• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Dover Penn ID trial

RandFan said:
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)

?
Click to expand...

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

delphi_ote said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? ;)
 
Hammegk said:
The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Click to expand...
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
 
RandFan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
hammegk said:
Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
 
hammegk said:
Good question.

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

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

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

I think he was a monk. Anyway, by the end it didn't matter because he was excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
petre said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Another gem 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?
Click to expand...
 
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe
ONE Michael BEH ... E
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe...
 
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:
 
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...7b32mWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!
 
headscratcher4 said:
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...7b32mWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!
Click to expand...
I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism.
Click to expand...
It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
 
Slight tangent:

Intelligent design loser in moot court

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upchurch said:
Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Mojo said:
It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

And most importantly...
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
Click to expand...
(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale.
 
delphi_ote said:
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Why is it they never seem to read their own book?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
I love this guy.
 
From another column 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!
Click to expand...
:D
 
delphi_ote said:
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?


H'ethetheth said:
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".
Click to expand...

petri said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy.


Dragon said:
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?
Click to expand...

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
Click to expand...
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,
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.


Pastor B. said:
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Click to expand...
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". ;)
 
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.
 
hammegk said:
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
 
hammegk said:
Originally posted by Pastor Bentonit
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Click to expand...
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom