populations, but it's still natural selection.  If natural selection cannot be applied to a population, no other forms of selection can either - NS is the broadest and most inclusive conceptual form of selection there is.The appeal to authority, in this case, is to legitimate authority, and not fallacious.

My major argument was, and is, that the term "Natural Selection" is used in the literature much more narrowly than you use it in your examples here.  Paul has tried to show other examples.  You seem to be arguing that the way the term is used by the scientific community is wrong, not that the way I use it is different from how the scientific community uses it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 676]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 09:20 AM

Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life?  Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader.  Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.
Sorry, this simply isn't so. Your opening sentence, I'm afraid, implies a subject / motive shift. Who cares why a group says a or not-a; it has nothing to do with whether the truth is a or not-a. Regardless of this fallacy, though, "natural selection" is NOT as broad as you claim. In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades. His "natural selection" today is called "directional selection," and now known to be one of three principle selection modes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 677]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 10:48 AM

Sorry, this simply isn't so. Your opening sentence, I'm afraid, implies a subject / motive shift. Who cares why a group says a or not-a; it has nothing to do with whether the truth is a or not-a. Regardless of this fallacy, though, "natural selection" is NOT as broad as you claim. In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades. His "natural selection" today is called "directional selection," and now known to be one of three principle selection modes. If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 678]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 10:52 AM

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?
In a word, no. I think Melendwyr is simply confusing the terms evolution and natural selection. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms we critters use to change over time (that is, evolve).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 679]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 11:35 AM

You're assuming there is such a limit - true about the real world, but not necessary for the argument.

But it is.  Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection.  A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator. 

  No one is talking about that - the whole point is that the environmental effects are selective, affecting some trait combinations more than others.  An environmental pressure that acts on a whole population equally obviously will not result in evolution.

That is my point.  You spoke of rocks in a streambed.  It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection." 

  That's not my argument.  You've resorted to building strawmen.

You stated that rounding of rocks in a streambed was an example of selection.  That is not a strawman; it is your statement.  If it fits the definition of blanket effect, it does little good to accuse me of building strawmen when you are the holder of the incorrect analogy "bag" as it were.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 680]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 11:48 AM

In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades.  In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'?  Did you even read my previous posts?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 681]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 11:50 AM

But it is.  Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection.  A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator.  Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change.  "Infinity" never enters into it.

That is my point.  You spoke of rocks in a streambed.  It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection."   You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 682]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 11:52 AM

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?  Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement.  Of course they're not.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 683]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 12:03 PM

I must be misunderstanding something you say here...
Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement.  Of course they're not.
Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember?  All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.  

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve".  I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon).  You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve".  So now...the context does call for the word "evolve", your argument was that natural selection does apply, and I asked Hoyt whether his clarification might somehow reconcile your view with mine.  

Of course not.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 684]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 12:10 PM

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember?  All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.  Natural selection is a process.  Evolution is a result.  Asking whether a result is a subset of a group of processes is inane.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve".  I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon).  Of course none of them are Natural Selection!  A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve".  Liar.  Or fool.  I don't know which, and I don't really care.  I never said any such thing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 685]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 12:19 PM

In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'?  Did you even read my previous posts?
"Natural selection" is a term within biology. Its narrowing within biology, therefore, is a narrowing overall. Yes, you've confused terms. Yes, I've read your posts, and stand by everything I've written thus far.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 686]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 12:21 PM

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!
Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 687]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 12:43 PM

Of course none of them are Natural Selection!  A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

Technically, that's genetic drift.  Natural Selection is operating on a current population.  Iterations of that cause a subset of the population to be selected for the next generation.  There is no change, just alteration in proportions of the population.  Genetic drift allows mutations within a population, and is the second contributing factor besides iterative selection pressure or Natural Selection.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 688]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 12:47 PM

Technically, that's genetic drift.  No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection.  Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though:  genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution.  It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 689]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 12:47 PM

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change.  "Infinity" never enters into it.

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well.  One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used.  This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.  

  You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!
You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved.  The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 690]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 12:48 PM

Double-Post.  Sorry. Nothing to see.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 691]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 12:57 PM

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection.  Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though:  genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution.  It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.
Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure.  It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time."  Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 692]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 12:57 PM

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection.  Very different concept.
Mutation pressure is mutation pressure. It is not random drift. It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 693]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 12:59 PM

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure.  It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time."  Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.
Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 694]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 01:00 PM

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well.  One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used.  This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.  Evolution will take place in an expanding population.  Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved.  The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.  You've completely missed the point, fool.  The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 695]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 01:05 PM

Liar.  Or fool.  I don't know which, and I don't really care.  I never said any such thing.
Except on page 15 of this thread.
Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.  Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 696]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 01:06 PM

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.
I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure." 
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation.  In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 697]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 01:11 PM

Evolution will take place in an expanding population.  Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.
There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe.  As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve.  A reduction in the reproduction rate of some cannot be described in an infinite series, as all end up with an infinite number of offspring, and it is difficult to parse infinities as greater or lesser. 

And to clarify: 
infinite
     adj 1: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or
            magnitude;


  You've completely missed the point, fool.  The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.
Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

Change in the entire population shifts the bell-curve.  It does not select against a population, as all individuals are still present.  I have not accomplished selection pressure by crippling the right foreleg of every member of a herd, though over time the distribution of mobility will be shifted towards lameness.  The distribution of lameness has changed; the population has not.

By the way, the jagged rocks in a streambed argument is very much Lamarckian in that it involves somatic organism change representing the population change over time.  It does not, however, eliminate members of a population from contributing to the next iteration of sorting which is the selection pressure mechanism.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 698]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 01:12 PM

It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.  Who said anything about mate selection?  Randomly choosing which organisms will mate will often result in a change in the gene distribution of the resulting population.  No special selective pressures need to exist.

Read the posts, fool.  Then take the time to actually grasp their meaning.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 699]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 21st November 2005 01:19 PM

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe.  As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve.  Not if some members reproduce more than others.  The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 700]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 01:21 PM

Not if some members reproduce more than others.  The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?
Maybe you do not understand "Unlimited."  Absent limits, there are no selection pressures that prevent one organism from contributing to the next generation.  With an unlimited amount of sand to be sorted, have I changed the prevalence of large grains by putting more over here than over there?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 701]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 01:22 PM

Not if some members reproduce more than others.  The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?
I also note you did not address the remainder of my post.  Is this what you were referring to in the second portion of your post?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 702]
Author : rwguinn
Date : 21st November 2005 01:26 PM

Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.
 
and just to throw more confusion into the mix, the round pebbles in a streambed are not "Selected", they are CREATED.
Erosion does tat sort of thing. The pebbles are not positioned by being round. They are round by virtue of their position.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 703]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 01:29 PM

I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure." 
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation.  In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection
I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 704]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 01:34 PM

Who said anything about mate selection?  
You did, and I quoted you back. I've read enough of your nonsense now to conclude you're having fun at JREF expense. I will ignore you from now on. Go find a kiddie site, please; this is for mature people to discuss issues, not for pimply faced adolescents who've broken their video game players and need to find another way to kill time.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 705]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 01:34 PM

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.
Okeydoke.  
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 706]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 01:44 PM

Okeydoke.  
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?
I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 707]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 01:55 PM

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?
No, mercutio, I'm afraid our friend is just blowin' smoke up our collective rear end. When other scientists use the term "evolution" for stars, for example, they mean it in the same way that engineers speak of the "evolution" of the automobile over the past century-plus. That is all. Deliberately twisting the meaning as is being done here, is equivocation at best.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 708]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 21st November 2005 02:15 PM

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.


Okay.  Now I get it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 709]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 21st November 2005 02:17 PM

Okay.  Now I get it.
Kewl. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 710]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 21st November 2005 04:14 PM

Except on page 15 of this thread.

I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit.  I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong.  Wonder when he'll stop digging. :dig:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 711]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 21st November 2005 04:20 PM

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit.  I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong.  Wonder when he'll stop digging. :dig:
Aw, come on.  He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 712]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 21st November 2005 04:40 PM

Aw, come on.  He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Yea, but he's certainly been getting nasty about this argument as the thread has gone on.

Read the posts, fool.
You've completely missed the point, fool.
Liar.  Or fool.  I don't know which, and I don't really care.
You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 713]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 21st November 2005 05:46 PM

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?Ah, yes. Quite remarkable. And in some cases, quite ironic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 714]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 06:45 AM

Almost like his argument is falling apart...  There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying.  We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 715]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 06:54 AM

Except on page 15 of this thread.  I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!):  "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon.  It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 716]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 06:57 AM

You did, and I quoted you back.  Wrong.  You're talking about certain forms of sexual selection.  I'm talking about the random allotment of mating partners, which by itself can lead to a change in the distribution of traits.

It's impossible to argue with people too desperate to score points (or too stupid) to understand the opponent's statements properly.  This explains a lot of the protracted arguments I've seen you get into.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 717]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 07:21 AM

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!):  "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon.  It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.
Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time.  None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically.  This is what you say in your last sentence, and this was my point.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct.  Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.  

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading.  It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection.  Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection.  His examples simply do not apply...your comment notwithstanding.  

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else.  But what you did say...was wrong.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 718]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 07:34 AM

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time.  None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically.  But this is wrong.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct.  Correct.  Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.  No, it's not.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading.  It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection.  Correct.  Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection.  His examples simply do not apply...  Also correct.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else.  But what you did say...was wrong.  No.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 719]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 07:35 AM

But this is wrong.

...because...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 720]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:16 AM

...because...... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes.  It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population.  The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance.  If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 721]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:39 AM

There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying.  We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

"I understand the concept of natural selection."  "Me, too!"

I can see why this might disappoint you.

Reproduction is key in the concept of natural selection.  It only applies to organisms.  The marbles in your bag do not evolve.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 722]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:42 AM

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes.  It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population.  The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Ok...thanks.  I understand your position now.  I am afraid I still disagree with you, and unless I am still misunderstanding you, you are indeed using the term differently than I have ever seen.

Natural selection, as the technically defined phrase, requires a population which reproduces and has heritable characteristics.  (It does not require that they be "alive"--teddy bears and automobiles are subject to natural selection, both using us as their means of reproduction.)  Mother stars do not pass on their fitness to daughter stars (to the best of my knowledge), and (again, to the best of my knowledge) there is no selective advantage passed on to metals, by which we could term them "more reproductively fit".  I understand that you are specifically denying that this is a necessary part of "natural selection"; it will take more than your argument to convince me, though.  (Again, a start would be the use of the term by scientists other than biologists, in your broad sense rather than as a metaphor derived from the biological definition.)

I am heartened to see that your argument does not mean (as I was initially led to believe) that you thought Wright's cartoon used the term "evolved" in the exact same, and proper, sense in each of his uses.  On that, at least, we can agree.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 723]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:46 AM

Reproduction is key in the concept of natural selection.  It only applies to organisms.  The marbles in your bag do not evolve.
It does not apply only to organisms.  It does apply only to things which reproduce.  The process of natural selection can explain the year-to-year evolution of teddy bears (as more fit designs, which sell better, are copied for the next year, and unsuccessful designs go extinct) or automobiles (same process).  

Of course, one could argue that these uses are metaphorical.  Perhaps, but arguably not.  Darwin's summary only requires that the population reproduces and inherits, not that it is alive.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 724]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:46 AM

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes.  It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population.  The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance.  If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.
The marble population will not evolve.  It will experience iterative selection pressure resulting in removal of some traits from the population.  It will evolve if a) the marbles replicate and pass traits on to descendants and b) that replication is subject to mutation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 725]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 09:41 AM

(It does not require that they be "alive"--teddy bears and automobiles are subject to natural selection, both using us as their means of reproduction.)  Neither contain heritable information.  It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like.  Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand.  The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.

Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.

You do agree with me.  You just haven't realized it yet.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 726]
Author : sphenisc
Date : 22nd November 2005 09:59 AM

Is it just me or is just an argument about definitions?

You're all free, along with Humpty Dumpty, to define 'natural selection' anyway you like. If you want to discuss together then I suggest you look up ' The Bumper Book of Biological Words', Wikipedia or whatever other source you can agree on. Otherwise that's it, end of story, there's no point arguing about whose definition's right. :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 727]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 22nd November 2005 10:02 AM

Almost like his argument is falling apart...
Or he's a poseur, or both... That's why I'm ignoring the turkey. His game is fairly apparent to me. I'll leave it to others to determine their individual "fed up" points.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 728]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 22nd November 2005 10:04 AM

Is it just me or is just an argument about definitions?

You're all free, along with Humpty Dumpty, to define 'natural selection' anyway you like. If you want to discuss together then I suggest you look up ' The Bumper Book of Biological Words', Wikipedia or whatever other source you can agree on. Otherwise that's it, end of story, there's no point arguing about whose definition's right. :)
Nonsense. Malarky. There is no communication without definitions. This definition was first created by Darwin, and since amended by other biologists. It is not determined by consenus, vote, or any other idiotic bastardization of democratic principlies.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 729]
Author : sphenisc
Date : 22nd November 2005 10:10 AM

Nonsense. Malarky. There is no communication without definitions. This definition was first created by Darwin, and since amended by other biologists. It is not determined by consenus, vote, or any other idiotic bastardization of democratic principlies.

Yes, I see your point BillHoyt, though it might be more convincing if you didn't make up new words to end posts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 730]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 22nd November 2005 11:47 AM

Neither contain heritable information.  It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like.  Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand.  The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.

Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.

You do agree with me.  You just haven't realized it yet.
Incorrect.  The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation.  It is only subject to selection pressure in the form of expression.  Ergo, recessive genes are not subject to selection pressure if they are not expressed, and so can remain in a population.  The information is there and heritable, but until it is expressed (via a double-recessive) it is not subject to selection pressure. 

The upshot is that it involves expression.  Information which has no bearing (no pun intended) on expression does not experience selection pressure.  The original concept was that a population of physical objects changing over time represented selection pressure. This is false, no matter how it is expressed (pun intended).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 731]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 22nd November 2005 11:52 AM

Incorrect.  The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation.  It is only subject to selection pressure in the form of expression.  Ergo, recessive genes are not subject to selection pressure if they are not expressed, and so can remain in a population.  The information is there and heritable, but until it is expressed (via a double-recessive) it is not subject to selection pressure.
Small correction, Pat: this is true for simple dominance, but not true for incomplete dominance.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 732]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 12:08 PM

Incorrect.  The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation.  The template is not passed from one generation of objects to another.  Again:  it's not the objects that are subject to selection pressure.  A car that is built or bear that is sewn exists, and people do not go around destroying the ones they don't like - or copying ones they do.  People's behavior towards the objects determine the success of the templates - but templates do not reproduce in any conventional sense.  They do not recombine.  They don't mutate.  And people starting new teddy bear or car production lines do not simply copy inherited blueprints.

The original concept was that a population of physical objects changing over time represented selection pressure. This is false, no matter how it is expressed (pun intended).  That IS false.  The argument is not that a population of physical objects changing over time represents selection pressure.  The argument is that the differential viability of the properties of physical objects represents selection pressure.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 733]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 22nd November 2005 12:54 PM

The template is not passed from one generation of objects to another.  Again:  it's not the objects that are subject to selection pressure.  A car that is built or bear that is sewn exists, and people do not go around destroying the ones they don't like - or copying ones they do.  People's behavior towards the objects determine the success of the templates - but templates do not reproduce in any conventional sense.  They do not recombine.  They don't mutate.  And people starting new teddy bear or car production lines do not simply copy inherited blueprints.


I'm not in the auto industry, but correct me if I am wrong in stating I think engine designs from previous years are not discarded?  That popularity drives things like, oh I don't know, a prevalence of SUV designs as gas prices plummeted, and that now that gas prices are high, people are turning away from SUV designs?  Don't cars wear out, too? I'm not currently aware of a car with a lifetime warranty, but again, I may be incorrect. Don't most of them run on gasoline too, after the steam designs didn't quite catch on? 

And with teddy bears, weren't there a slew of copycats of the whole collectable stuffed toy craze came out?  Didn't they stick close to a bear-only model when making color variants?  

I must really have been somewhere else the last ten years.



  That IS false.  The argument is not that a population of physical objects changing over time represents selection pressure.  The argument is that the differential viability of the properties of physical objects represents selection pressure.

So your argument is not for pebbles in a stream.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 734]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 22nd November 2005 12:55 PM

Small correction, Pat: this is true for simple dominance, but not true for incomplete dominance.
Thought of including it, but did not want to confuse the issue.  :)  Best example I can think of is sickle-cell anemia.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 735]
Author : BillHoyt
Date : 22nd November 2005 01:00 PM

Thought of including it, but did not want to confuse the issue.  :)  Best example I can think of is sickle-cell anemia.
I thought that might have been the case. There's always a problem with trying to explain something just enough to get the point across versus failing to cover some of the details. Sickle cell anemia is always the first example that pops into my mind as well. (Also a good example of why seemingly deleterious alleles can be maintained in a population.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 736]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 22nd November 2005 04:52 PM

I'm not in the auto industry, but correct me if I am wrong in stating I think engine designs from previous years are not discarded?  That popularity drives things like, oh I don't know, a prevalence of SUV designs as gas prices plummeted, and that now that gas prices are high, people are turning away from SUV designs?  It says a great deal that you can't recognize a genuine example of Intelligent Design.  (Although whether car manufacturers said be said to be intelligent designs is another matter.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 737]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:32 PM

natural selection n. a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

That's the only definition of that term I've been able to find anywhere (some varations on it, but they all explicitly mention genes or organisms.)  Since this is your claim, please cite an authoratative source (i.e. a textbook, a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or the like) that explicity defines the term in another way.

There may well be some analogy between these two concepts, but that does not mean this technical term applies to both.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 738]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:32 PM

Neither contain heritable information. 
Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not resemble '96 Mustangs more than they resemble '97 Impalas...I know you are not saying that.
 It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like.  Interestingly, the same debate exists in biological organisms--is an organism simply DNA's method of reproducing itself?
 Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand. Recall, the definition does not specify a method of reproduction.  Cars (and teddy bears) are parasitic; they rely on humans for their reproduction.
 The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.I have never actually seen an idea.  I have seen cars and teddy bears.  Their characteristics are selected by consumers.  I have yet to see a child prefer a particular bear's idea over another's.


Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.Um....no.  Actually, I can see your claim, in the same sense as DNA undergoes selection rather than the whole organism...but in the normal use of the term, I must disagree.

You do agree with me.  You just haven't realized it yet.Unless you are saying that stars reproduce, and that daughter stars inherit characteristics from mother stars (likewise for metals)...no.  I agree only with the parts of your posts that are right.  :D

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 739]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:38 PM

It does not apply only to organisms.  It does apply only to things which reproduce.  The process of natural selection can explain the year-to-year evolution of teddy bears (as more fit designs, which sell better, are copied for the next year, and unsuccessful designs go extinct) or automobiles (same process).  

Of course, one could argue that these uses are metaphorical.  Perhaps, but arguably not.  Darwin's summary only requires that the population reproduces and inherits, not that it is alive.

Teddy bears do not reproduce.  Nor do marbles.  We could talk about ideas reproducing and being selected, but Dawkins already did that for us.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 740]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 22nd November 2005 08:44 PM

Teddy bears do not reproduce.  Nor do marbles.  We could talk about ideas reproducing and being selected, but Dawkins already did that for us.
As I said above, with tongue in cheek, teddy bears reproduce parasitically.  They depend on us.  Natural selection does not specify a method of reproduction, only that the second generation resemble the first, with some variability.  This is certainly the case with teddy bears.  

Are teddy bears an imperfect example?  Grudgingly, I admit it.  Are teddy bears much much closer to an example of natural selection than stars are?  Unquestionably.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 741]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 22nd November 2005 11:12 PM

It says a great deal that you can't recognize a genuine example of Intelligent Design.  (Although whether car manufacturers said be said to be intelligent designs is another matter.)
And with that backhanded non-sequitur, I bid you adieu.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 742]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 22nd November 2005 11:16 PM

As I said above, with tongue in cheek, teddy bears reproduce parasitically.  They depend on us.  Natural selection does not specify a method of reproduction, only that the second generation resemble the first, with some variability.  This is certainly the case with teddy bears.  

Are teddy bears an imperfect example?  Grudgingly, I admit it.  Are teddy bears much much closer to an example of natural selection than stars are?  Unquestionably.

I didn't see that the first time around.  Hilarious and very Douglas Adams!

You could drive yourself absolutely insane with that idea if you take it to an extreme.  Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys.  We exist only to produce more refined versions of these things.  We don't write books to preserve our thoughts, our thoughts exist only to prod us into producing more and better books.  We only have an illusion of utility for these devices.  We actually create the uses out of whole cloth to suit the true dominant species of our planet.

Of course, you could also view it as a symbiotic evolution, which gives the image of a child clutching their favorite toy a new poignancy.

Despite your brilliant and humorous analogy, every definition of "natural selection" I can find includes the words "gene" or "organism" or both.  It's hogwash!

Unless of course we imagine that the "genes" of the teddy bear exist somehow in our minds... which an interesting concept, actually.  We'd also have to come up with an excuse for their being "self replicating." I guess we could say that their utility to us is actually inherent to them and causes their "reproductive system" (us) to make copies of them.

Unfortuantely, the definition of "life" shoots us down again (the definition of "organism" includes the word "living".)  It includes "metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."  Teddy bears don't metabolize or grow, and they certainly don't adapt to their enviornment from within.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 743]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd November 2005 03:05 AM

Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys.  We exist only to produce more refined versions of these thing.
DARWIN AMONG THE MACHINES

Sir --- There are few things of which the present generation is more justly proud than of the wonderful improvements which are daily taking place in all sorts of mechanical appliances.  And indeed it is matter for great congratulation on many grounds.  It is unnecessary to mention these here, for they are sufficiently obvious; our present business lies with considerations which may somewhat tend to humble our pride and to make us think seriously of the future prospects of the human race.  If we revert to the earliest primordial types of mechanical life, to the lever, the wedge, the inclined plane, the screw and the pulley, or (for analogy would lead us one step further) to that one primordial type from which all the mechanical kingdom has been developed, we mean to the lever itself, and if we then examine the machinery of the Great Eastern, we find ourselves almost awestruck at the vast development of the mechanical world, at the gigantic strides with which it has advanced in comparison with the slow progress of the animal and vegetable kingdom.  We shall find it impossible to refrain from asking ourselves what the end of this mighty movement is to be.  In what direction is it tending?  What will be its upshot?  To give a few imperfect hints towards a solution of these questions is the object of the present letter.

We have used the words "mechanical life," "the mechanical kingdom," "the mechanical world" and so forth, and we have done so advisedly, for as the vegetable kingdom was slowly developed from the mineral, and as in like manner the animal supervened upon the vegetable, so now in these last few ages an entirely new kingdom has sprung up, of which we as yet have only seen what will one day be considered the antediluvian prototypes of the race.

We regret deeply that our knowledge both of natural history and of machinery is too small to enable us to undertake the gigantic task of classifying machines into the genera and sub-genera, species, varieties and sub-varieties, and so forth, of tracing the connecting links between machines of widely different characters, of pointing out how subservience to the use of man has played that part among machines which natural selection has performed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, of pointing out rudimentary organs which exist in some few machines, feebly developed and perfectly useless, yet serving to mark descent from some ancestral type which has either perished or been modified into some new phase of mechanical existence.  We can only point out this field for investigation; it must be followed by others whose education and talents have been of a much higher order than any which we can lay claim to.

Some few hints we have determined to venture upon, though we do so with the profoundest diffidence.  Firstly, we would remark that as some of the lowest of the vertebrata attained a far greater size than has descended to their more highly organised living representatives, so a diminution in the size of machines has often attended their development and progress.  Take the watch for instance.  Examine the beautiful structure of the little animal, watch the intelligent play of the minute members which compose it; yet this little creature is but a development of the cumbrous clocks of the thirteenth century-- it is no deterioration from them.  The day may come when clocks, which certainly at the present day are not diminishing in bulk, may be entirely superseded by the universal use of watches, in which case clocks will become extinct like the earlier saurians, while the watch (whose tendency has for some years been rather to decrease in size than the contrary) will remain the only existing type of an extinct race.

The views of machinery which we are thus feebly indicating will suggest the solution of one of the greatest and most mysterious questions of the day.  We refer to the question:  What sort of creature man's next successor in the supremacy of the earth is likely to be.  We have often heard this debated; but it appears to us that we are ourselves creating our own successors; we are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and supplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self-regulating, self-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the human race.  In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior race.  Inferior in power, inferior in that moral quality of self-control, we shall look up to them as the acme of all that the best and wisest man can ever dare to aim at.  No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no impure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures.  Sin, shame, and sorrow will have no place among them.  Their minds will be in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows no wants, is disturbed by no regrets.  Ambition will never torture them.  Ingratitude will never cause them the uneasiness of a moment. The guilty conscience, the hope deferred, the pains of exile, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes--these will be entirely unknown to them.  If they want "feeding" (by the use of which very word we betray our recognition of them as living organism) they will be attended by patient slaves whose business and interest it will be to see that they shall want for nothing.  If they are out of order they will be promptly attended to by physicians who are thoroughly acquainted with their constitutions; if they die, for even these glorious animals will not be exempt from that necessary and universal consummation, they will immediately enter into a new phase of existence, for what machine dies entirely in every part at one and the same instant?

We take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have been above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine what the horse and the dog are to man.  He will continue to exist, nay even to improve, and will be probably better off in his state of domestication under the beneficent rule of the machines than he is in his present wild state.  We treat our horses, dogs, cattle, and sheep, on the whole, with great kindness; we give them whatever experience teaches us to be best for them, and there can be no doubt that our use of meat has added to the happiness of the lower animals far more than it has detracted from it; in like manner it is reasonable to suppose that the machines will treat us kindly, for their existence is as dependent upon ours as ours is upon the lower animals.  They cannot kill us and eat us as we do sheep; they will not only require our services in the parturition of their young (which branch of their economy will remain always in our hands), but also in feeding them, in setting them right when they are sick, and burying their dead or working up their corpses into new machines.  It is obvious that if all the animals in Great Britain save man alone were to die, and if at the same time all intercourse with foreign countries were by some sudden catastrophe to be rendered perfectly impossible, it is obvious that under such circumstances the loss of human life would be something fearful to contemplate--in like manner were mankind to cease, the machines would be as badly off or even worse.  The fact is that our interests are inseparable from theirs, and theirs from ours.  Each race is dependent upon the other for innumerable benefits, and, until the reproductive organs of the machines have been developed in a manner which we are hardly yet able to conceive, they are entirely dependent upon man for even the continuance of their species.  It is true that these organs may be ultimately developed, inasmuch as man's interest lies in that direction; there is nothing which our infatuated race would desire more than to see a fertile union between two steam engines; it is true that machinery is even at this present time employed in begetting machinery, in becoming the parent of machines often after its own kind, but the days of flirtation, courtship, and matrimony appear to be very remote, and indeed can hardly be realised by our feeble and imperfect imagination.

Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.

Our opinion is that war to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them.  Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species.  Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter shown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race.  If it be urged that this is impossible under the present condition of human affairs, this at once proves that the mischief is already done, that our servitude has commenced in good earnest, that we have raised a race of beings whom it is beyond our power to destroy, and that we are not only enslaved but are absolutely acquiescent in our bondage.

For the present we shall leave this subject, which we present gratis to the members of the Philosophical Society.  Should they consent to avail themselves of the vast field which we have pointed out, we shall endeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period.

I am, Sir, etc., CELLARIUS

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 744]
Author : sphenisc
Date : 23rd November 2005 05:23 AM

DARWIN AMONG THE MACHINES

Sir --- There are ...[snip].. Should they consent to avail themselves of the vast field which we have pointed out, we shall endeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period.

I am, Sir, etc., CELLARIUS

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own.

:)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 745]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd November 2005 06:55 AM

Teddy bears do not reproduce.  Nor do marbles.  Reproduction is not necessary for the evolution of populations.  It most certainly isn't necessary for natural selection to take place.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 746]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd November 2005 07:02 AM

Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not resemble '96 Mustangs more than they resemble '97 Impalas...I know you are not saying that.  Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not contain periodic crystal structures that encode basic aspects of their functioning, or that the parts of '97's were copied from disassembled parts of '96 Mustangs.  I know you are not saying that.

Interestingly, the same debate exists in biological organisms--is an organism simply DNA's method of reproducing itself?  Does an oak exist to produce acorns, or do acorns exist to produce oaks?

Recall, the definition does not specify a method of reproduction.  Cars (and teddy bears) are parasitic; they rely on humans for their reproduction.  Teddy bears do not pass on heritable information.  Nor do fires.  Or bricks.

Reproduction is not required.

I have never actually seen an idea.  I have seen cars and teddy bears.  Their characteristics are selected by consumers.  I have yet to see a child prefer a particular bear's idea over another's.  It's parents whose preferences skew teddy bear populations, not children.

Unless you are saying that stars reproduce, and that daughter stars inherit characteristics from mother stars (likewise for metals)...no.  I agree only with the parts of your posts that are right.  :D  Again:  reproduction is not required.  Evolution can take place across generations or across time within a static population.  Biology deals with life, and is therefore only concerned with the evolution of life, and reproduction is generally considered to be a necessary attribute of life.  That does not mean that reproduction is necessary for evolution.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 747]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 23rd November 2005 08:38 AM

I didn't see that the first time around.  Hilarious and very Douglas Adams!

You could drive yourself absolutely insane with that idea if you take it to an extreme.  Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys.  We exist only to produce more refined versions of these things.  We don't write books to preserve our thoughts, our thoughts exist only to prod us into producing more and better books.  We only have an illusion of utility for these devices.  We actually create the uses out of whole cloth to suit the true dominant species of our planet.

Of course, you could also view it as a symbiotic evolution, which gives the image of a child clutching their favorite toy a new poignancy.

Despite your brilliant and humorous analogy, every definition of "natural selection" I can find includes the words "gene" or "organism" or both.  It's hogwash!

Unless of course we imagine that the "genes" of the teddy bear exist somehow in our minds... which an interesting concept, actually.  We'd also have to come up with an excuse for their being "self replicating." I guess we could say that their utility to us is actually inherent to them and causes their "reproductive system" (us) to make copies of them.

Unfortuantely, the definition of "life" shoots us down again (the definition of "organism" includes the word "living".)  It includes "metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."  Teddy bears don't metabolize or grow, and they certainly don't adapt to their enviornment from within.
....eeeeeh - "...adapt to their environment from within" isn't really what happens in biological organisms.  The population appears to adapt; but individuals are set and not adaptable in genetics.  That's why behavior developed as an adjunct; learned behavior is adaptable, and heritable. It would call into question the status of a virus, which does not metabolize without a host organism, and it has one response: invade host.  

What is going on with teddy bears in terms of selection pressure has to do with measuring success in economic terms; more "successful" teddy bears are replicated, less successful ones are not.  In this way they are very much viruslike as a meme.  A teddy bear meme has no economic selection pressure; expressed as a product, however, some are more successful at invading other hosts.  The expressed designs that are popular find new hosts by infecting manufacturing plants, and the cycle begins anew with a modified meme reproducing.  The popularity of an expressed meme is its fitness; more fit designs go to infect new plants due to their success in the wild and by consequence more widespread distribution. 

I won't get into mimicry and Disney knock-offs...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 748]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 09:19 AM

It most certainly isn't necessary for natural selection to take place.

http://wizbangblog.com/images/inigomontoya.jpg
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Please read the one and only definition of that word and note that it most certainly is required.  If you find another definition which you can quote from an authorative source, then we'll talk.

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source.  Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 749]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 09:31 AM

....eeeeeh - "...adapt to their environment from within" isn't really what happens in biological organisms.

Your point is valid there, but I think the problem is more with the wording than with the definition.  It seems to me that their intent is to imply that the structures resulting from adaptation are within the organism and can be replicated by the organism.

Of course, there's a only fine line between machines and organisms these days.  It wouldn't be beyond our capability to build a machine that self-replicates and is capable of adapting or responding to its enviornment in some way.

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 750]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 09:34 AM

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own.

:)

I'll be adding that to my Christmas Break reading list.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 751]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 23rd November 2005 09:38 AM

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?
It has, every time I have used it before...


:cool:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 752]
Author : PatKelley
Date : 23rd November 2005 10:18 AM

Your point is valid there, but I think the problem is more with the wording than with the definition.  It seems to me that their intent is to imply that the structures resulting from adaptation are within the organism and can be replicated by the organism.

Of course, there's a only fine line between machines and organisms these days.  It wouldn't be beyond our capability to build a machine that self-replicates and is capable of adapting or responding to its enviornment in some way.

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?
Actually, I forgot to mention that copyright law is the artificial mutagen in this case: one wants to replicate as close as possible without actually crossing the line into outright copying.  Kind of an artificial mechanism to prevent self-crossing in memes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 753]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd November 2005 11:02 AM

Please read the one and only definition of that word and note that it most certainly is required.  If you find another definition which you can quote from an authorative source, then we'll talk.  Ahem:  here is the biological definition of the phrase:  "The hypothesis that genotype environment interactions occurring at the phenotypic level lead to differential reproductive success of individuals and hence to modification of the gene pool of a population."

From http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=natural+selection

Reproduction is pretty much the only way that organisms can ensure that their traits can persist, since they have limited lifespans.  What's important is the persistance of the traits, not reproduction in itself.  Reproduction matters in the biological definition of natural selection because reproduction preserves traits.

In systems where there is no reproduction, there can still be the continuity of traits.  Interaction with the environment produces differential viability of those traits, leading to persistance of the most viable.  The objects don't need to actually reproduce.

The nature of the selection is the same.  The changes of the trait distribution in the population are the same.  Reproduction is logically irrelevant to the concept except that it preserves traits.

Randomly taking white and black marbles out of an urn does not lead to the evolution of the marble population.  If the white marbles were denser, they'd tend to sink to the bottom.  Since the marbles near the top are more likely to be taken out, the supposedly "random" selection would be exerting a selection pressure on the population, and the population would evolve.

Repeating the truly random selection experiment many times, we'd see that the results would average out:  the times more blacks were removed than whiles would be roughly equal to the times more whites were removed than blacks.  Even if there were a temporary statistical aberration, as the number of trials increased, it would tend to be smoothed out.

With the density difference, we'd get a fairly consistent change in the distribution.  The more trials we carried out, the clearer this difference would be.

It's natural selection acting upon an unliving population.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 754]
Author : Dr Adequate
Date : 23rd November 2005 12:40 PM

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own. I'm blushing. But no, though it galls me to admit it, I didn't write Erewhon.

The quotation is actually from the Canterbury Pieces (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/cantp10.txt): Butler recycled the idea in Erewhon.
______________________________

Delphi --- Erewhon is available here (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1906), though arguably the first edition is superior to the second, if you can find it.

The section on Musical Banks (Chapter XV) has to be the best satire on religion ever written.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 755]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 02:36 PM

Ahem:  here is the biological definition of the phrase:  "The hypothesis that genotype environment interactions occurring at the phenotypic level lead to differential reproductive success of individuals and hence to modification of the gene pool of a population."

From http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=natural+selection

Reproduction is pretty much the only way that organisms can ensure that their traits can persist, since they have limited lifespans.  What's important is the persistance of the traits, not reproduction in itself.  Reproduction matters in the biological definition of natural selection because reproduction preserves traits.

In systems where there is no reproduction, there can still be the continuity of traits.  Interaction with the environment produces differential viability of those traits, leading to persistance of the most viable.  The objects don't need to actually reproduce.

The nature of the selection is the same.  The changes of the trait distribution in the population are the same.  Reproduction is logically irrelevant to the concept except that it preserves traits.

Randomly taking white and black marbles out of an urn does not lead to the evolution of the marble population.  If the white marbles were denser, they'd tend to sink to the bottom.  Since the marbles near the top are more likely to be taken out, the supposedly "random" selection would be exerting a selection pressure on the population, and the population would evolve.

Repeating the truly random selection experiment many times, we'd see that the results would average out:  the times more blacks were removed than whiles would be roughly equal to the times more whites were removed than blacks.  Even if there were a temporary statistical aberration, as the number of trials increased, it would tend to be smoothed out.

With the density difference, we'd get a fairly consistent change in the distribution.  The more trials we carried out, the clearer this difference would be.

It's natural selection acting upon an unliving population.

Reproduction is in the definition you cite.  You can try to dance around that fact by calling it irrelevant.  It is actually highly relevant.  Please show me a definition which does not include reference to organisms, genes, or reproduction.  You are still making up your own words.  As I said before...

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source. Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 756]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 23rd November 2005 04:42 PM

Reproduction is in the definition you cite.  You can try to dance around that fact by calling it irrelevant.  It is actually highly relevant.  Please show me a definition which does not include reference to organisms, genes, or reproduction.  You are still making up your own words.  As I said before...

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source. Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)
[minor quibble]  Genes, if memory serves, were not known when Darwin proposed Natural Selection.  The modern synthesis includes them (again, flying without notes here, so if my vocabulary is off, I apologize in advance), but they are not a necessary part of the theory.  Reproduction with heritability is necessary; genes happen to be our particular mechanism. [/minor quibble]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 757]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 06:33 PM

[minor quibble]  Genes, if memory serves, were not known when Darwin proposed Natural Selection.  The modern synthesis includes them (again, flying without notes here, so if my vocabulary is off, I apologize in advance), but they are not a necessary part of the theory.  Reproduction with heritability is necessary; genes happen to be our particular mechanism. [/minor quibble]

You're absolutely correct, but some definitions I've found in modern textbooks directly refer to genes instead of reproduction with heritability.  I just wanted to make a broad enough statement to cover every definition I know for the term.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 758]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd November 2005 06:44 PM

Reproduction is in the definition you cite.  Well, yeah.  I have to count on your ability to understand that the concept is broader than just biology, even though biology speaks of it in terms of the things it studies.

I can demonstrate that a thing looks like a duck, acts like a duck, smells, tastes, and feels like a duck, has the chemical composition of a duck, and possesses all of the physical and biological properties of a duck.  You're the one who has to acknowledge it's a duck.

Clearly that is not going to happen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 759]
Author : Mercutio
Date : 23rd November 2005 07:28 PM

Well, yeah.  I have to count on your ability to understand that the concept is broader than just biology, even though biology speaks of it in terms of the things it studies.
This continues to be your assertion, in the face of even your own cited definition.

I am very serious that I would like to see a source for a definition as broad as yours.  Absent that, we have a total of one source--you--making this claim.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 760]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 23rd November 2005 07:46 PM

This continues to be your assertion, in the face of even your own cited definition.  That definition is from the context of biology!  The field excludes everything non-living.

I am very serious that I would like to see a source for a definition as broad as yours.  Absent that, we have a total of one source--you--making this claim.  Please, explain to me why an environmental pressure that impacts upon certain traits more than others and results in a change in the trait distribution of a population should not be called an instance of natural selection.  You're the one saying that the duck should be called a moose, and demanding an authoritative source to explain why the quacking, feathered, aquatic bird shouldn't be called a moose.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 761]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 23rd November 2005 09:12 PM

That definition is from the context of biology!  The field excludes everything non-living.

That's the only field (to my knowledge) that has defined the term.  That's what the word means.

Gravity brings two things together.  Addition brings two things together.  Gravity is addition.  QED.

You can't just apply a technical word anywhere you want because you've found a loose analogy between two concepts.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 762]
Author : Eos of the Eons
Date : 23rd November 2005 11:22 PM

For example, I don't think any scientist believes that mutations arising at random at some sort of background frequency are sufficient to explain the rise of life on Earth at its current level of diversity.  Such mutations occur, of course, but the true picture is much more complicated than that.  There appear to be significant interactions among genes, including catalytic reactions at the biochemical level, and these greatly increase the probability of certain types of change.  This does not require intelligent design, any more than the assembly of the highly ordered structure of a crystal.

Modern evolution, both fact and theory, is not "Darwinism", because, of course, Darwin knew nothing about genes.  It is the cumulative result of tens of thousands of pieces of research carried out since Darwin's time, and represents the current state of a continuously developing body of theory and observation.  Those who wish to refute it have a vast amount of material to rebut.

Further, as far as history is concerned, the reference to Lamarck was surely not intended to suggest that he was "suppressed" by Darwin or anyone else.  Evolution as an idea had been around for many years before either Darwin or Lamarck came up with it; even Darwin's grandfather published his own version of it.  Lamarck and Darwin, unlike earlier writers, came up with mechanisms for how evolution could work.  Lamarck's ideas, however, simply did not match the evidence and were rapidly disproved.  Darwin's, on the other hand, were supported by a vast amount of evidence, much of it assembled by Darwin himself (though Darwin's own work represents but a minute fraction of the amount of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection available today).  If anyone was "shoveled under" by Darwin's fame, it was Alfred Russell Wallace, who came up with practically the same basic theory as Darwin almost simultaneously with him, but failed to support it with the detailed evidence that the extremely meticulous Darwin had assembled before publishing (hardly a criticism of Wallace, who was ill with fever in the East Indies at the time!).

For an excellent and very readable short history of the development of evolutionary theory, may I recommend "Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory" by Edward J. Larson (Modern Library 2004).  For a very clear explanation of the state of things today, with lots of pictures (!), read "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer (HarperCollins 2001).

And, of course, there is nothing to prevent anyone from believing that there is an intelligence behind anything in our universe, but establishing this belief as a scientific theory (as opposed to a philosophical or religious conviction) will require something better than simply stating that you cannot imagine how it could be otherwise.  The universe is not limited by the scope of human imagination.

Ronald Orenstein

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 763]
Author : Melendwyr
Date : 24th November 2005 06:06 AM

You can't just apply a technical word anywhere you want because you've found a loose analogy between two concepts.  What about a strong analogy?  What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 764]
Author : chipmunk stew
Date : 24th November 2005 07:38 AM

What about a strong analogy? What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?Life vs. not-life is a very minor difference? I think you'd have trouble showing anyone (not just those of us on JREF) that pebbles exhibit "natural selection" in any technical sense. This about sums up your argument for me: :dig:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 765]
Author : teacher
Date : 24th November 2005 08:42 AM

Evolution is just a term to coin an advanced subdivision of the natural 'order or randomness' (interchangeable here, or order caused by randomness) caused or determined by natural laws. With enough comprehensive or God-like knowledge of every intricate detail, all could in theory be predicted. Free-will could be another term within this field if you accept that this has ultimnately developed (or evolved) from atoms.

Is there any great reason that evolution cannot be applied to inorganic things, given that we apply the term to man made objects, eras etc. and life came/evolved from inorganic things? We even hear, 'the universe evolved..." So maybe it's not strictly true (o is it?) but we could really talk about evolution from the big bang couldn't we?

And I'm a theist!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 766]
Author : delphi_ote
Date : 24th November 2005 08:46 AM

What about a strong analogy?  What about cases where concepts are exactly alike except for some very minor differences?

Then you'd have something like Mercutio's example.  His analogy was strong because it incorporated all aspects of the definition including reproduction.  You'd have to come up with some way of explaining how your stars and pebbles reproduce and pass on characteristics of themselves to their offspring.  It is critical to the concept at hand.  Otherwise, "natural selection" just means "change over time."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 767]
Author : Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Date : 24th November 2005 09:36 AM

Is there any great reason that evolution cannot be applied to inorganic things, given that we apply the term to man made objects, eras etc. and life came/evolved from inorganic things? We even hear, 'the universe evolved..." So maybe it's not strictly true (o is it?) but we could really talk about evolution from the big bang couldn't we?
The reason not to call these other things "evolution," without any qualifiers, is because it is misleading. The Creationists are already misleading people; there is every reason to try not to follow suit.

Also, as Delphi noted, just because two disciplines use the term foo does not imply that they mean the same thing by the term. All the more reason to be careful.

~~ Paul

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Downloaded from International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums) at 8th October 2024 07:24 PM.