Mark Perakh posted Entry 1574 on October 11, 2005 01:02 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1569

This post describes a discovery by Dr. Thomas D. Schneider which is a much stronger proof of intelligent design than all those incessantly disseminated books, essays and interviews by the fellows of the Discovery Institute. We expect that the ID advocates will promptly acknowledge our contribution to their case. (Thanks to Dr. Schneider for this guest contribution.)
The full text of Dr. Schneider’s epochal breakthrough paper can be seen here

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #51915

Posted by Fernmonkey on October 11, 2005 1:26 PM (e)

Another sign of His Noodly Appendage at work.

Ramen.

Comment #51918

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 11, 2005 1:35 PM (e)

The truly weirdness is that this reminded me of a recent article on nanotubes.

What a great piece of writing.

Comment #51919

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on October 11, 2005 1:38 PM (e)

Truly, this will advance the cause of ID to the position it will need to bring about evilutions waterloo.

RAmen.

Comment #51920

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 11, 2005 1:38 PM (e)

Eighteen minutes! That is sacrilege, not al dente.

I can find no report of whether a sprinkling of holy olive oil was part of the procedure. Is this due to sloppy experimental methods, or sloppy reporting? Or (gasp) could the experiment have been performed with no holy olive oil?

This result would seem to constitute supporting evidence for the current theories of eukaryote origins.

rAmen
rAmen

Comment #51925

Posted by Steve S on October 11, 2005 2:12 PM (e)

Comment #51918

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 11, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

…this reminded me of a recent article on nanotubes.

That’s how you know the pasta pattern is “specified”

Comment #51930

Posted by bill on October 11, 2005 2:26 PM (e)

Dr. Schneider’s epochal breakthrough paper demonstrates more Science that I’ve ever seen in any “intelligent design” creationist publication.

I was able to repeat Dr. Schneider’s work and concur with his results. Look for my article in an upcoming J. Phys. Cannelloni.

Comment #51936

Posted by Flint on October 11, 2005 2:58 PM (e)

The calculations don’t lie. This was a genuine miracle. A fully replicable miracle. What more could any IDist ask?

Comment #51937

Posted by PaulC on October 11, 2005 3:08 PM (e)

Given that the probabilistic argument is bogus, can anyone explain the mechanism? I’ll assume this actually works, though I doubt I’ll get a chance to try it. It doesn’t surprise me that you get some double noodles, but the frequency is a lot higher than I would have thought. It’s vaguely analogous to a chemical synthesis, but I still find it counterintuitive.

One thing that probably helps is that once a double noodle is formed, it is hard to pull apart spontaneously. I would speculate that once an inner noodle is slightly inserted, it has a higher probability of inserting further than pulling out. If that’s true, then the rest makes sense, but I can’t guess why that would be true. It’d be pretty cool to capture this on video (again assuming it works and I haven’t just bought into a silly prank).

Comment #51939

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on October 11, 2005 3:12 PM (e)

PaulC:

I suggest that the natural stickiness of wet pasta may have something to do with that.

Do you know how Italians would call pasta that has cooked for 18 minutes?

Colla da manifesti (“poster glue”).

Comment #51941

Posted by PaulC on October 11, 2005 3:14 PM (e)

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it’s relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Comment #51948

Posted by Henry J on October 11, 2005 3:47 PM (e)

Ya know, I suspected that genomes are more like recipes than they are like software - is this evidence for that?

Pasta la vista.
Henry

Comment #51950

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on October 11, 2005 3:54 PM (e)

Considering the 18’ cooking time and the execrable absence of salt in the water, the pennes were likely just hiding in shame.

As for the actual mechanisms, remember that “ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories”. It ought to be enough that it just happens.

Comment #51952

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 11, 2005 4:26 PM (e)

That’s “pastatic” detail.

Comment #51957

Posted by qetzal on October 11, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

This should be submitted to the Annals of Improbable Research (assuming it still exists).

Then it’ll be peer-reviewed evidence for ID.

Comment #51958

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 11, 2005 5:08 PM (e)

The calculations don’t lie. This was a genuine miracle. A fully replicable miracle. What more could any IDist ask?

Angel hair. (ba-da bing!)

If the rigatoni expanded before the penne (and I don’t see why this should be the case), the insertion events might be more likely.

Perhaps the mystic van der Waals forces should be invoked.

Comment #51963

Posted by Russell on October 11, 2005 5:49 PM (e)

Considering the 18’ cooking time and the execrable absence of salt in the water…

Attempts to replicate conditions as they existed during the Hadean era, when the first self-replicating pasta is thought to have emerged.

Comment #51972

Posted by Steve S on October 11, 2005 6:45 PM (e)

I’m noticing that as Intelligent Design enters the mainstream consciousness, it’s often being used in a sarcastic way. For instance in this latest George Will column. Though I don’t care for Will, I give him some minimal respect, because I’ve never seen him give an inch to the anti-science forces.

Earth, that living, seething, often inhospitable and not altogether intelligently designed thing, has again shrugged, and tens of thousands of Pakistanis are dead.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

Comment #51982

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 11, 2005 7:18 PM (e)

There was an observation Tom made of bubbles that formed inside the pasta. Whis will create a change in local pressure which will draw (I think) the smaller tube into the larger.

Like I said earlier, the truly weirdness is that this is probably a really interesting result. (Or should that be an interesting real result)?

Comment #51986

Posted by believer on October 11, 2005 7:53 PM (e)

Yes, some would claim this is simply a Brownian ratchet mechanism, analogous to neo-Darwinian evolution, which clearly makes it nothing more than secular nonsense from those fundamentalist scientists – sinful heresy against any pasta-based Intelligent Designers.

Comment #52003

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on October 11, 2005 10:42 PM (e)

Behold the ultimate proof: who can see this NASA image and retain any doubt that His Noodly Appendage is still shaping the cosmos?

Comment #52005

Posted by Hi'yall on October 11, 2005 10:52 PM (e)

You miss the irony of it, the pasta was intelligently designed, by the guy who wrote that paper.

Comment #52015

Posted by MP on October 12, 2005 2:07 AM (e)

Hi’yall said “You miss the irony of it, the pasta was intelligently designed, by the guy who wrote that paper.”

Wow..really..wow. This reminds me of one of those moments when President Bush gives a speech and says something inane like, “The moon is green and the sky is made of blue cheese, don’t ya get it? heh heh,” then stares at the audience with a half-cocked grin for a few seconds, as if waiting for the crowd to have it’s epiphany once they’ve fully digested the utter brilliance of his words. When, in fact, the audience is grappling with how a brain capable of learning and using a complex language could have possibly allowed itself to say something so moronic. It is my sincere hope that comment was in jest, but if not, you have just had one of those moments.
If you were serious, I think the real irony is two-fold: 1) That everyone else who read that thought to themselves how absurd, yet accurate, the parody was, seeing as how the pasta was not intelligently designed, and 2) you apparently do not understand the definition of the words “intelligent,” or “design.”
All this time I thought ID was absurd because it required giving unfathomable supernatural abilities to an unknown source, and being satisfied with that as the end-all answer. But in fact, ID is absurd because the amount of intelligence and design needed to create Life, the Universe, and Everything is the equivalent of the back of a Mac&Cheese box.
Does that make a frozen dinner a good example of IC?

btw it’s Hi y’all.

Comment #52017

Posted by Hiya'll on October 12, 2005 3:38 AM (e)

I only skimmed small sections of the paper, I thought it was arguging that Pasta is not intelligently designed, sorry.

Comment #52019

Posted by Daryl on October 12, 2005 4:13 AM (e)

Somewhere, Asimov is sitting down to a nice plate of spaghetti and smiling.

Comment #52030

Posted by Dave S. on October 12, 2005 7:56 AM (e)

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it’s relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Hmmm….wonder if this is similar to the mechanism responsible for allowing us to suck spaghetti?

P.S.: I’m deeply disturbed that two different brands were used in this experiment. We need to work with a single species before we can investigate the effects of hybridization!

Comment #52048

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 12, 2005 10:42 AM (e)

Possible further experiments:

angle-cut penne vs. blunt end

different time frames

different ratio of diameters

The possibility of having NSF fund your lab lunches is very appealing.

Comment #52065

Posted by Schmitt. on October 12, 2005 1:01 PM (e)

Childish I know, but the url of the first reference made me smile.

Figure 5 shows exactly why I could never do biology. Far too squeamish.

-Schmitt.

Comment #52066

Posted by Schmitt. on October 12, 2005 1:06 PM (e)

Oh and Qetzal: Yes, the Annals of Improbable Research still exist! They just awarded this year’s Ig Nobels :)

-Schmitt.

Comment #52068

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 12, 2005 1:08 PM (e)

Newsflash:

World’s oldest noodles found in China
4,000-year-old pasta made from millet
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9671263/

Obviously, now that intrepid, cutting-edge scientists have begun according the Dread Pasta Hypothesis the critical importance it deserves, and have begun to explore for supporting evidence, many more such discoveries await!

Comment #52080

Posted by Improbulus Maximus on October 12, 2005 2:05 PM (e)

So, how long before the fusilians start oppressing the linguinards for heresy?

Comment #52083

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 12, 2005 2:29 PM (e)

Clearly, for the moment the millet-inarians can claim the upper hand.

Comment #52091

Posted by PaulH on October 12, 2005 4:46 PM (e)

More Noodly Evidence

Not only have they discovered noodles, but there’s a flood reference….

Ramen

Comment #52107

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on October 12, 2005 7:41 PM (e)

And check out the BBC’s caption on their picture of the primordial pasta:
“Late Neolithic noodles: They may settle the origin debate” …
(Is it even a debate any longer?)

Comment #52109

Posted by ライブチャット on October 12, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

That was great piece of writing. He indicates a quite interesting point on the issue.

Comment #52158

Posted by Praedor Atrebates on October 13, 2005 10:24 AM (e)

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it’s relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Oddly enough, the same dynamic is involved in sex.

Comment #52258

Posted by lslerner on October 13, 2005 11:18 PM (e)

It will require further evidence to discover whether it is also possible for male rigatoni to hybridize with female penne rigati! And what is one to make of the possibilities that spirelle present to the Intelligent Designer?

Comment #77941

Posted by africanswede on February 6, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Three questions.

How did the noodles get into the pot?(If it was a human there is our designer)

Was the experiment controled? (If it was then we aren’t talking deism, we are discussing an intrested designer)

Was the insertion of the one noodle into the larger one a chemical change? (If it wasn’t then who the heck cares)

I think, in the mo0st serious way possible, that this experiment ruins evolution.

Now if this guy found that the noodles spontaneously combusted into those shapes then I would lay down my Bible and go on a killing spri, there is obviously nothing wrong with murder.

Comment #96511

Posted by kelly on April 14, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

I always knew it! Many’s the time I’ve needed to separate overexcited & overheated noodles with a bucket of cold water. They are worse than dogs.