|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:13:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
"If there is a god, then he's a dumb fuck..." I agree absolutely. And if there is an Intelligent Designer, then he/she/it/them isn't very intelligent at all considering the number of stupid things that can be found in nature.
|
The recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans (and other tetrapods) is to me about the most stunningly stupid "design" that any entity could invent. It's a nerve running from the brain to the voice box -- but its path takes it on a long, long detour first to the heart where it loops under major arteries before heading all the way back to the larynx in the throat. If this routing is designed, the Designer is indeed a fucking idiot!
But the recurrent laryngeal nerve's pathway makes perfect sense if we think of its evolutionary history. As Wikipedia puts it: | The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the absurdly circuitous route now observed. |
A truly intelligent designer could have easily done better. The idiotic routing of the recurrent laryngeal nerve by itself convinces me there could be no Intelligent Designer for any of us tetrapods.
But evolution changes things slowly from generation to generation, creating a "kludge" of tangled nerves and arteries that still just manages to work.
So evolution is often a fucking idiot, too. But it has one considerable the advantage over an Intelligent Designer: It actually exists. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/16/2012 13:22:20 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:14:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The courts rules abortion is legal. So when do they believe life begins in the womb. If at conception then it is murder. And yet should you kill a woman with a fetus...that is double manslaughter or the taking of two lives. |
This seems like an interesting discussion we could have. In the Social Issues section.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=22
I personally think the courts are party wrong. And there is a science aspect.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:41:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
DaveW, I don't know why you have such a problem connecting Axe's work with Dr Behe. |
I don't. I have a problem finding any support for your contention that Axe disproved the TTSS→flagellum hypothesis, as I've already explained.| Axe is a supporter of Intelligent Design. |
I've known that for years.This doesn't support your contention, either.| Axe does not mention the flagellum or the T3SS. |
So when you said, "Axe's conclusion btw was the T3SS probably came after Behe's flagellum," you were just making shit up.His work is on modeling of complex adaptations in bacteria, adaptations requiring multiple mutations, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. I have already provided a link to his paper.
It is this piece of Axe's work that supports Irreducible Complexity because complex adaptation requiring nultiple mutations is not possible and non-adaptive. |
That's not what Axe's paper said at all. The model is very narrow and only describes multiple neutral mutations, and doesn't even attempt to address a scenario in which the intermediate stages offer a selective advantage. And you have yet to address the criticisms of Axe's model.| Now this information was not used in the KitzMiller, Dover trial because it was published after the case was closed. |
And it's still only narrowly applicable, and contains flaws. It would have done nothing to change the outcome of Kitzmiller v. Dover because the school board members perjured themselves about their motivations, the creationist origins of ID were completely exposed and Behe so thoroughly embarrassed himself on the stand. One little paper cannot (and has not) turned ID or IC into scientific concepts, even though Axe obviously tried really hard to do so.| What is most unfortunate is seeing ill informed people getting all hung up with the religious hype over Intelligent Design and not appreciating the science behind Irreducible Complexity. |
You haven't shown us any science behind IC.| It is even more disconcerting when you have skeptics who don't know enough about religion/science/evolution/biology calling knowledge seeking individuals hypocrite. |
You are a hypocrite for doing what you criticize others for doing.| That is a judgmental call and subjective at best. |
No, it's an objective fact. You criticized me for not being a molecular biologist, and then you referenced with approval a non-molecular biologist on the same subject. That is hypocrisy, no subjective judgment call required.| Somewhere in the thousands of post on SFN one might still find an iota of objectivity. |
Not from the posts of jamalrapper, that's for sure.| Get some qualified people on the board, Please. |
Since you refuse to address valid, objective criticisms of your arguments, why would any qualified people waste their time on you?
Criticisms of Axe's own model:
1) Axe considers a population size of only 109 individuals. There are about 1015 E. coli in a single human gut (and so nearly 1025 E. coli in the whole world, just in human guts), so Axe's population for his modeled bacteria is absurdly small. (Lynch and Abegg's calculations and simulations ran from 101 to 1011 individuals, but they weren't modeling bacteria.)
3) Axe assumes that each bacterial line in his analysis begins with a single cell, providing a periodic bottlenecking of mutations for no seeming good reason at all. Even though he references Maruyama and Kimura, Axe seems to fail to grasp their model very well.
4) Worse than 3, he appears to assume that each stage-i line is genetically identical to all others, completely missing the fact that two different organisms can have two different sets of mutations. He further assumes that all stage-i lines will be present in the same proportion in the population as all other stage-i lines.
5) Axe has his bacterial lines exist for a fixed duration. All of them the same.
6) Axe's equations for the maladaptive intermediates case cannot tolerate a selection coefficient of zero, and close to zero they fail to match other equation results. In other words, the selective disadvantage to be modeled has to be large in order for Axe's equations to even function, which is why he has to treat neutral mutations as a special case.
7) Axe was, in fact, forced to introduce back-mutation to eliminate neutral mutations, perhaps because he couldn't figure out how to model a population of bacteria realistically (as if the above criticisms weren't enough evidence of that already). Not that back-mutation doesn't exist in nature, but Axe is artificially "balancing" neutral duplications with back-mutations instead of allowing the mutations to spread or die out naturally.
8) Axe assumes that indels prevent progression of a bacterial line towards the complex adaptation, and doesn't consider the case where they might be a part of the complex adaptation. Instead, he calculates the odds that a gene will include indels, and simply eliminates that proportion of bacteria from consideration. This would, of course, make time-to-fixation longer, but it is an artificial limitation.
9) He then similarly eliminates all bacteria containing genes which might have accumulated so many mutations that the protein they code for is degraded beyond all function. Really, what he's doing here is picking nits, because while he's thinking that these factors make his equations more realistic, he's already placed unrealistic limitations on them in other ways (see above).
10) Despite the limitations Axe placed on the model, figure 2 shows that for a two-mutation adaptation with neutral intermediates, only three or maybe four generations are needed for the adaptation to become fixed in a population of a billion bacteria. This is absurdly low and demonstrates that his math must be wrong, somewhere.
11) Axe actually says what he criticized Lynch and Abegg for saying, namely "Because higher values of d provide more constructive mutation possibilities in the early stages en route to the complex adaptation, the staircases gradually become less steep as d increases."
12) Axe thinks the flattening of Lynch and Abegg's equation 18 is too fast, yet seems to have nothing more than an argument from incredulity to back it up.
13) Figure 4 of Axe's paper allegedly shows the results of equation 16 again (see criticism #10), but this time the d=1 case is shown, and it is shown as needing about one tenth of one generation. Axe must not be measuring to fixation of the complex adaptation, but instead to its mere appearance, assuming that because it has a very slight selective advantage, it will eventually become fixed. This makes his results not directly comparable to Lynch and Abegg's, but makes figure 2 more believable.
|
You should wait for a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg. After all Axe challenged their calculation and work. If Lynch and Abegg do not respond then they have conceded.
Statistical modeling is complicated and like any statistical model different data sets can be used to reflect projected predictability.
If it was a simple matter then a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg can easily put to rest Axe's errors.
Milton H Saier professor (molecular biology USCD) cautioned Kenneth Miller's premature assumption T3SS are pre-cursors to the flagellum.
http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X%2804%2900017-4 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 14:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You should wait for a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg. |
Why? What's wrong with my criticisms?| After all Axe challenged their calculation and work. |
Yes, and?| If Lynch and Abegg do not respond then they have conceded. |
Or they've never heard of Bio-Complexity. Or they've never heard of Douglas Axe. Or they think he's a joke and not worthy of a response. Axe's paper has been public for about 15 months now, so how much longer do you think I should wait?| Statistical modeling is complicated and like any statistical model different data sets can be used to reflect projected predictability. |
That's a lame ad hoc excuse for not defending Axe's paper. I think it means that you don't understand the concepts well enough to respond, which it turn means that you don't understand the concepts well enough to accept Axe's conclusions on their own merits, which in turn means that you're a dogmatic believer, and not even remotely skeptical.| If it was a simple matter then a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg can easily put to rest Axe's errors. |
So can mine, which you seem to be avoiding.So rather than admit your error or fabrication regarding "Axe's conclusion btw was the T3SS probably came after Behe's flagellum," you're just going to try to find someone else saying something similar?
Given that the article resides behind a $40 paywall, I'm going to bet that you haven't read it, either, and are instead relying on Casey Luskin reporting again.
Of course, to make this argument at all, one must accept evolutionary theory. Saier doesn't offer up a fourth choice, "God created both of them as-is and separately." Saier does neither ID nor IC any favors with his trilemma. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 22:43:35 [Permalink]
|
There you are wrong again. Miller in the Dover case argued the T3SS was a pre-cursor to the flagellum. In other words it proved Behe's Irreducible Complexity could be reduced to simpler functional adaptation such as the T3SS which had functionally adapted with 40 less proteins than the flagellum. Remember this was argued but not demonstrated because evolution cannot prove this(no transitional fossils) neither did Miller. But in the opinion of a molecular biologist Saier, Miller is wrong.
How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/how_bright_is_t054521.html |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 23:22:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You should wait for a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg. |
Why? What's wrong with my criticisms?| After all Axe challenged their calculation and work. |
Yes, and?| If Lynch and Abegg do not respond then they have conceded. |
Or they've never heard of Bio-Complexity. Or they've never heard of Douglas Axe. Or they think he's a joke and not worthy of a response. Axe's paper has been public for about 15 months now, so how much longer do you think I should wait?| Statistical modeling is complicated and like any statistical model different data sets can be used to reflect projected predictability. |
That's a lame ad hoc excuse for not defending Axe's paper. I think it means that you don't understand the concepts well enough to respond, which it turn means that you don't understand the concepts well enough to accept Axe's conclusions on their own merits, which in turn means that you're a dogmatic believer, and not even remotely skeptical.| If it was a simple matter then a rebuttal from Lynch and Abegg can easily put to rest Axe's errors. |
So can mine, which you seem to be avoiding.So rather than admit your error or fabrication regarding "Axe's conclusion btw was the T3SS probably came after Behe's flagellum," you're just going to try to find someone else saying something similar?
Given that the article resides behind a $40 paywall, I'm going to bet that you haven't read it, either, and are instead relying on Casey Luskin reporting again.
Of course, to make this argument at all, one must accept evolutionary theory. Saier doesn't offer up a fourth choice, "God created both of them as-is and separately." Saier does neither ID nor IC any favors with his trilemma.
|
It is rather amusing you raised several point to criticize Axe work and yet there isn't any record of his peers pointing to the same alleged wrong assumption. As I mentioned even Lynch and Abegg whose work he challenged has yet to respond.
Please provide credible references for those allegations preferably by his peers.
As for your 13 point criticism of Axe's alleged errors. For starters you have the foggiest idea of molecular biology and quite possibly never been in a lab where such research is done or you would have known that molecular modeling is done by computer simulated programs.
Axe based his simulation on the same stochastic tunneling model used by Lynch and Abegg. Axe could have increased or lowered sampling numbers and population size without any design limitations since they are all computer generated simulations.
Axe said he used an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura. Maruyama and Kimura (1980) research has never been challenged so the basis of his modeling is very sound.
To assert Axe basic knowledge of mutation was limited is a preposterous claim.
He not only understood Lynch and Abegg's work....He even challenged them and found errors in their calculation.
The fact he based his calculation similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, proves he knew what he was doing.
As for the other decisions Axe made is really a matter for his peers to critique. The absence of any criticism by his peers validated his competency. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/17/2012 02:45:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 04:49:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
There you are wrong again. Miller in the Dover case argued the T3SS was a pre-cursor to the flagellum. In other words it proved Behe's Irreducible Complexity could be reduced to simpler functional adaptation such as the T3SS which had functionally adapted with 40 less proteins than the flagellum. Remember this was argued but not demonstrated because evolution cannot prove this(no transitional fossils) neither did Miller. But in the opinion of a molecular biologist Saier, Miller is wrong. |
But since Behe's definition of IC involves removing parts and eliminating function, if evolution turned a flagellum into a TTSS, then the flagellum wasn't IC to begin with. In none of Saier's three possibilities is the flagellum IC. In all three, Saier would say that evolution occurred, and not ID.Ah, the DI's propaganda puppy is whistling past the graveyard. What else is new? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 05:16:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, the DI's propaganda puppy is whistling past the graveyard. What else is new?
|
I usually never post when all I have to say is  , but . |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 05:33:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
It is rather amusing you raised several point to criticize Axe work and yet there isn't any record of his peers pointing to the same alleged wrong assumption. As I mentioned even Lynch and Abegg whose work he challenged has yet to respond. |
Why should anyone bother to formally respond to a flawed article by a DI flack published in his own vanity journal which has published a whole five research articles in two years (the first three of which weren't even pro-ID, but anti-evolution)? According to Jack Scanlan, Lynch had actually intended to respond a year ago. Where is that response? Maybe he found better things to do.| Please provide credible references for those allegations preferably by his peers. |
So now you're saying that you won't listen to original critical thought, and that I have to parrot someone else's criticisms?| As for your 13 point criticism of Axe's alleged errors. For starters you have the foggiest idea of molecular biology and quite possibly never been in a lab where such research is done or you would have known that molecular modeling is done by computer simulated programs. |
Only someone who is trying to sound knowledgeable but is actually ignorant would call them "computer simulated programs."| Axe based his simulation... |
Actually, from reading the paper, it looks like Axe did no simulations at all, he just plotted the results of the equations he derived.| ...on the same stochastic tunneling model used by Lynch and Abegg. |
No, he specifically describes the model he used, and it's not at all the same one. And stochastic tunneling isn't a model, it is the name of an evolutionary process.| Axe could have increased or lowered sampling numbers and population size without any design limitations since they are all computer generated simulations. |
That's an incoherent statement, since the numbers he chose and the model he used are what placed limitations on the results he got. You don't seem to understand how the equations work.| Axe said he used an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura. Maruyama and Kimura (1980) research has never been challenged so the basis of his modeling is very sound. |
I linked to Maruyama and Kimura's paper. I read it. Axe's model is different from what they propose (as you know, it's only "similar to," and not "the same as"), and so cannot be declared "very sound" on the basis that he mentioned their paper.| To assert Axe basic knowledge of mutation was limited is a preposterous claim. |
I never asserted any such thing.| He not only understood Lynch and Abegg's work....He even challenged them and found errors in their calculation. |
And I dealt with his criticisms of Lynch and Abegg in a previous post. Don't pretend that those criticisms do not exist.| The fact he based his calculation similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, proves he knew what he was doing. |
Yes, he knew what he was doing: his goal was to refute Lynch and Abegg, and so he created an unrealistic model that couldn't do anything but that.| As for the other decisions Axe made is really a matter for his peers to critique. |
Again: you are demanding that I avoid engaging in original critical thought, and instead wait for some authority to speak. The reason you are doing this is that you clearly don't understand the implications of either Axe's paper or my criticisms of it, and so must rely upon someone else's credentials to do the hard work for you.| The absence of any criticism by his peers validated his competency. |
That's a complete failure to understand how science works. Silence doesn't validate anything, only replication can do that. Has anyone else replicated Axe's work?
Of course, we can turn this around: where are the criticisms of Lynch and Abegg's work that don't come from a DI hack? If Axe's criticisms are valid, then other non-ID-friendly scientists ought to have made them, also, in a journal with more impact than BIO-Complexity. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 12:50:38 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Luskin claims that BIO-Complexity is......a journal that "aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life." If that's true, then BIO-Complexity is a complete failure. Since the idea that if evolution fails to explain life, ID wins by default is nothing more than a false dichotomy, anti-evolution papers cannot be considered to be in favor of any ID hypothesis. As noted above, Jack Scanlan pointed out a year ago that the four papers in the first volume of BIO-Complexity were entirely anti-evolution. In the 2011 volume, "A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes" is just a description of how a digital genome was built for future work (which is neither anti-evolution or pro-ID), and "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway" and "Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?" are openly anti-evolution. So BIO-Complexity hasn't yet published even a single pro-ID article.
Furthermore, out of seven total articles, Douglas Axe has written or co-written four of them while also being managing editor for the journal. As I said before, this is a vanity journal, and nothing in it need be taken seriously. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 14:25:31 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Behe was important enough for Lynch and Abegg to challenge. Check link.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.html
1. Lynch Abegg have more reasons to defend against Axe's direct criticism of their work. So your excuse is pretty lame.
2. You should get some introductory help about techniques and modeling in statistical analysis. They are mathematical models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model
This will help you understand "stochastic tunnel model and island model used by Axe, TAKEO MARUYAMA AND MOToo KIMURA and Lynch/Abegg.
A stochastic tunneling algorithm: http://www.mendeley.com/research/spt-stochastic-tunneling-algorithm-global-optimization/
What Island model means and how THE ISLAND MODEL WITH STOCHASTIC MIGRATION is applied to genetic migration algorithms.
Stochastic tunneling model are used in many other fields engineering, chemistry, biology.
How computer generated statistical information is developed and applied to support their calculations. GENE IDENTITY AND GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION OF POPULATIONS IN THE FINITE ISLAND MODEL'http://www.genetics.org/content/104/3/497.full.pdf
The real threat to evolutionary biologist is no longer a debate pitting theological dogma against Darwinism. It was hard to refute evolutionary theory with only the first few pages of Genesis (Bible).
But there is an even playing field today. With the advancement of molecular biology, the sequencing of Genomes, the known gaps in evolution. Scientist are now speaking the same language and applying the same advancements in science to refute Darwinism be they theistic evolution or Christian Darwinism(Miller), chance evolution(Dawkins), atheistic evolution(Dawkins) with serious scientific backed research on molecular biology, DNA, genetics, genome studies and an intelligent approach.
That is not to say the new generation of scientist/biologist can overturn over a century of folklore and erroneous scientific conjectures with simple explanations. It will require an acceptance of the Irreducible Complexity of organism and an accommodation of an Intelligent Design by an intelligent designer beyond just the acceptance of complexity and the appearance of intelligence.
There are reducible elements in the theory of Irreducible Complexity. Einstein reduced the entire theory of relativity to a simple formula E=Mc2, others reduced the universe to a Big Bang theory. But the fact still remains they are all Irreducibly Complex and the humility scientist admit to when they acknowledge it is hard but still easier to try to understand the creation than to deny the Intelligent Design behind it.
|
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 15:02:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The courts rules abortion is legal. So when do they believe life begins in the womb. If at conception then it is murder. And yet should you kill a woman with a fetus...that is double manslaughter or the taking of two lives. |
This seems like an interesting discussion we could have. In the Social Issues section.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=22
I personally think the courts are party wrong. And there is a science aspect.
|
There is some agreement here Dr Mabuse. But take note. It was the religious groups that fought the legality of the courts decision. Science was actually used to deny the validity of conception. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 15:18:51 [Permalink]
|
What "more reasons?" They haven't responded yet. Why don't you send them an email and find out when they will.So you Googled "stochastic tunneling" and some other terms, and listed some results without really understanding what's in those references. A monkey could do worse, but not by much. Because "stochastic tunnel model" and "stochastic tunneling model" (using quotes) both return zero results. Stochastic tunneling with regard to genetics is different from stochastic migration which is different from the stochastic tunneling used in optimization algorithms. All different, none of them models by themselves.
The Island Model is a different thing, too. As I noted above, Axe took Maruyama and Kimura's description and made modifications to it. He writes about this, it's not a surprise to anyone but you, apparently.The real threat to evolutionary biologist is no longer a debate pitting theological dogma against Darwinism. It was hard to refute evolutionary theory with only the first few pages of Genesis (Bible).
But there is an even playing field today. With the advancement of molecular biology, the sequencing of Genomes, the known gaps in evolution. Scientist are now speaking the same language and applying the same advancements in science to refute Darwinism be they theistic evolution or Christian Darwinism(Miller), chance evolution(Dawkins), atheistic evolution(Dawkins) with serious scientific backed research on molecular biology, DNA, genetics, genome studies and an intelligent approach.
That is not to say the new generation of scientist/biologist can overturn over a century of folklore and erroneous scientific conjectures with simple explanations. It will require an acceptance of the Irreducible Complexity of organism and an accommodation of an Intelligent Design by an intelligent designer beyond just the acceptance of complexity and the appearance of intelligence.
There are reducible elements in the theory of Irreducible Complexity. Einstein reduced the entire theory of relativity to a simple formula E=Mc2, others reduced the universe to a Big Bang theory. But the fact still remains they are all Irreducibly Complex and the humility scientist admit to when they acknowledge it is hard but still easier to try to understand the creation than to deny the Intelligent Design behind it. |
The above is nothing but you engaging in wishful thinking, jamalrapper. Try again when you've got a serious response to my criticisms. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 16:30:57 [Permalink]
|
Even after providing you links to mathematical modeling and supporting my earlier post where I expressed doubt about your familiarity with computer model simulation. Your still hang on to your bean counting theory that these models actually involved physical inventory.
I have lowered my expectations that there are knowledgeable people on this forum butwas forced to and with the request by Kil to provide as much supporting material and links, citations to help people like you. Hence the google references.
Anyone with a biology background reading your post here and in the other threads where the presumption of knowledge was granted to you freely can categorically say. You were found wanting. Why do you publicly debate that which you are not qualified for. Your self profile precludes ignorance in many subjects. While other members are less hypocritical and freely acknowledge it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 08:05:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Even after providing you links to mathematical modeling and supporting my earlier post where I expressed doubt about your familiarity with computer model simulation. |
Oh, is that what you were trying to do? I thought you were trying to suppoirt your contention that stochastic tunneling is itself a model by showing models that incorporate stochastic tunneling. As I said before, you can't win if your point is nothing but confusing.| Your still hang on to your bean counting theory that these models actually involved physical inventory. |
I never expressed any such thought, that's a total strawman.| I have lowered my expectations that there are knowledgeable people on this forum butwas forced to and with the request by Kil to provide as much supporting material and links, citations to help people like you. Hence the google references. |
It doesn't matter how many links you provide if your meaning is as clear as mud.| Anyone with a biology background reading your post here and in the other threads where the presumption of knowledge was granted to you freely can categorically say. You were found wanting. Why do you publicly debate that which you are not qualified for. Your self profile precludes ignorance in many subjects. While other members are less hypocritical and freely acknowledge it. |
The problem isn't my ignorance, it is your lack of clarity. And this attack on me is nothing more than an attempted distraction away from the fact that you are incapable of defending the ideas of Axe, Behe, IC and ID, instead being a dogmatic believer without deep comprehension. Axe's model, for example, is deeply flawed despite his contention that it is more realistic than Lynch and Abegg's, but the only rebuttal you were able to make is an assertion that I don't understand what stochastic tunneling is and that because Axe referenced someone else's model, his must be good. Both allegations are ridiculous, and your earlier insistence that I wait for professional criticism of Axe's paper is nothing more than you running away from the obvious problems with it. You projecting your inadequacies onto me doesn't make the failure mine, it's just cowardice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
