Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. 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.
Recent Comments
- tytlal on March 22, 2005 07:32 PM
- "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 22, 2005 07:22 PM
- John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 06:40 PM
- Michael Rathbun on March 22, 2005 05:54 PM
- RBH on March 22, 2005 04:58 PM
- Moses on March 22, 2005 03:53 PM
- Michael Rathbun on March 22, 2005 03:43 PM
- bad joke on March 22, 2005 03:41 PM
- John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 03:01 PM
- Ed Darrell on March 22, 2005 02:54 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Richard B. Hoppe on March 20, 2005 12:57 PM
Scientific American, that venerable purveyor of mainstream science to the literate, has decided to change its dogmatic ways. From the April 2005 issue, just out:
In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies.
…Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
…Get ready for a new Scientific American. … This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, not just the science that scientists say is science. (All italics original)
Oh, and one more thing:
And it will start on April Fools’ Day.
RBH
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/887
Comment #21185
Posted by RBH on March 20, 2005 01:04 PM (e) (s)
snex wrote
jumping the gun there a little arent we?
Pardon? Did that mean something?
RBH
Comment #21189
Posted by Air Bear on March 20, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)
In their annual April issue, SciAm used to publish letters they received from crank theorists, but they stopped. That’s unfortunate, because the crank theories can be quite entertaining.
Given what’s happening at IMAX theaters in science museums, SciAm may be forced to publish this editorial for real in 20 years or so.
Comment #21197
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 20, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)
h th scntfc mrts f mkng fn f yr ppnts whl stll nt mkng vrfbl prdctns…….
Th prblm s tht whl yr scm ws mkng fn f n rgmnt t ws nbl t ddrss th rl ss n fvrbl lght.
Fcts->cnclsns
Hwvr thr r sm cnclsns tht r cmpltly nspprtd by fcts.
Fr xml, D s bttr r wrs thry thn vltn wth n ntllgnt crtr. Snc nthr rlly mk prdctns thr thn t prdct prvsly dscvrd dt thy r bth qs-scnc/hstry.
Thr s n crrnt vdnc tht spprts thr sd. D ws dsgnd t b vltn wth dffrnt WHY. s sch snc vltn hs ptfl spprt n th why t s cnstnt thrn n yr sd…
Th fct tht fcd wth ths dlsm whr th vltnsts wth gd r rddcld by th vltnsts wtht gd tr scnc wld b ntrl.
Bt y rn’t bt scnc…..
Comment #21198
Posted by Jeff Low on March 20, 2005 03:16 PM (e) (s)
Yep. You sure fooled me! I thought Sci Am was finally moving out of the dark ages. I guess we’ll just have to wait… I did find this rather interesting though: a battle between design by the unobservable designer(s?) and design by humans…
battle of designed machines
Comment #21201
Posted by Russell on March 20, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)
DonkeyKong:
Here’s a small sample of the list of sources of predictions that the theory of evolution made, and were borne out:
http://wilstar.com/evolution/predictions.html…
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_…
http://www.don;lindsay;archive.org/creation/evo_science.html…
(replace semicolons with hyphens)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html…
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html…
http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/yanai00.pdf…
http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.…
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon2tol.html…
So what does ID predict? What has it predicted that was borne out? Please stop littering this site with this “no predictions” garbage until you address this.
Comment #21207
Posted by jeff-perado on March 20, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)
Russell:
The problem with DK is that he muddles the meaning of “predictions” (intentionally??) He confounds predictions in the sense of the prophesies of Nostradamus — which turn out to mean anything — with predictions such as, “I predict that when I add 1 and 1, I will get the result of 2” with predictions of calculating the force of gravity and then testing that prediction experimentally, with the predictions actually used in evolution, that if a new species X is discovered, and it is found with properties A,B,C,D,… then it will be related to species Y, and if a fossil with properties E,F,G,H,… is found then it will be a transitional species between species L and species N…
DK intermixes all these types of “prediction” to make a mess of an argument, that in the end has no coherence or logic to it, and such that no facts presented to him will answer his challenge.
What DK seems to want of evolution, is for scientists to say, “Ok, here is our evolutionary prediction: We predict that in ten years, some botanist will find a new species of plant that has precisely these characteristics, a,b,c,d,…., lives only in this geological area, etc.” To DK, what he wants to to pretend that evolution is nothing more than a group of Nostradamuses…
Comment #21220
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 20, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)
Rssl
Frm yr frst lnk
“n scnc, “prdctn” ds nt ncssrly mn dscrbng ftr vnt. t s smply th lgcl rslt y wld xpct frm th dt y hv.”
Yr scnd lnk ss th wrd Gd 46 tms.
Yr thrd lnk ws dd
Frth lnk
” f vltn’s lw pwr t mk ftr prdctns kps t frm bng scnc, thn sm thr flds f stdy cs t b scncs, t, spclly rchlgy nd strnmy.”
gr fr th mst prt rchlgy s nt scnc nd strnmy s ftn nt scnc n tht mny f ts thrs r mssvly nspprtd, spc thr, wrm hls tc.
Ffth lnk cntnd
“n rcnt yrs, nw fld n cmptr scnc hs mrgd: s-clld “gntc lgrthms,” whch tk dvntg f th pwr f vltn t slv xtrmly dffclt prblms.” vltnry, slf rgnzng lgrthms hv fld msrbly. n gnrl th ttntn ndd t th nvrnmnt t gt thm t d ntrstng thngs wld rg fr n D xplntn f n wr nt bsd t th tst.
Th lst lnk cntnd
“Wlls clms tht txtbks d nt cvr th “Cmbrn xplsn” nd fl t pnt t hw ths “tp-dwn” vltn pss srs chllng t cmmn dscnt nd vltn.” f tr ths s dmnng sttmnt rgrdng vltn n th clssrm bng frm f nt-rlgs brn wshng. Cmbrn xplsn hppnd hv t tch t.
rd yr lnks….y rd mn…
http://www.nkrbrg.cm/rtcls/_PDFrchvs/scnc/SC3W1199.pdf…
http://www.nswrsngnss.rg/dcs2002/0228nt_scnc.sp…
http://www.nswrsngnss.rg/dcs2002/0228nt_scnc.sp…
http://www.crtnthry.rg/Yngrth/…
fnd th lck f prmd lst shwng th fls prdctns f vltn trblng…
Fls prdctns f vltn ff th tp f my hd…
Sgn prdctns rgrdng vns, mrs, mn, Jptr.
Gntcs shwng mny prmtv rgnsms hv lrgr DN strnds thn hmns…Ths ws n nxpctd rslt.
Gntcs shwng mjr sss rgng gnst spctn bng s sy s vltn thry sggsts…Thr s n bsrvd vdnc fr chng n chrmsm strctr btwn p nd hmn whch rgs gnst th lnr prgrssn thry t th hrt f vltn.
Cmbrn xplsn ccrng n wy tht nvlvs mch fstr mttn rt nd spctn thn s prsntly bsrvd…
bgnss bng n-vrfd ftr 50+ yrs f ttmpts.
Th prdctn tht spcs drtn sms t b cmpltly rndm bng t dds wth srvvl f fttst Ntrl Slctn.
Flr t bsrv spctn r mcr-vltn t th rt ncssry t sstn vltn. rgbly flr t bsrv t t ll bt wll stck t th mr cnsrvtv ssrtn.
Gntc vdnc wll n r lftms prbbly slv/nd ths dbt n wy r th thr s DN ntrdcs mr dt thn ll th pln nd fssl dt cmbnd nd wll plc cnstrnts n vltn tht cnnt b shrggd ff nlss t s crrct.
Whn th dtls f wht vltn s skng y t blv r wll ndrstd s DN wll mk thm nd th gps n th lgc r clr vltn s w knw t tdy prbbly wll nt srvv jst s vltn n Drwns dy hs mstly nt srvvd.
Comment #21223
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 20, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s)
Jff
Prdctns
Lvls f scnc nvlvd.
1) Strngst clm t prdctng s whn y cn stt prdcts B n n nvrnmnt f C nd nt . ll thr mdfctns t th nvrnmnt wll nt ltr th prdctn whn y th scptc tst t ndr yr wn rls prvdd y bsrv th ,B,C,D sttd ssmptns. Grvty s lk ths. Prsnc f tw bjcts wll ttrct ch thr nlss cnnctd by rgd bdy tht hlds thm pprt tc.
2) Wkr clm. ->B hwvr fr whtvr rsn th nvrnmnt cnnt b ltrd s tht w hv n wy t tst tht C s rlly th cs nd y cn’t tst t yrslf. t ts bst vltn clms t prdct ths lvl.
3) ->B whr B s s vg tht t cn mn nythng. Nstrdms sd ths s dd Drwn. Ntrl Slctn cnnt b dsprvn s ts dfntn f B r whn ->B r vn r t vg t b tstd nd fnd fls n ny mgnd snr.
4) mltpl gss clm. ->B r C r D r r F r ……..Z h lk ws rght ->D. vltn s cmmnly glty f ths s th scntsts wh prdct fls tcms dn’t pblsh thr thrs gn ftr bng prvn fls. T gn th crdblty f thry tht xplns thngs y hv t prdct mltpl nknwn vnts wth th SM NLTRD thry.
5) bltntly fls ->B h lk ->D nd nt ->B nd my thry s stll vld. Cmplxty f DN bng nlnkd t cmplxty f prcptn f Blgy s xmpl f ths. Tht trs r mr cmplx gntclly thn y ws shck…nd ndrmns th whl prms f vltn.
Comment #21226
Posted by Russell on March 20, 2005 05:38 PM (e) (s)
DK: I didn’t just ask you to look at those links. They contain a very small fraction of the predictions that evolution makes. I asked you what Intelligent Design predicts. Your response was, predictably nonresponsive.
Comment #21228
Posted by Russell on March 20, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)
DK: I even went to the trouble of looking up your links. Again - totally nonresponsive to the question at hand. As to your list of “false predictions of evolution” - so far as I can tell at first glance, not one of them really holds up as such. I don’t suppose you have a reputable link for each of those do you?
Comment #21227
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 20, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)
Let’s get back to the original topic, shall we? Please don’t let this thread get de-railed by DonkeyKong’s empty barrels.
Scientific American’s announcemnt is especially humorous because it comes so close to the language actually used by ID promoters.
Examples:
“ID theorists” “unspecified” “fair and balanced”
The ID camp’s prolific wordsmithing is definitely making it more and more difficult to recognize authentic satire. Sadly, I’m sure some readers of SciAm will be fooled.
Comment #21230
Posted by Russell on March 20, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)
Jeremy Mohn: Let’s get back to the original topic, shall we? Please don’t let this thread get de-railed by DonkeyKong’s empty barrels.
Good point. An appropriate place to respond to my remarks, Donkey, if, and only if you have a response as opposed to empty slogans, might be “How to piss off a scientist”.
Comment #21234
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 20, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)
Rssl.
Th whl pnt f D s tht t s vltn wth dffrnt why bt n nw prdctns.
t dds nthng. Bt t sbtrcts nthng. t s yr clm tht t mks D nt scnc bt pnt t tht D sts n ll th vltn spprt.
Why vltn fllws th nlkly pth tht t ds s prt f th ntrstng prt.
Ds t d s v n nflsfbl Ntrl Slctn r v n nflsfbl ntllgnt Dsgn?
Dsn’t mttr t m bt nthr s scntfc thry.
Th scntfc thry tht hs spprt s tht lf sd t b mr smpl thn t s nw.
n tht w gr. ccpt th fssl vdnc. ccpt th DN vdnc. Lf s smlr. Lf sd t b mr smpl. nd y r t f ctl spprt fr vltn s th rsn WHY th thngs w rgr n r tr s srly lckng.
ts ll th why tht w dsgr nd n tht yr scntfc spprt s nt bttr thn th D crwd.
Y cn’t mk thngs vlv, y cn’t s thngs vlv s y rsrt t tryng t brnwsh kds. n dng s y scrm nd cry bt nyn ls prsntng thr why thry bcs y knw y dn’t hv dt tht spprts yr why nd dsn’t spprt thr why.
BTW lvd yr s f th wrd prdctn t mn bsrvtn ftr th fct.
Comment #21236
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 20, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)
Rssl
yr nblty t rd my lnks s tllng…
s t tht y dn’t wnt t fc tht dffrncs btwn frwrd lkng nd bckwrd lkng “scnc”.
Fr m scnc s bt th blty t prdct nd cntrl r nvrs.
Ths “scncs” tht fl n thr blty t d tht nd nthr nm s thy trly r dffrnt thng frm tr scnc.
myb qs-scnc? bg-scnc? vltn?
s t tht y dn’t wnt t dmt tht th rsn vltnsts r tryng t brnwsh kds s bcs vltn fls th mst bsc tsts f scnc?
Nmly vltn fls t fllw th scntfc mthd fr th mjrty f ts clms.
Wht r y rnnng frm Rssl?
Comment #21240
Posted by Jon Fleming on March 20, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)
BTW loved your use of the word prediction to mean observation after the fact.
In science, a prediction is a logical consequence of some hypothetical explanation of an observation. Predictions about what we should observe about some past event are just that, predictions.
Comment #21241
Posted by Les Lane on March 20, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)
Donkey Kong-
Evolution predicts that the amino acid sequence of hemoglobin A of humans will be similar to that of chimpanzee, less similar to that of the Gibbon, and still less similar to that of the mouse. Retrieve the sequences (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Database/index.html…) and check the prediction.
Comment #21242
Posted by Jelly on March 20, 2005 07:38 PM (e) (s)
The Sci Am article makes an important point. As scientists, we can’t ignore that there are those who have, do, and will manipulate science and the scientific process. Good journalism should not ignore the subjectivist’s threats and distortions of science. An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.
Jelly
Comment #21244
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 20, 2005 07:41 PM (e) (s)
Please, please, please! Do what Mario would do!
There are two options:
1. You can jump over the barrels (ignore DonkeyKong’s attempts to de-rail this thread)
2. You can smash the barrels with a hammer (attempt to obliterate DonkeyKong’s “arguments”)
I suggest option 1 because it is easier and wastes less of everyone’s time. The problem with option 2 is that, although it can be amusing, the ape apparently has an unlimited supply of barrels.
Comment #21245
Posted by Russell on March 20, 2005 07:45 PM (e) (s)
Donkey - you’ll find my response on the Bathroom Wall, where I suggest all your sloganeering belongs.
Comment #21246
Posted by RBH on March 20, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)
I have decided to implement a comment control policy similar to PZ’s: disemvowelment of trolling derailments and jerky comments in general. The general guidelines are similar to those used on Infidels, interpreted as I damn well feel like interpreting them depending on my mood when I read the comment. Complaints about comment control in comment threads appended to my posts will be summarily deleted.
RBH
Comment #21247
Posted by Jelly on March 20, 2005 07:56 PM (e) (s)
Jeremy,
You make a very good point. Engaging in a pissing contest will get you nothing more than wet shoes and yellow socks. There are plenty of people with open minds that are willing to engage in an honest conversation. Allowing the trolls to feed at will is bound to drag the blog down.
On a related note, what is the general opinion about encouraging the blog master to build a “troll feeding zone” where open season could be encouraged?
Jelly
Comment #21253
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 20, 2005 08:39 PM (e) (s)
Jelly-
There is a place where “troll feeding” is allowed, The Bathroom Wall.
An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.
I certainly agree. The problem is, how do we decide what “informed” and “educated” mean? More importantly, who gets to decide?
In Kansas, we have some members of the State Board of Education claiming that they have the qualifications necessary to judge what should be taught in public school science classrooms.
When asked what these supposed qualifications are, you know what they said?
Being a member of the State Board of Education, of course.
I’m not kidding. That’s really what they said.
Comment #21288
Posted by Ed Darrell on March 21, 2005 12:32 AM (e) (s)
Earlier, Jelly wrote:
An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.
Which is why I question the motives of those who work so hard to prevent people from becoming informed and educated.
Who wins when the kids don’t learn the facts?
Comment #21296
Posted by Jelly on March 21, 2005 01:49 AM (e) (s)
Jeremy and Ed,
Indeed, it is a challenging issue. My response is to say that I get to decided what is informed and educated…at least with my children. Of course, parents with an alternative perspective will also make the same claim. The difference is that I expect that my children (and all children attending a public school) will be taught about science that is unbiased by religious opinion. God and spirituality are things that my wife and I will teach our children at home and in our church. Can you imagine how insane a government sanctioned and school board approved curriculum on God would be like. Please, stop the insanity! So, while all might not agree on “informed and educated,” science should not be so difficult to define. Unfortunately, the challenge is that it’s easy to mislead the uninformed about what is and what is not science. It is my guess that this is our best point of defense.
Jelly
Comment #21297
Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 01:50 AM (e) (s)
OT serious question —
Musing about the possible forces that led to the evolution of this or that feature is a fun past time for me, but something has me stumped.
Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while chimps have 24. The way I understand it, any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile.
So, presumably the common ancestor species of chimps and humans had some number of pairs, then either two chromosomes fused in humans, or one split into two in chimps.
Yet how could this happen? Unless it somehow happened to a big chunk of the population all at once, wouldn’t anyone with a different number of chromosomes end up with no grandkids?
Comment #21300
Posted by Jelly on March 21, 2005 02:13 AM (e) (s)
Boronx,
You say that you understand that “any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile.”
Well, not all mules are sterile.
Jelly
Comment #21303
Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 02:27 AM (e) (s)
“Well, not all mules are sterile.”
True. But I understand that’s the source of sterility in mules. I’m guessing an odd number of chromosomes generally confounds meiosis. Maybe most mules are fertile at some very low probability.
Forgive the suggestion, but has anyone tried crossing a human with a chimp?
Comment #21305
Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 02:31 AM (e) (s)
Anyway, I’m not trying to start an argument. This is a question that I’ve pondered for three or four years now, and Panda’s Thumb is really the first opportunity I’ve had to find someone whose put some thought or research into it, or has read something about it.
Comment #21331
Posted by Flint on March 21, 2005 07:59 AM (e) (s)
While it’s foolish to divorce scientific knowledge and investigation from the real world, I admit that on occasion I find a Scientific American article on public policy to be only thinly related to scientific development and more of an opinion piece. There really isn’t any relationship between, for example, how a nuclear weapon works or how it was developed, and whether Mutually Assured Destruction is an effective component of international policy. And nuclear physicists are no more qualified than house painters to evaluate such a policy.
In some cases, scientific knowledge isn’t really the issue. Global warming isn’t a question of whether the planet is warming up, or whether human activities are contributing to it. Global warming is an issue of economic tradeoff — yeah, we’re contributing, but is it a bargain? Yeah, we could use more expensive, less efficient methods, costing a bundle. How much would we be purchasing, and would it be worth the expense? This is really a political matter, because those paying the cost are not those reaping the benefits. Scientific American tends to ask whether global warming is scientificially supportable as an assertion, which is the wrong question. A better question is, would scientists support steps to alleviate global warming if the cost of those steps were subtracted from scientific funding across the board? This would quickly mean zero funding for anyone. NOW, you scientists, do you STILL support this policy? Welcome to politics.
Yeah, creationism is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching magic as fact would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their magic will save our souls. When scientific knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should not be in the business of taking positions on political policies.
Comment #21332
Posted by Wayne Francis on March 21, 2005 08:10 AM (e) (s)
Comment #21297
Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 01:50 AM
OT serious question —
Musing about the possible forces that led to the evolution of this or that feature is a fun past time for me, but something has me stumped.
Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while chimps have 24. The way I understand it, any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile.
So, presumably the common ancestor species of chimps and humans had some number of pairs, then either two chromosomes fused in humans, or one split into two in chimps.
Yet how could this happen? Unless it somehow happened to a big chunk of the population all at once, wouldn’t anyone with a different number of chromosomes end up with no grandkids?
This is not true. While different number of chromosomes may seem to cause hard and fast barrier it doesn’t
In humans it happen with a well known condition. Downs Syndrome. Females with down syndrome are normally fertile.
Other species are also able to hybrid without a noticeable fertility problem dispite different numbers of chromosomes. Common Horse has 64 chromosomes Donkeys have 62 and yes mules which are normally sterile have 63. But lets look at another Equus hybrid. Przewalskis have 66 chromosomes and when you breed them with horses their offspring have 65 chromosomes but the are almost always fertile.
So in the distant past say a dominate male was responsible for the chromosomal fusion event. That male could have easily spawned a large number of offspring with the same mutation. Fertility does not have to be effected by mutation.
Comment #21347
Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 09:20 AM (e) (s)
“This is not true. While different number of chromosomes may seem to cause hard and fast barrier it doesn’t
In humans it happen with a well known condition. Downs Syndrome. Females with down syndrome are normally fertile.”
Ok, thank you. I suspected something like that, but was put off by the seeming lack of variability in chromosome number.
“Kay G. A foal from a mule in Morocco. Vet Record 2003;152 (3): 92.”
Thanks, if I can find it I’ll check it out.
Comment #21360
Posted by tristram on March 21, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)
Forgive the suggestion, but has anyone tried crossing a human with a chimp?
Sure—I saw a newspaper at the checkout counter that had the headline “Woman raped by gorilla—baby lives!” It even had a photo.
I suspect that such an experiment might raise ethical concerns. Such concerns have been raised again in Pennsylvania, where another experimenter recently was testing a similar hypothesis with a wooly ruminant.
Comment #21367
Posted by Neurode on March 21, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)
Flint: “Yeah, creationism is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching magic as fact would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their magic will save our souls. When scientific knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should not be in the business of taking positions on political policies.”
I agree. Another problem is Scientific American’s inability to distinguish between ID and Creationism. It’s common knowledge that anyone looking for a blast of ID insight from SciAm has a skull full of rocks, insofar as its editors couldn’t find the difference(s) between ID and religion if Michael Shermer’s life depended on it…and I say this as a subscriber who appreciates the magazine’s value.
But what strikes one as positively strange in this thread is the promulgation of an anti-ID April Fool’s satire by the author of “Multiple Designers Theory”, promoted as a sane version of ID theory. One could scarcely be more surprised if Austin Powers were to suddenly freeze in the middle of a frug, dash his hornrims on the dance floor, and hold forth on his utter contempt for the Swinging 60’s!
But perhaps it’s just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren’t always as they seem.
Comment #21369
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 21, 2005 10:38 AM (e) (s)
Difference in chromosome number does not seem to be a problem for muntjac deer
Comment #21370
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 21, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)
But perhaps it’s just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren’t always as they seem.
Things are seldom what they seem,
skim milk masquerades as cream.
- W.S. Gilbert
Comment #21373
Posted by Jelly on March 21, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)
Flint,
As citizens of a free country, physicists and house painters are equally qualified to decide if they want their government to pursue a policy of mutual destruction. Politicians are supposed to serve the people.
Global warming is a bargain if we’re willing to rape future generations’ opportunity for our own gain. Is that what you’re about? Is your goal to consume without consideration of the consequence? Is this the bargain you’re suggesting?
Regarding you question about whether scientist would fund measures to mitigate or eliminate the effects of global warming, government funding agencies already spend a great deal of money in this area. Wouldn’t it be nice if global warming wasn’t a threat so that this money could be spent in areas of world health, welfare, and education? But, your policy seems to be “spend now and let the next guy pay.”
In response to your last paragraph, I made a few substitutions in the (blind?) hope that it would clarify the issue for you.
“Yeah, ignorance is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching religion as science would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their religion will save our souls. When religious knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should always be in the business of taking positions on political policies where it attempts to offer information to help citizens make informed decisions.”
Jelly
Comment #21379
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 21, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)
April Fools jokes are better when they are early.
Good one RBH!!!!
(I will admit to telling my spouse that I’d kill myself if it were true).
Comment #21384
Posted by RBH on March 21, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)
Referring to Multiple Designers Theory, Neurode wrote
But perhaps it’s just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren’t always as they seem.
Read the MDT essay, Neurode, especially footnote 1. Then read the follow-up, Validating Designer Discrimination Methods.
And satire is never meaningless. :)
RBH
Comment #21385
Posted by Flint on March 21, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)
Jelly:
Well, yes and no here. I’m not taking a position on global warming in my post (as an aside, I think it’s a lousy bargain). I’m taking a position on whether it is a scientific issue (I say no) or a political issue (I say yes). I don’t read Scientific American to get articles taking sides on political issues. I tried to point out that it’s a good wind that blows nobody ill. There ARE genuine, real, serious costs to reducing human contributions to global warming. I wrote that those who would pay these costs are not the same people as those who would reap the benefits. That’s why it’s a political and not a scientific issue.
As for your “clarification”, I’m partially in agreement with you, but I already said that. I said (to Scientific American), when scientific information informs a political debate, present the information. Don’t take sides in the debate. This is very difficult to do. You will notice (if you re-read my original post) that I was meticulously careful to take no sides AT ALL about whether global warming is a net benefit or loss. And you will note that my failure to take YOUR side was interpreted (with flagrant fabrications galore) as taking sides against you. Do you see the difficulty of being disinterested? I suspect I could have written “I am NOT taking sides here” every other sentence, and you would STILL think I was killing future babies or whatever.
Comment #21409
Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 21, 2005 03:06 PM (e) (s)
Why do I not see any vowels in DK’s posts? Is this some sort of protest on his part?
Comment #21422
Posted by Paul Flocken on March 21, 2005 04:10 PM (e) (s)
Jelly,
A simple rephrasing of Flint’s eloquent statement above is: Explaining a problem is not the same as defending (or the correlary, opposing) any given position surrounding the problem. The current Neo-Con battle cry of “for us or against us” is the most egregious example of this forced false dichotomy.
Sincerely,
Paul
Comment #21423
Posted by RBH on March 21, 2005 04:30 PM (e) (s)
Ken Shackleton asked
Why do I not see any vowels in DK’s posts? Is this some sort of protest on his part?
It’s called disemvowelment.
RBH
Comment #21437
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 21, 2005 06:22 PM (e) (s)
How is everything with your precious Avida? That seems to have died on the vine.
Sir: kindly cease this pointless, venial, vicious dorkitacity. It is most unbecoming to someone with your alleged eminence.
Avida has done just about everything other than “die on the vine”. The mailing list is active, new experimenters are attracted to it daily. Indeed, I have a couple of instances running here, as well, at the moment. I imagine that what really chaps your hide about Avida is the ease with which it demonstrates that mutation + selection is capable of generating interesting, novel, complex and unexpected features. And, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to run in the average lab setting than the FPGA evolution scheme.
Comment #21439
Posted by RBH on March 21, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)
Michael,
The DL Lab site at CalTech has been off the air for (at least) a couple of days. I didn’t see anything on the list about it. Know anything about that?
RBH
Comment #21440
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 21, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)
The DL Lab site at CalTech has been off the air for (at least) a couple of days. I didn’t see anything on the list about it. Know anything about that?
I didn’t see any info about it on the mailing list, either. The MSU site looks normally functional. I’ve noticed a bunch of things at CalTech going up and down recently; they may have some campus network upheaval.
Comment #21459
Posted by colleen on March 21, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)
Towel Throwing
I just read Scientific American thing. Ha Ha.
I thought it was true and ready to give up on America. If Congress can call a special midnight session for what?
Comment #21460
Posted by colleen on March 21, 2005 11:11 PM (e) (s)
Micheal Rathun: It’s not dorkitacity, it’s drktcty.
Comment #21471
Posted by Travis on March 22, 2005 06:30 AM (e) (s)
The terminology “Religion vs science” is an inaccurate term.
Evolution is a religion, it is a FAITH based on what has been taught by a leader. Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles…why are two planets spinning backwards?
Comment #21477
Posted by Grant Canyon on March 22, 2005 07:27 AM (e) (s)
>>Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles…why are two planets spinning backwards?
Comment #21478
Posted by Grant Canyon on March 22, 2005 07:30 AM (e) (s)
Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles…why are two planets spinning backwards?
Travis,
Holy crap! That may be the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. One just marvels at the ignorance mixed with the arrogance, seasoned with a dash of contempt. This is semi-literate boobery at its finest. Congratulations!!!
Comment #21487
Posted by randomscrub on March 22, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s)
If you guys haven’t, I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn’s _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. It might teach you a thing or two about how to discriminate between paradigms rather than simply call each other morons or disparage the others’ theory.
Comment #21490
Posted by John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)
Michael Rathbun
I see you got to my Avida post before RBH managed to delete it. Thank you for reprintimng it for all to see.
As for Avida, or any other computer simulation based on allelic mutation and selection, it has absolutely no significance for evolution because that sort of mutation never played a role in the emergence of any new life form. I thought I had made that indelibly clear to all some time ago. Don’t you people ever listen?
Avida is the Alamo of Darwimpianism, Darwin’s last stand as it were. Now quick read this before your fearless leader deletes it and be sure to include it in your response as you were thoughtful to do the last time I tried to post on this thread.
John A. Davison
Comment #21491
Posted by GT(N)T on March 22, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)
“… that sort of mutation never played a role in the emergence of any new life form.”
You can assert this all you want. Unless you provide empirical evidence the assertion is worthless. What are you, as a scientist, doing in the lab or in the field, to provide data supporting your hypothesis?
Comment #21492
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 22, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)
I thought I had made that indelibly clear to all some time ago. Don’t you people ever listen?
Contrary to what Travis stated above, “evolution” is not a religion; consequently unsupported statements from persons claiming to be authoritative are not taken any more seriously than any other sort of pronouncement.
Hint: to be listened to, bring on the evidence and leave the abusive bombast at home.
Comment #21496
Posted by John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)
There is no need for me to provide evidence for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as it is being provided by modern molecular biology and chromosome karyology as any fool would know if he took the time to peruse my manuscript and the sources it cites both ancient and modern.
To paraphrase an old saw:
“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read or comprehend it.”
John A. Davison
Comment #21497
Posted by 386sx on March 22, 2005 12:51 PM (e) (s)
Evolution is a religion, it is a FAITH based on what has been taught by a leader. Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles…why are two planets spinning backwards?
Well, according to the Dr. Rev. Kent Hovind, http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_part1a…, “God did it that way on purpose just to make the Big Bang Theory look stupid.” This of course completely stumped the ” professor from Berkeley University” with whom Hovind was conversing. Seems like an honest guy.
Comment #21500
Posted by Ed Darrell on March 22, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)
Davison, did I miss your explanation of apple maggots?
Comment #21502
Posted by bad joke on March 22, 2005 02:41 PM (e) (s)
Johnny, I have read your ‘manifesto’ to the end and, I think, you deserve a new nicname : Davison, the cranky quote miner
Comment #21503
Posted by frank schmidt on March 22, 2005 02:45 PM (e) (s)
JAD offers:
“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read or comprehend it.”
To which the only possible rejoinder is Dorothy Parker’s discussion of the plant sciences:
You can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think.
Comment #21505
Posted by Ed Darrell on March 22, 2005 02:54 PM (e) (s)
Does anyone have the heart to tell Travis? The creationists can’t even get it wrong, right: There are three planets with retrograde spin, and another with an axis tilt of about 90 degrees … maybe Hovind’s creationist optics system can’t see to Uranus?
Wikipedia says:
Some significant examples of retrograde motion in the solar system:Venus rotates slowly in the retrograde direction.
The moons Ananke, Carme, Pasiphaë and Sinope all orbit Jupiter in a retrograde direction, and are thought to be fragments of a single body that Jupiter captured long ago. Many other minor moons of Jupiter orbit retrograde.
The moon Phoebe orbits Saturn in a retrograde direction, and is thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object.
The moon Triton orbits Neptune in a retrograde direction, and is also thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object.
The planet Uranus has an axial tilt which is very near to 90°, and can be considered to be rotating in a retrograde direction depending on one’s interpretation.
I warn you: Somebody is going to take the headline on this thread to heart! Scientific American will either get a flock of new subscriptions, or a lot of cancellations (geeze — what if they get both?)
Comment #21507
Posted by John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 03:01 PM (e) (s)
My Manifesto was specifically designed to inflame devout Darwimpians wherever they may be found. That is why I have never attempted to publish it in hard copy. Have a nice random, pointless, aimless, gradualist and Godless Darwinian day. Apparently I have been quite successful in producing my desired result. Thanks for the verification.
John A. Davison
Comment #21510
Posted by bad joke on March 22, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)
Oh, johnny, my verification of darwinism
( one of several this year, because I habitually employ genetic algorithms in my work, once the problem gets too hairy )
finished at 18:01 this evening with just an other success.
I had to implement arccosine comptutation on a processor which lacks anything like Intel’s “acos” instruction under truly draconian requirements for speed and memory use.
After dwo days-or-so of futile tries, I’ve given up and instead have writen a simple genetic algorithm to search usefull approximations instead of me.
And, after a couple of hours running, it has found a approximation which one can’t outperform no matter how hard he would try…
just because it is giving *exact* number, precise to the very last bit. ( and with 20 times the speed of original code )
Comment #21511
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 22, 2005 03:43 PM (e) (s)
Apparently I have been quite successful in producing my desired result.
Apparently you mistake irritation with your abrasive and monotonously repetitious personal style for an emotional reaction to your writings. This is a common error amongst trolls and flamers.
In any event, I may now safely assume that you have revealed that your entire purpose in participating here is to cause upset. My apologies to the general public for providing you a pretext for continuing this ignoble endeavor. I shan’t repeat this mistake in future (except for this here p’ticlar instance).
Comment #21512
Posted by Moses on March 22, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)
Why do you feed the troll of a weak and little faith?
Comment #21515
Posted by RBH on March 22, 2005 04:58 PM (e) (s)
Michael,
CalTech’s DLife web server is wonky. They’re working on it.
With that I’m closing comments on this thread.
RBH
Comment #21528
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 22, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)
CalTech’s DLife web server is wonky. They’re working on it.
I noticed earlier today that it was reachable, but not answering on port 80. I imagine somebody is rebuilding something…
Comment #21532
Posted by John A. Davison on March 22, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)
I have tried all my adult life to reason with Darwinians. It simply can’t be done. Their condition is genetic, no question about it. I have secret reasons to believe their malaise is localized on human chromosome number 12 right next to the liberal and atheist loci. Their genetic formula then is DDLLAA. Being very closely linked these genes tend to remain together as is obvious to anyone with half a brain. That is why its very difficult finding an atheist who isn’t also a political liberal and a Darwimp.
John A. Davison
Comment #21534
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 22, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)
So what does ID predict? What has it predicted that was borne out? Please stop littering this site with this “no predictions” garbage until you address this.
Let’s be blunt. There IS NO scientific theory of ID. When pressed,
the best they can do is recite a long list of criticisms of evolution
— all of which are baloney, none of which is accepted by the
scientific body at large, and most of which are simply restatements
of the same tired old “criticisms” that creation “scientists” have
been making for almost 50 years now. By blithering that “evidence
against evolution, equals evidence for design”, the IDers are just
continuing the very same “two models” idea that the creation
“scientists” tried to argue. Alas for them, the “two models”
argument was decisively and explicitly rejected by the 1982 Maclean v
Arkansas case, and also in the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard Supreme Court
ruling.
Furthermore, and VERY significantly in the legal sense, in the 1982
Maclean v Arkansas case, the federal court listed the characteristics
of what constituted “science”. That list consisted of:
“More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final
word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses)”
Let’s see how Intelligent Design “theory” measures up to those
criteria, shall we?
1. “It is guided by natural law.” Heavens to betsy, the IDers lose
already. Not only is ID ‘theory’ NOT “guided by natural law”, but ID
“theorists” explicitly, clearly and plainly REJECT the idea that
science SHOULD be based on “natural law”. Indeed, their most
fundamental complaint (pardon the pun) is that science in general and
evolution in particular are “philosophical materialism” (their code
word for “atheism”) and that this, they say, unfairly rules out the
IDers’ NON-materialist or NON-natural “explanations”. Hmmm. It sure
seems to ME as if the only entity that is even capable in principle
of using “non-materialistic” or “super-naturalistic” mechanisms is a
deity or god (and if the IDers want to argue with a straight face
that the space aliens are capable of using supernaturalistic methods,
I’d pay good money to sit in court and watch that). Now I’m no
theologian, mind you, but I’m pretty sure that “deities” and “gods”
and other “supernatural entities” are religious in nature. I’m no
lawyer either, mind you, but I’m also pretty sure that arguing that a
supernatural entity or deity designed life using non-materialistic
methods, has the intent and effect of advancing religion. Hence, not
only is ID “theory” NOT based on natural law, it explicitly REJECTS
natural law in favor of supernatural methods. I.e., in favor of
religious doctrine. The IDers lose right out of the starting gate.
2. “It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law”. See
above. ID loses again. Not only does it NOT explain anything by
reference to natural law, it tries to argue that it DOESN’T HAVE TO.
Once again, the whole thing that the IDers are *bitching about in the
first place* is that science, they say, unfairly rejects anything BUT
reference to natural law — i.e., that science rejects religious
explanations. By arguing *against* the need for science to be
“explanatory by reference to natural law”, the IDers are doing
nothing more (or less) than arguing that science should be forced by
a court order to accept references to NON-natural or SUPER-natural
mechanisms. I.e., they are arguing that science should be forced to
advance religion. Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure
there’s a law against that.
3. “It is testible against the empirical world”. ID loses again.
ID ‘theory’ makes NO testible statements. None at all. It can’t
tell us what the designer did. It can’t tell us what mechanisms the
designer used to do whatever it did. It can’t tell us where we can
see these mechanisms in action. And it can’t tell us how to go about
testing any of this. ID ‘theory’ consists simply and solely of
various random arguments against evolution, coupled with the already-
rejected-by-the-courts “two model theory”. ID makes no effort at all
to produce any positive arguments on its own that can be tested.
Indeed, ID ‘theory’ can’t (or won’t) even make any testible
predictions about how old the earth is, or whether humans evolved
from apelike primates. The best ID can do is declare “evolution
can’t explain X, Y or Z, therefore we must be right”. I.e., the same
old “two models” baloney that the courts have already rejected.
4. “Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the
final word”. Well, we don’t know whether ID passes this test, since
ID ‘theory’ refuses to MAKE any conclusions. As I noted before, ID
can’t even give a coherent hypothesis, or even tell us how to form
one. What do they think the Intelligent Designer might be? They,
uh, don’t know. What do they think it did? They, uh, don’t know
that either. What mechanisms did it use? Beats the heck out of
them. <shrug> Heck, ID “theory” can’t (or won’t) even reach
conclusions on such basic questions as “how old is the earth” ——
billions of years, they say. Or maybe it’s just thousands of years.
We, uh, aren’t sure. “Did humans evolve from apelike primates?”
Yes. Or, uh, maybe not. Does ID think its conclusions are “the last
word”? Well, I guess we won’t know until ID actually MAKES some
conclusions. <shrug>
5. “It is falsifiable”. Well, again, we don’t know if ID’s
conclusions are falsifiable, because they go to great lengths to
avoid MAKING any conclusions that might be capable of being
falsified. I suspect that is deliberate.
However, the core argument of ID ‘theory’, that God — er, I mean “An
Unknown Intelligent Designer” — created life, is inherently
unfalsifiable. After all, if we know nothing about the Designer,
nothing about its nature, nothing about what it can or can’t do, then
there is simply no way we can falsify *any* statement made about it.
If I say that the designer does not have the physical or technical
capability of manipulating biomolecules, how the heck could we know
whether it really did? On the other hand, if I say that the designer
HAS manipulated biochemicals, what sort of evidence could we point to
which would indicate that it DIDN’T? The whole idea of ID is
unfalsifiable. After all, the entire “argument” of ID boils down to
“we think an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time
using unknown methods”. How the heck can anyone falsify THAT? How
the heck can anyone, in principle, demonstrate that an unknown thing
did NOT do an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods?
So there you have it. ID does not meet ANY of the criteria listed by
the federal court in determining what is or isn’t “science”. In
every conceivable legal sense, ID is not science. Period.
And I think I just wrote the Dover ACLU’s opening brief for it. :>
.
Comment #21537
Posted by tytlal on March 22, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
“And I think I just wrote the Dover ACLU’s opening brief for it. :>”
Err, nice work there Rev. Perhaps you should submit this to be used in Dover. :) Seriously.
Trackback: April Fool's For Science: The Panda's Thumb
Posted by The Betamax Guillotine on March 21, 2005 07:26 PM
Scientific American Throws in the Towel: Scientific American, that venerable purveyor of mainstream science to the literate, has decided to change its dogmatic ways. From the April 2005 issue, just out: In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-ca...
Trackback: Scientific American gives up
Posted by The Panda's Thumb on March 27, 2005 06:32 PM
Disaster strikes -- Scientific American becomes creationist.
Comment #21184
Posted by snex on March 20, 2005 01:02 PM (e) (s)
jumping the gun there a little arent we?