Dembski's continuing contradictions

Posted by PvM on March 24, 2005 09:28 PM

Dembski has ‘responded’ to Wesley Elsberry’s and Mark Perakh’s criticicsm at ARN

Panda’s Thumb.

Does the discussion at the Panda’s Thumb advance the discussion we had on this board about that paper? As I mentioned in another post, that paper will be the basis for my technical lecture at the Trotter Prize Lecture Series at Texas A&M coming up the beginning of April. I’d enjoy meeting any critics on this board there (as well as supporters, of course).

Other than the usual self inflation, Dembski has little to say about the critiques themselves.

When pressed for details as to how Dembski ‘abuses’ critics, Dembski responded:

I’m happy to acknowledge my critics where I think they are being insightful. There tends to be a disconnect, however, between the criticisms I regard as insightful and those that my critics regard as insightful. I’m afraid that Wesley Elsberry and Mark Perakh do not rank high among those I regard as insightful critics. Since I’m quite busy and have plenty of critics, they tend to fall low in the queue. Consider, for instance, that Tom English on this board at least engaged the mathematics in my article. I’ve seen no indication that Elsberry or Perakh could even state the gist of it in plain English.

So why does Dembski start a thread about Wesley and Mark when he does not consider them to be insightful critics?

In fact, both critics have contributed significantly to the demise of Dembski’s arguments, which may help explain why Dembski is reluctant to address their claims.

As RB observes in the same thread

Of course neither can Bill, but then that gives him the fall back position of “you just don’t understand”. Nor can Bill discuss, in plain english, the application of his math to the realities of evolution and molecular research and theory.

Dembski obviously excels at self-promotion, and although his academic accomplishments seem to be rather limited, his popular contributions seem to have been embraced somewhat uncritically by many ID proponents (caveat emptor!!).

Dembski has consistently ignored his most formidable critics: For instance it was Wesley Elsberry who showed how Dembski failed to explain how to distinguish between apparent and actual CSI. In Dembski’s latest piece, he has made an almost incredible concession to his critics, one overlooked by most of the ID proponents, namely that both evolutionary mechanisms and intelligence can create CSI.

Dembski’s latest paper, undermines even more his explanatory filter approach since it has shown how false positives are a real possibility and provides no way to detect false positives. Which makes the explanatory filter, in Dembski’s own words, useless.

Both Elsberry and Perakh were quick to point out the problems with using NFL theorems as well as the displacement problem.

Dembski, sadly enough does not seem to give his critics much credit for this. Let’s hope that when/if his latest paper is published, the reviewers require a more thorough list of references.

Douglas Theobald has continued the thread to expose some of the deeply rooted ignorance amongst ID proponents. Surprisingly to many perhaps, the ignorance seems to be more about Dembski's arguments this time than about evolutionary theory.

Douglas Theobald wrote:

I really don’t mean to be catty, but seriously, have any of the ID-ists here read Dembski’s latest paper, the topic of this thread?

But Theobald does far more than showing the level of unfamiliarity amongst ID proponents with Dembski’s arguments

Douglas Theobald: Once again, I will try to get this thread back on target.

Douglas Theobald: Dembski’s “FTID” is premised on a targeted search. According to Dembski, a “target” of an algorithmic search is a subregion of the search space that is pre-specified before the search begins. Dembski’s math concerns the probability of finding that pre-specified target, and that target alone.

Douglas Theobald: However, evolution and RMNS are not targeted searches by Dembski’s own usage, so Dembski’s math does not apply to evolution. Unless it can be shown that certain biological targets were pre-specified, Dembski’s math is irrelevant to evolution.

Douglas Theobald: Would anyone here (who has read Dembski’s paper, others need not apply) like to try to refute that?

Douglas Theobald: Specifically:

  1. Can you provide examples of what the targets are in biology?

  2. Can you explain how you know they are targets?

  3. Who or what pre-specified these biological entities as targets?

  4. Can you explain why the biological targets you propose are not simply labeled as such after the fact?

Douglas Theobald: This is the challenge I have presented, and nobody has answered it yet. Even Dembski acknowledges this problem in his paper, and he also gives no answer for it.

It follows that assisted search, even with so modest a problem as finding a specific protein 100 amino acids in length, requires a considerable amount of information if it is to surpass blind search and successfully locate a target. How are we to explain this net increase in information? One way is to explain it away by suggesting that no targets are in fact being searched. Rather, a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact (see, for instance, Shermer 2003).

(Dembski, pp. 15-16 of ” Searching Large Spaces “)

Douglas Theobald: Dembski goes on to explain how targets are valid in engineering, by specifically giving an example about finding a useful polymer. Yet he never provides even a hint of an argument for why pre-specified targets are valid in evolution or biology in general.

Douglas Theobald: In Dembski’s human engineering example, it is easy to justify the target as valid: I can easily answer each of the four challenges above in the engineering case.

Douglas Theobald: The target is a polymer with a minimum resilience and strength. We know such a polymer is a target because we have independent knowledge that human engineers pre-specified the target, indicating a desire for finding such a polymer. These desirable polymers are not after-the-fact targets, because they were specified by human engineers before they went and searched for them. Success of the algorithm is measured as whether it finds these polymer targets or not. Dembski’s math applies here. If Dembski’s math is valid, we can conclude that these engineers knew something about their search space in order to choose a successful targeted search algorithm.

Douglas Theobald: Now how about evolution and biology in general?

Douglas Theobald: The answer should ideally be as clear and concise as the above engineering example.

For those fans of Salvador, you may enjoy his attempts to distract from the conversation with his usual Turing machines, or other irrelevant arguments. For someone who once said he was willing to “take the grenade” for Dembski “so that Dembski can continue to not respond to critics”, he seems to ignore the implosion his own arguments have caused for ID.

Seems that Bill as withdrawn himself from the discussion, I am curious how he is going to fix his paper before he presents it at the Trotter Prize lecture series?

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/880

Comment #21826

Posted by steve on March 24, 2005 09:07 PM (e) (s)

I’m afraid that William Dembski does not rank high among those I regard as insightful critics.

—Charles Darwin

Comment #21832

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 24, 2005 09:40 PM (e) (s)

For those who read the published reviews and critiques of Dembski’s work, check out how often my name appears in the citations or acknowledgements. I think that these people find my views insightful, and I’m pleased that my arguments and comments have helped, in some small way, those critics in their work.

Comment #21837

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 24, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)

The Trotter Prize?  The one sponsored by the creationist, Ide Trotter?

Isn’t that an outlet for creationist papers?

Comment #21839

Posted by PvM on March 24, 2005 10:27 PM (e) (s)

Ide P. Trotter Jr (spokesman for Texans for Better Science) established this prize in 2001 to

increase awareness of the rapid advances in the physical, biological and information sciences and to promote dialogue within university communities and across disciplines regarding the overarching implications.

…with a matching contribution from ExxonMobil Corp., in 2001 to honor Ide P. Trotter Sr., former dean of Texas A&M University’s graduate school.

Yuck…

Comment #21848

Posted by Mark Perakh on March 25, 2005 01:52 AM (e) (s)

Thanks, PvM, for standing up for me (and Wesley). Unlike Bill Dembski who does not shy away from praising his own article as “admirable,” I have no intention to judge my own writing, leaving this task to others. Therefore I naturally will leave without reply Dembski’s attempt at insult by characterizing my (and Wesley’s) critique as “not insightful.”  I have more reasons to do so because Dembski’s lack of consistency is notorious, and his habit of dodging answering critical comments is too well documented, so his claim that our critique is not insightful enough to deserve his reply is quite probably just a display of his limited ability to come up with reasonable counter-arguments to the essence of our critique. Either he does not comprehend the gist of our critique, or, if he does, perhaps he simply can’t figure out a reply in a meaningful way. If so, it is an explanation of why he arrogantly resorts to a convenient method of dodging answering the critique under the preposterous pretext that our critique is not good enough for such a great mathematician and philosopher as the Isaac Newton of information theory is claimed to be by his obsequious co-travelers.

Comment #21865

Posted by slpage on March 25, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)

What, you mean Slavador is trying to divert attention away from the topic of a thread with irrelevant posts?

I’m shocked!

Comment #21868

Posted by Buridan on March 25, 2005 09:13 AM (e) (s)

Evidently Francis Crick and Charles Townes are past recipients of this award. I’ve searched the Texas A&M site for any reference to Demski and the Trotter lecture and haven’t found anything. The only reference to this comes from Dembski’s own website. Anyway, this is disturbing to say the least. What are they thinking? Are the faculty at A&M even aware of this? Dembski’s teaches at a Baptist seminary for god’s sake! Oh, I forgot, it’s Texas…

Comment #21875

Posted by Michael Finley on March 25, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

“Oh, I forgot, it’s Texas….”

That’s humorous. Likely the words of a Vermont or Ohio resident. Are you seriously suggesting that Texas A&M is not a top tier research institution? How about UT Austin or Rice? Ever heard of the micro-chip. It was invented in Dallas (though sadly, so were breast implants and MDMA). Perhaps you’ve mistaken the greatest state in the Union for Tennessee.

Comment #21877

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on March 25, 2005 12:10 PM (e) (s)

No, California has far too many beaches to be mistaken for Tennessee….

Comment #21878

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 25, 2005 12:15 PM (e) (s)

Dembski wrote:

I’ve seen no indication that Elsberry or Perakh could even state the gist of it in plain English.

Let me give a it a shot:

“God did it; now that we have our conclusion let’s jiggle the numbers until our argument appears to support that conclusion.”

Comment #21879

Posted by Stan Gosnell on March 25, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

I’m a native Texan, a life-long resident except for military service, and hope I can speak with some experience and objectivity when I say that Texas A&M is not a top tier research institution.  It is influenced by politics and money even more than most institutions in the state, and its biggest claims to fame, scientifically, is the purple jalapeno pepper, and the capsaicinless jalapeno pepper.  It has also engineered a few other purple vegetables, purple being one of the school colors.  Texas unfortunately ranks behind even Mississippi in school quality, in the amount spent per student for public education, and in the percentage of high school graduates.  We’re so mired in ignorance that we’re blinded by hubris.  Any state ignorant enough to elect George W. Bush governor has no business calling itself great.  And if A&M plans to award a prize to Dembski, then QED.

Comment #21881

Posted by KeithB on March 25, 2005 01:05 PM (e) (s)

It did not say that Dembski was getting an award, just that he was speaking at a “lecture series.”  It soulnds like that they have a bunch of people speak at the time of the award and Dembski was chosen, for who knows what reason, to speak.

Comment #21885

Posted by Michael Finley on March 25, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

I am also a native and life-long Texan and recognize a charlatan when I see one.

I would have you know that (1) the primary and secondary schools of any large state are, as a whole, inferior to those of smaller states, (2) “public education” is conveniently vague; the statistics you allude to apply to primary and secondary schools, and not to institutions of higher learning, and (3) and the school color of the Aggies is maroon (not to be confused with the equivocal noun of which I’m sure you are familiar).

As for your silly comments about jalepenos: Texas A&M spends around $400 million a year on research and is consistently ranked a “top tier” research institution by the National Science Foundation - http://vpr.tamu.edu/remarkable/index.html…

Comment #21888

Posted by Michael Finley on March 25, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)

[quote=Bayesian Bouffant as Bill Dembski]God did it; now that we have our conclusion let’s jiggle the numbers until our argument appears to support that conclusion.

Excepting the part about “appears,” what is objectionable about that? Science usually begins with a theoretical claim, i.e., a conclusion, and then attempts to justify that claim empirically.

Comment #21889

Posted by Russell on March 25, 2005 02:40 PM (e) (s)

No, it’s true. At least according to this source:

Future Event:  On April 4, 2005, Dr. William Dembski will receive this year’s prestigious Trotter Prize and give a lecture associated with that award.  The event will be at Texas A&M University in College Station.  Previous winners have included Drs. Paul Davies, Robert Shapiro, Alan Guth, John Polkinghorne, and Nobel laureates Francis Crick and Charles Townes.

Comment #21893

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 25, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Previous winners have included Drs. Paul Davies, Robert Shapiro, Alan Guth, John Polkinghorne, and Nobel laureates Francis Crick and Charles Townes.

Davies, Polkinghorne and Townes are all Templeton prize winners “for progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities”

Comment #21900

Posted by Dave S. on March 25, 2005 03:56 PM (e) (s)

C’mon people. Surely one clever double-meaning bit of wordplay is worth at least two thoughful refutations.

Consider, for instance, that Tom English on this board at least engaged the mathematics in my article. I’ve seen no indication that Elsberry or Perakh could even state the gist of it in plain English.

Tom English…plain English….darn that’s clever!

Comment #21903

Posted by Buridan on March 25, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

I repeat - It’s Texas ;-)

Comment #21904

Posted by Buridan on March 25, 2005 04:41 PM (e) (s)

And you were close Michael - I’m from Massachusetts, home of Harvard and MIT.

Comment #21906

Posted by KeithB on March 25, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

Oops, thanks for the correction.

Comment #21907

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 25, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

Whatever else might be said of Texas A&M University, in 1988 they decided to obtain the best faculty in marine mammal science that money could buy. And they did. Because of that, I did my doctoral research at A&M. There are just a few programs in the country that do marine mammal research, and A&M’s program covered several aspects of that research. On that criterion, Texas A&M University is very much a top-tier research institution. That doesn’t mean that everything that happens on campus partakes of the same quality.

Comment #21931

Posted by Ian Menzies on March 25, 2005 08:58 PM (e) (s)

Excepting the part about “appears,” what is objectionable about that? Science usually begins with a theoretical claim, i.e., a conclusion, and then attempts to justify that claim empirically.

No, science attempts to test a hypothesis and then comes to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Comment #21950

Posted by John A. Davison on March 26, 2005 09:39 AM (e) (s)

Sometimes science reaches a conclusion after demonstrating the failure of all other alternatives. At least that is what I have done in reaching the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Sorry if I didn’t follow the rules. Neither did William Bateson, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf or any other scientist so out of touch with reality as to fall for the Darwinina fairy tale. There have been many of us. Trust me.

John A. Davison

Comment #21954

Posted by bill on March 26, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

No Free Lunch - Except at Texas A&M University.

In addition to the Trotter Lecture, ole Bill will be preaching to the Department of Computer Science.

http://www.cs.tamu.edu/research/seminars/abstracts/681_2004-…

Maybe all those Aggie jokes are true, after all.

btw:  I have found no indication that Dembski has received any prize;  he’s just giving a lecture in the endowed series.

Comment #21961

Posted by PvM on March 26, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)

Dembski is the recipient of this year’s Trotter prize sharing it with Stuart Kauffman

On April 4, 2005, Dr. William Dembski will receive this year’s prestigious Trotter Prize and give a lecture associated with that award.  The event will be at Texas A&M University in College Station.  Previous winners have included Drs. Paul Davies, Robert Shapiro, Alan Guth, John Polkinghorne, and Nobel laureates Francis Crick and Charles Townes.

Comment #21963

Posted by PvM on March 26, 2005 12:21 PM (e) (s)

Dembski is the recipient of this year’s Trotter prize sharing it with Stuart Kauffman

On April 4, 2005, Dr. William Dembski will receive this year’s prestigious Trotter Prize and give a lecture associated with that award.  The event will be at Texas A&M University in College Station.  Previous winners have included Drs. Paul Davies, Robert Shapiro, Alan Guth, John Polkinghorne, and Nobel laureates Francis Crick and Charles Townes.

Comment #21992

Posted by bill on March 26, 2005 06:26 PM (e) (s)

Hello All,

I read the blurb on the creationist website, but I was unable to find any reference to it at TAMU, the Texas A&M website.  The lecture series is endowed and several lectures are given each year.  Trotter has also been hosting debates between creationists and sane people.  I found no reference that Dumbski received the Prize, rather he was granted a debate.  Still, the creationists have no ethical standard and I find it quite astounding the Dumbski would receive any prize other than Loser of the Year.

My personal opinion, including bile.

Regards,
  Dr. Bill Farrell

Comment #21998

Posted by Mark Perakh on March 26, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s)

To call the Trotter award prestigious is a bit premature. The Trotter family enmphasize their affiliation with a Baptist church (which is Dembski’s turf) in whose activities they are very active. So is Dembski. To give this prize a veneer of alleged prestige, they first awarded it to a few real scientists such as Crick and Townes (the latter was once a co-inventor of laser, but lately has been engaged in philosophical exercise aimed at reconciling science and religion). This year they finally partially shed off the pretense and give a half of it to their evangeical co-traveler Dembski (the other half went to Kauffman who, unlike Dembski, has produced a meaningful output).  There is little doubt the ID crowd will hail this award as a sign of the recognition of ID by mainstream science (which it is not by a long shot). So far neither Dembski nor anybody else in the ID crowd has produced any contributiion to any field of science (or mathematics) based on ID “theory.” By awarding the prize to Dembski, they have simply undermined any respect this prize may otherwise eventually win in the mainstream scientific community.

Comment #22013

Posted by Stan Gosnell on March 26, 2005 11:02 PM (e) (s)

any field of science (or mathematics)

So you’re saying that mathematics is not science?  ;-)

Comment #22015

Posted by Henry J on March 26, 2005 11:49 PM (e) (s)

Mathematics is the “language” of science. And when devising a new mathematical system, picking the axioms can be a somewhat empirical process. ;)

Henry

Comment #22022

Posted by moioci on March 27, 2005 12:11 AM (e) (s)

John A. Davison,

You said, “Sometimes science reaches a conclusion after demonstrating the failure of all other alternatives. At least that is what I have done…”

This deductive approach was advocated by Sherlock Holmes, but I’m used to thinking of science as primarily an _inductive_ enterprise. Is there another example of an accepted scientific conclusion reached in this way?

Comment #22032

Posted by Mark Perakh on March 27, 2005 01:54 AM (e) (s)

Re: Comment by Stan Gosnell (No 22013). I highly respect and love mathematics (though I am a physicist rather then a mathematician) and the language I used in no way meant to disparage mathematics. Whether or not it is science depends of course on the adopted definition of science. At the university where I am an emeritus, the School of which our department is a part is named College of Natural Sciences & Mathematics. My view of science and its relation to mathematics is described in detail, for example, at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/good_bad_science.cfm as well as in my book Unintelligent Design (in part 3).

Comment #22055

Posted by PvM on March 27, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

Mark Perakh wrote:

Thanks, PvM, for standing up for me (and Wesley).

You’re welcome. Both Dembski and his loyal sidekick Sal, seem to be having some hard time dealing with the reality.

Comment #22079

Posted by John A. Davison on March 27, 2005 01:02 PM (e) (s)

My science has always been just following my nose. So far it has not failed me.

John A. Davison

Comment #22089

Posted by PvM on March 27, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)

Some use logic, some may use their sense of smell when it comes to science. So far little Nosivad has contributed suggests that his ‘science’ extends beyond his sense of smell. If Nosivad is interested in actually contributing to this thread, he is invited to do so, otherwise he may consider a more appropriate venue.

Comment #22110

Posted by John A. Davison on March 27, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

Wh ds PvM, k Pm vn Myr. ntrs fr hvng bn frcd t tk crs n rmdl thcs nt tht lng g bcs f hs nprfssnl ntrnt bhvr, nw, s frstrtd wth m, fnd t ncssr t rfr t m s nsvd, m nm splld bckwrds? wll nw nswr tht qstn. t s bcs PvM s trll whs nl prps hs lwys bn t sprsss n ppstn t nythng tht PvM fls ds nt rprsnt PvM’s mypc vw f th wrld, wrld tht h knws vrtll nthng bt fr crtn. Nn f tht mttrs t PvM bcs PvM knws vrythng b nstnct. PvM ds nt nd ns nd f PvM hd n h wldn’t knw wht t d wth t. PvM s th qntssntl nt-ntllctl trll, ttrl ncpbl f ndpndnt thght, trppd n dlgcl gnrnc nd hs jst prvd t b nggng n shbb, dgnrt, nncssr, yt glrsl rvlng tctcs whch pls m nrmsl bcs th prv bynd n dbt tht hv rchd th Drwnn thst stblshmnt wth ndnbl trths tht th cn n lngr dn. slt y Pm vn Myr. Y r trbt t Pnd’s Thmb, jst s y sd t b t “brnstrms” nd RN bfr th rd thmslvs f y. Hpfll ths wll b yr lst stp, Pm’s lst stnd s t wr, Pm vn Myr’s lm. nl tm wll tll. ‘ll jst wt nd wtch. Tht s f m prmttd. hv lrd bn thrtnd wth bnshmnt b smn wh mst b n chrg. W’ll s. f blvd n prsnl Gd, whch dn’t, wld b cnvncd tht PvM rprsnts th frcs f Blzbb, Stn’s rght hnd mn. Jhn . Dvsn, lwys nfr, clrl rgrdd s nblncd b sch grt mnds s PvM, yt stll nfrd t cnfrnt th frcs f ntllctl vl nd gnrnc tht stll nfct wrld flld wth prps, bt nd th fnl xprssn nd ltmt rlztn f Crtr fr bynd th cmprhnsn f mrtl mn.

Comment #22114

Posted by Stan Gosnell on March 27, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)

If it wasn’t made sufficiently clear by the emoticon, my comment in #22013 was made tongue-in-cheek.

Comment #22117

Posted by PvM on March 27, 2005 07:56 PM (e) (s)

Ah much better… Or should I have said “h mch bttr” :-)
Salty, perhaps you want to try to contribute to this forum in a meaningful manner?

Comment #22145

Posted by John A. Davison on March 28, 2005 04:39 AM (e) (s)

You are a class act PvM. Exposing you and your motives was a very important contribution to this forum. I see you or someone else has seen to it that is impossible. Thank you for the perfect demonstration of the total inadequacy of Darwimpian evolutionary mysticism. Now butcher this one too.

Comment #22407

Posted by PvM on March 29, 2005 10:58 AM (e) (s)

Salty, you insult me by suggesting that I would butcher your latest ‘contribution’ beyond what you have done to it.
“Darwimpian”, did you really come up with this term yourself? Or was it from one of your ‘scientific’ papers ;-)

Comment #22478

Posted by PvM on March 29, 2005 03:01 PM (e) (s)

… <snip>
and no, I do not use that sort of description in my published scientific papers, only when I am dealing with intractable atheist chance-worshipping Darwimpians like yourself.

And once again Nosy is wrong since I am NOT an atheist but rather a Christian.
Get your facts straight for once my dear friend.

Impress us or at least suprise us.

Comment #22506

Posted by John A. Davison on March 29, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)

I see Pim had to delete most of my post.

Pim

If you are a Christian then why are you a Darwinian? What role does a God have in your evolutionary dogma?

You pontificate “Impress us or at least surprise us.”

I love the revealing use of the collective imperial us. That is characteristic of groupthinks.

I would love to impress you or even surprise you but you keep deleting or garbling my comments. That is nothing but cowardice.

I am not your dear friend. I am your mortal enemy.

John A. Davison

Comment #22507

Posted by frank schmidt on March 29, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)

Pim:

I am not your dear friend. I am your mortal enemy.

John A. Davison

As the British politician Dennis Healey said

like being savaged by a dead sheep

Barring an outbreak of hoof and mouth, I think you’re safe.

Comment #22562

Posted by PvM on March 29, 2005 11:39 PM (e) (s)

I see Pim had to delete most of my post.

I left that which seemed to have some relevance.

If you are a Christian then why are you a Darwinian? What role does a God have in your evolutionary dogma?

The Creator and Savior. Are you saying that God could not have used Darwinian evolution as His mechanism? I find your comments showing a less than well thought out evaluation of the Christian position but perhaps I should not be too surprised at that. You may actually try to read some relevant literature to familiarize yourself with the topics. Just a suggestion Nosy… And please feel free to extend my suggestion to most of your arguments as they could surely benefit from even a hint of accuracy.

You pontificate “Impress us or at least surprise us.”

I love the revealing use of the collective imperial us. That is characteristic of groupthinks.

Impress me then but that just makes your task even more unfeasible.

I would love to impress you or even surprise you but you keep deleting or garbling my comments. That is nothing but cowardice.

I am doing you a favor by garbling your non relevant comments. As I said, surprise us/me.

I am not your dear friend. I am your mortal enemy.

We all are entitled to our dream, no matter how distant they may be from reality. Your own comments contradict your claim here. You are indeed my friend as I could do no better job at exposing the vacuity of your beliefs than you have done yourself.

Impress me/us, shock us with some scientifically relevant comments or even an original or heck, a non original thought worth defending.

So far, I am not surprised that the ID movement has been ignoring you ;-)

At least those evolutionists are giving you a forum where you can present your ‘arguments’. Of course that should not come as a surprise since your ‘arguments’ are quite damaging to your own ideas as well as to the credibility of the ID movement. Not that they really need your help with that. But as they say, even small contributions are welcome…

Thank you my friend.

Comment #22605

Posted by PvM on March 30, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

Nosy wrote:

Pim accuses me of innacuracy. Present those inaccuracies and show what is wrong with them.

I have already. I am not an atheist

QED

Nosivad wrote:

I do not present arguments. I present facts which demand conclusions and I have reached them.

I am glad we agree that you do not present arguments. As far as ‘facts’ are concerned, reality shows that what Salty considers to be ‘facts’ may be more a figment of his imagination.

Salty wrote:

There is no ID “movement.” That is a contrived bit of Darwimpian chicanery designed to denigrate that which is undeniable.

Tell that to the ID movement… Of course it is fascinating to me how Nosy can call Darwinism a dogma when he insists that ID is undeniable…

You were given a chance to present your arguments. Lacking much of anything they were moved to a more appropriate place on PT.

Comment #22677

Posted by John A. Davison on March 31, 2005 06:09 AM (e) (s)

I guess the only question I have is who moved me? Was it PvM? Is that a secret shared only by an inner circle here at Panda’s Thumb?

Yes, I am indeed saying that God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms. That is exactly what I have been saying for years. And yes, ID is undeniable or more accurately was undeniable. Otherwise nothing could have happened. There is no reason to postulate any intervention once the evolutionary sequence was set in motion any more than there is to explain what happens when the sperm and egg pronuclei fuse to initiate the development of a human being. From that moment forth just about everything has already been determined.

I still await any demonstration that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is in any way incompatible with the facts as revealed by paleontology, taxonomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, animal and plant husbandry and the fossil record, that final and undisputed proof that evolution has indeed occurred.

Will this post also be automatically sent to the Bathroom Wall?

“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein

John A. Davison

Comment #22695

Posted by John A. Davison on March 31, 2005 10:12 AM (e) (s)

I see that Pim uses three different names in referring to me, Nosy, Nosivad and Salty. I would like to hear why Pim finds that necesary. Come on Pim, explain yourself if you can without sounding like an intellectual bogot that is.

John A. Davison

Comment #22709

Posted by PvM on March 31, 2005 12:04 PM (e) (s)

I thank Nosy for considering me to be an intellectual, although I am still trying to figure out what exactly is meant by ‘bogot’.

Comment #22711

Posted by PvM on March 31, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Yes, I am indeed saying that God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms.

Davison seems to hold the opinion that God is unable to use a Darwinian mechanism. I am not sure why he considers his God to be so powerless.

And yes, ID is undeniable or more accurately was undeniable.

Yes, in the Middle Ages people held to the belief that earthquakes, pestilence, comets were undeniably caused by God. Good thing we now know better and are not stuck in ancient history. Although some still seem to prefer such a position of ignorance.

Comment #22712

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 31, 2005 12:16 PM (e) (s)

Suggestion:

“bogot” = robotic bigot (or bigoted robot), i.e. someone who mechanically repeats again and again the same few sentences, without ever considering the possibility of not being perfectly right in any way or form.

No, wait: that would be JAD.

Comment #22768

Posted by PvM on March 31, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)

Pardon the typo. It was bigot of course. How else can one characterize someone who rejects out of hand any view which varies a micron from their own.

John A. Davison…

I repeat God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms because Darwinian (mutation/selection) mechanisms are a fantasy with no demonstrable substance.

Both are easily observed. But even if they are ‘fantasy’ why argue that God could not have used them? That seems to indicate that Nosivad does not have much of an opinion about the abilities of his God.

The rest of the posting is more of the usual avoidance.

Comment #22776

Posted by Henry J on March 31, 2005 10:33 PM (e) (s)

Davison,
I don’t get it - all this arguing for an opinion you know most won’t accept, but no summary on here of points in your paper that could well be interesting to other biologists? Imo your paper has too much rhetoric, too much discussion of the motives of those who disagree with you, and there’s a promise in the introduction to define technical terms as they come up but I saw no follow through on that promise. There’s also overuse of the term “Darwinist”, which in my experience means the part of evolution theory that a particular speaker does not accept, i.e., it’s meaning is different for speakers having different POV’s.

The part that I think could be used to actually explain something: Sometimes a in bisexual species an individual might revert to asexual reproduction, producing a species (or group of them) in this mode. If successful some portion of that species might re-evolve bisexual reproduction, using methods different from that of the ancestor. This if true could explain how birds and mammals wound up with way different ways of producing and distributing sperm, if the respective predecessor species of one or both of those clades went through one of those asexual phases.

That part doesn’t require exceptions to any rules as I understand them, and it explains something. That’s in contrast to the front loading concept, which does require breaking (or finding ways around) the rules (i.e., sections of DNA that somehow stays put instead of mutating).

But, I don’t agree that chromosomal rearrangements necessarily imply a round of the semi-meiotic evolution. Some such rearrangements would no doubt prevent having descendants, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that all possible rearrangements would do that. Is the male chromosome homologous across the mammal class, or some large portion of it? If so that would seem to me evidence against a semi-meiotic occurrence inside that clade.

Anyway, looking at the material paraphrased in my 2nd paragraph, seems like if you’d started with a summary of that material instead of jumping to conclusions that it’s unlikely anybody would agree with, seems like an actual conversation might’ve come about. Or do you just enjoy arguing?

Henry

Comment #22783

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 12:30 AM (e) (s)

Henry J

Why should I summarize material that is a touch of your mouse away?

I don’t particularly like arguing but when one is greeted with instant insult and denigration as has been the case here, EvC and brainstorms, is it any wonder I might repond in kind? When carefully crafted posts are subjected to disembowelment by certain members of this forum, what can you expect from me? At ARN they just pretend I don’t exist which is the most revealing position of all. That is what the establishment has always done with their critics from Mivart right to the present. I’ve asked for “beneficial mutations” there too, but to no avail.

Vorontsov claimed the males were not homologous generally. I refer you to my Manifesto for the details. I am inclined to agree.

I have gone further by suggesting that the primary purpose of obligatory sexual reproduction is to stop evolution, bring it to a halt and thereby ensure ultimate extinction. If that were not the case there could have been no evolution because organisms would have just gone right on gradually changing in response to a changing environment. Without rampant extinction there could have been no evolution and all we would have would be slightly modified versions of ancient organisms roaming the earth. Such is clearly not the case.

Accordingly, I am convinced that sexual reproduction is anti-evolutionary. This immediately explains to me, if to no one else, why we see no replacements appearing for the thousands of species that are disappearing annually. In short, all tangible evidence indicates that macroevolution is finished and has been for a very long time just as Robert Broom, Julian Huxley, Pierre Grasse and myself have insisted. It falls on deaf Darwinian ears. They literally will not hear of it. Like nearly all white cats they are deaf and we are dealing here with congenital problems that cannot be remedied by rational discussion. I am deadly serious. There is no other explanation and Einstein said as much long before me as I have posted.

Extinction is the phylogenetic counterpart of ontogenetic death. Once ontogeny is accepted as a model for evolution, everything will fall in place including the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Both ontogeny and phylogeny have occurred independent of the environment in which they have taken place, driven by internal forces about which virtually nothing is known except that they must have been involved. There is no need to invoke any supernatural elements because everything in the world, past and present, is by definition natural or it wouldn’t have existed.

It is a mistake to regard semi-meiosis as a form of purely asexual reproduction as well. The first meiotic division is preceded by crossing over which is followed by the random segregration of dyads (sister strands). These generate an enormous and unlimited amount of diversity which has been demonstrated in frogs where semi-meiosis has been tested experimentally. Again I refer you to the Manifesto for details.  The semi-meiotically produced progeny of a single female frog are all genetically different as proved by the fact that they cannot accept skin transplants from one another nor from their mother because none of them have all of her genes. The common mother however can accept skin transplants from any of her progeny because none of them have any genes that are not hers.

Also the degree of locus heterozygosity that can be generated semi-meiotically is, in some instances, higher than the theoretical limit of 50% achievable through sexual reproduction. I published those findings in the Journal of Heredity back in the nineteen sixties.

I assume that when a published scientist enters a discussion that his audience would first read his works and then ask pertinent questions which he could answer. That has never been my experience here or elsehwere. Instead, I have been incarcerated in Boot Camp at EvC, twice evicted from brainstorms without explanation, had my posts garbled and deleted here at Panda’s Thumb and many of those that have not been deleted have been sent to the Bathroom Wall from which I cannot respond. Now these are not paranoid fantasies as they are documented facts. They are transparent demonstrations that it is impossible to communicate effectively with ideologues.

Darwinism is not science. It is a faith-based religion, completely blind to the realites of the experimental laboratory, hundreds of years of human experience and the undeniable testimony of the fossil record. It is a scandal and a hoax. Fortunately it is not much longer for this world and I am delighted to be able to contribute to its certain demise.

I fully expect this post also to be relegated to the oblivion of the Bathroom Wall. That is if it isn’t garbled or out and out deleted.

John A. Davison

Comment #22785

Posted by PvM on April 1, 2005 01:11 AM (e) (s)

JAD wrote:

Like nearly all  white cats they are deaf and we are dealing here with congenital problems  that cannot be remedied by rational discussion.

So you approach these forums from a position which shows a dogmatic stance and yet you complain when you are being ignored or banned. On ARN I have noticed you consistently trying to derail threads with off-topic postings.

So before you start whining about being ignored or banned, you may want to take some time reflecting on how your own approach may be a causal factor.

If you consider dialogue with idealogues to be impossible then I suggest you take your whining elsewhere. While evolutionists seem to have given you the opportunity to continue your postings, even when banned to the bootcamp on EvC or moved to the Bathroom on PT or being disemvoweled, ID friendly websites seem to be mostly ignoring you or banning you.
That ID proponents reject your ‘claims’ is quite telling.

You reap what you sow my dear friend and if you approach the discussion with a closed mind, you should not be surprised with the responses. If you, when asked for details refer to your manifesto, you should not be surprised that people reject your claims.

Of course, some like a position of being a ‘martyr’…

Comment #22789

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 1, 2005 01:56 AM (e) (s)

Why should I summarize material that is a touch of your mouse away?

Light.  Illumination.  Manners.  Reiteration. 

Is there any human, godly, noble or polite reason not to?

Comment #22790

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 1, 2005 02:00 AM (e) (s)

Like nearly all white cats they are deaf and we are dealing here with congenital problems that cannot be remedied by rational discussion. I am deadly serious. There is no other explanation and Einstein said as much long before me as I have posted.

Interesting question, Dr. Davison.  Darwin noted that most white, blue-eyed cats were deaf — but that’s no longer true.  Most white cats, blue-eyed or not, can hear.

Natural selection has an explanation for that phenomenon.  How do you explain it in your “PEH” paradigm?

Comment #22791

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 02:23 AM (e) (s)

I do not whine. I attack sockpuppets like yourself with all the vigor I can muster. A Christian Darwinian indeed. What a travesty. Do you think I was born yesterday? I reap nothing because my science goes unrecognized exactly as did that of the many of my predecessors on which it is so firmly based. You Godless, aimless, random happy, mutation intoxicated dreamers don’t have clue about the great mystery of evolution and you don’t even have a clue that you don’t have a clue. You are victims of exactly the essence of the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis. You are living examples that there is no such thing as free will. You are victims of your own genetic fate. Certain others of us have had better luck with our genetic heritage.

I am no martyr. I am a warrior bent on the destruction of that force of intellectual evil known far and wide as Darwinism, a cult of chance worshippers who, obviously genetically impaired, cannot hear Einstein’s music of the spheres. You are one of its most perfect representatives.

I am not your friend. I regard you as one of the most intractable and virulent of my intellectual enemies.

If you or anyone else thinks that I am going to recreate my publications for your consumption here ar Panda’s Thumb you are out of what little mind you may actually still retain. What the hell do you think journals are for? Furthermore, nearly all my papers are freely available as online versions anyway a touch of your helpless little mouse away. Where may I find Pim’s contributions to the evolutionary literature or does he even have any?
Ill bet he doesn’t. Most pontificators don’t. They are too busy denigrating others to take the time to publish anything of their own which would obviously just be more Darwinian pablum anyway.

John A. Davison

Comment #22798

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 06:12 AM (e) (s)

Its nice to note that Darwin was right about something. Incidentally, I never said anything about blue-eyed cats, just pure white ones and I stick with the one thing about which Darwin was correct. What I said was that most white cats are deaf. So are purebred Darwinians for the same reason. They are born that way. So are the Bible thumpers. Both factions are living proof of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. So much for free will and rational discussion.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Comment #22831

Posted by Henry J on April 1, 2005 10:49 AM (e) (s)

Re “Why should I summarize material that is a touch of your mouse away?”
Because you are presumably trying to defend your position, and actually giving ones argument is typically the way to, you know, give ones argument? Think about it.

Re “If that were not the case there could have been no evolution because organisms would have just gone right on gradually changing in response to a changing environment.”
That takes both time and resources. Others here have referred to articles about ongoing evolution; ignoring that won’t make it go away. Evolution following major extinctions also requires that formerly tied up resources be available, which is not the case in the current series of extinctions.

Re “I am convinced that sexual reproduction is anti-evolutionary.”
Well, I’m not, and I see no sign that anybody else around here is, either. (Which I guess won’t matter to you since you regard anybody who disagrees with you as either stupid or deluded. A viewpoint that tends to put a damper on conversation.)

Re “I assume that when a published scientist enters a discussion that his audience would first read his works and then ask pertinent questions which he could answer. That has never been my experience here or elsehwere.”
So why continue to hold an assumption that has been contradicted by evidence? Isn’t that what you accuse “Darwinists” of doing?

Re “Darwinism is not science. It is a faith-based religion, “
I’m inclined to say “false” and “false”, except that for the first assertion, the term “Darwinism” apparently just means whatever you want it to. Part of your manifesto seemed to imply that “Darwinists” are certain that sexual reproduction had been continuous since at least the beginning of vertebrates as a group. I’d never really thought about that point, but I see no reason to think that biologists as a group were utterly convinced of said continuity.

Henry

Comment #22861

Posted by PvM on April 1, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

Although totally off-topic, I will preserve Nosivad’s latest rant for posterity. Of course that the posting has a date of April 1, is quite ironic.
On the one hand Davison whines that he is not allowed to present his arguments and on the other hand he refuses to present any of his arguments, effectively reducing his contributions to some meaningless whining about atheism, dogmatic Darwimpians and so on.

What a pitty…

And while JAD considers me to be his ‘enemy’ I consider him to be my friend as his ‘comments’ and ‘arguments’ help the ‘cause’ :-)

Comment #22887

Posted by PvM on April 1, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

Until Nosy will contribute something worthwile I will be dumping his comments to where they truly belong.

Comment #23559

Posted by PvM on April 6, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

Dumped some off topic comments to the bathroom wall