tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-205281152024-03-13T20:00:02.102-04:00All-Too-Common Dissent<a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2006/01/word-on-title.html">Commentary</a> on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general -
and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-89018632674807454702010-11-04T07:39:00.005-04:002010-11-04T08:07:16.212-04:00Patrick Adkins - Ignorant, Hypocritical, Right-Wing CowardSo, I'm back from hiatus, if only for this post.<br /><br />I came across a Tweet (man, I HATE this 'communication' medium) from a person named Patrick Adkins, who posts on this blog <a href="http://www.politicalbyline.com/">here</a>.<br /><br />The Tweet states:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/awful-e1288733814509.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 625px; height: 353px;" src="http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/awful-e1288733814509.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br />In response to this, he rightfully received a couple of angry emails. His response?<br /><br />Why, it was classic right-wing hiding-behind-mommy style nonsense:<br /><br /><blockquote>Hey, I make zero apologies for how I feel about the far socialist left. I would like to think that not all Democrats are like this; but I am really beginning to wonder.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />I am no longer wondering what most right-wing Tea Bagger types I like - I think it is pretty clear. They want to be able to make Holocaust allusions about what they'd like to see happen to Democrats, and when people respond angrily, they want to accuse THEM of being 'unhinged.'<br /><br />Typical.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Anyhow, I thought you all would like to see the venom that the left spews, when someone speaks their mind about the far left in this Country.</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />Ah yes, 'venom' in response to just a little old conservative doing nothing but speaking his mind - about how liberals should be treated like the Jews were by the Nazis.<br /><br />If that is Adkins speaking his mind, then I don't think much more needs to be said about this pathetic waste of atoms. But I will...<br /><br /><blockquote>Now, before some idiot liberal says it or asks — do I consider what I said to be hate speech? Nope. I reject that term “Hate Speech” entirely. That is a method by the liberal left in this control freedom of speech.</blockquote><br /><br />OK, great - anybody can make a complete ass of himself - Adkins just proved that. And hate speech? Nah - alluding to the burning to death of people simply because of their political views is not hatedful, it is just one cowardly right-wingers FREE SPEECH! But here is where it gets surreal:<br /><br /><blockquote>I believe that ALL AMERICANS, should be free to say what they want. As long as that speech does not cause mass hysteria or panic. Example: Yelling fire in a theater. However, expressing one’s feelings about a group of political fiends — is not hate speech in my book.<br /><br />So, put that in your pipe and SMOKE IT liberals! HA! Because you will be waiting a LONG time before you’ll be getting an apology out of me. </blockquote><br /><br />So you see, to the conservative Tea Bagger type nutcase, writing about putting liberals in ovens like the Nazis did to the Jews is not hate speech, it is FREE speech! And thinking that way is no biggie - heck, he didn't yell 'Fire!' in a movie theater - so it is no big deal. And he will make no apology for writing what he did - it is a free country! But hey - someone gets angry and responds with THEIR free speech rights, and they are spewing 'venom' and becoming 'unhinged' and making threats.<br /><br />And that is the way of the world with Tea Bagger types - they perceive themselves as capable of doing no wrong; their opinions are facts; their views are pro-America.<br /><br />Even when they are not.<br /><br />Adkins received an email from a retired Army sergeant who did not like his allusions, and poor Patty felt that it was "borderline" threatening - <br /><br /><blockquote>Secondly, I refuse to renounce my position. Feel free to come and get me. I’m a retirted Airboren Ranger, and will happily meet you with the welcome my grandfahters gave to the Nazis back in World War II: A hail of lead and an unmarked grave.<br /><br />Not that an internet blowhard like you would ever actually do anything.<br /><br />Get out of my country.<br /><br />Douglas E. Berry<br />SSG, USA(ret)<br /></blockquote><br /><br />OOOOO - So threatening!<br />Poor Patty - doesn't like to reap what he sows. <br />So much for that right-wing love of the military, eh?<br /><br /><br />I agree with SSG Berry - I will not renounce my views, and I dare right-wing fruit loops like Patty Adkins to come and get me. If he or his like-minded compatriots ever grew a pair enough to actually try it, they'd find that 'liberals' are not the pantywaists the right fantasizes them to be.<br /><br />Hey, thats just me exercising my right to free speech.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-16892396372943514722010-07-08T13:09:00.002-04:002010-07-08T13:16:50.182-04:00John Sanford, PhD. Young Earth Creationist"At first glance, the above calculation seems to suggest that one might at least be able to select for the creation of one small gene (of up to 1,000 nucleotides) in the time since we reputedly diverged from champanzee. There are two reasons why this is not true. 1. Haldane's calculation were only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent muations could not happen in 6 million yrs because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs." <br />-pp 128-9 <br /><br />That quote is from a book written by a retired Cornell research associate (horticulture) who went through a religious conversion and became a Young Earth Creationist.<br /><br />His name is <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FSWH_ExXuO4J:www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/+John+Sanford&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&g">John Sanford.</a><br />The book is called Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.<br /><br />The quote explains why I will not be wasting my time reading, nor my money buying, this book. If the reader needs an explanation, please ask. But if you support Sanford's claims as laid out in his book and you need an explanation, that may explain why you support Sanford's claims.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-57115387724225229702010-04-15T19:23:00.004-04:002010-04-15T19:29:59.458-04:00R. David Pogge, Christian Creationist CharlatanOver on one of the many cesspools of ignorance and disinformation, 'scienceagainstevolution.org', Ol' Do-While himself, David Pogge, software engineer and 'expert' on all things having to do with evolution, is up to his old tricks.<br /><br />An associate emailed him the following:<br /><br /><blockquote>I was amazed at how readily you demolished the decades of work by Robert Hazen by merely showing how it is all faith, and how software technicians, like yourself, have been "measuring complexity for 30 years."<br /> <br />I was wondering then if you can tell me how to measure the complexity of, say, a dogfish?</blockquote><br /> <br /><br />Pogge's response - remember, this is the response of a fellow with dozens of essays attacking the 'hoax' of evolution, who presents himself as an expert on complexity and information theory:<br /><br /><blockquote>Engineers have a method for measuring complexity. It may not be perfect, but it is reasonable and rational.<br /><br />As far as I know, biologists don't have any way of measuring complexity (other than, "Gee, this looks more complex than that.").</blockquote><br />One will note that he does not even attempt a reasoned resply. <br /><br />If you take the time to actually read some of his essays - or better yet, read some of the exposes of his crap that are on here - you will see why he did not answer the question.<br /><br />He can't.<br /><br />Oh well - back on hiatus....Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-81766714308000540202009-10-22T15:30:00.002-04:002009-10-22T15:40:56.054-04:00Poor Ilion, still peddling gibberishI see that as off a couple of months ago, my old pal computer technicians and right-wing, birther, creationist, conservative Ilion was <a href="http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/design_and_romans_120.html">still peddling his anti-evolution claim that the human chromosome 2 fusion disproves evolution.</a><br />He's been peddling this claim - and refusing to budge despite having been corrected by at least 4 professional biologists that I am aware of - for about 8 years.<br /><br />Briefly, humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes have 48. There is evidence that human chromosome 2 arose via a fusion of two other chromosomes, and that is why we have 46. Ilion claims that even if thi sfusion occurred, 2 problems arise - 1. depressed fertility and 2. the fixation in the population (not enough time, or something).<br /><br />The short answer is, the human chromosome 2 fusion is not really an issue.<br /><br />And we can say this by looking at living mammals who do perfectly well with altered karyotyopes fixed in their population (even some that maintain polymorphic karyotyes, which Ilion insists is a bad, bad thing and essentially impossible).<br /><br /><br />Let's look at one example.<br /><br />The domestic horse has 2n=66. Przewalski's horse has 2n=64. The difference is a fission of the domestic horse's chromosome 5 (or a fusion of 2 of P. horse's chromosomes forming the domestic horse's chromosome 5, if you like).<br /><br />Here is the clincher - they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.<br /><br />But they are not odd numbers you say?<br /><br />OK - let's stick with horses.<br /><br />The Caspian pony maintains a polymorphic karyotype.<br /><br />Some are 2n=64, some are 2n=65, and they get along smashingly.<br /><br />Ilion the computer tech's arguments are just mantras and nonsense.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-59562970637671423592009-10-16T08:00:00.002-04:002009-10-16T08:20:11.401-04:00Troy D. "Ilion" Hailey - right-wing internet expert on all!And a birther, too! Who would have thought? I had to come out of retirement for <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/">this clown</a>...<br /><br />A blast from the past:<br /><br />I have written briefly about Troy D. Hailey <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2006/04/ilion-troy-d-hailey-just-knows.html">before</a> - a computer consultant who fancies himself an expert on, well, everything, but especially evolution (claims, as they all do, to have "disproved" it).<br />Well, it seems that even his fellow computer programmer-type folks are <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=2&userid=3274274&mode=all&select=1937539&df=100&fr=9605">not very keen on the condescending, arrogant egomaniac</a>.<br />Seems old Troy didn't dig it that all did not bow down to his superior intellect, and began a flame war of sorts, with the admins and participants at the board trying to decide how best to deal with him:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#990000;">Chris Maunder wrote:I'm ready to just close it [the 'soapbox' forum] up</span><br /><span style="color:#6600cc;">That's what Ilion wants. </span><span style="color:#6600cc;"><strong>It seems that most - if not all - of the SoapBoxers are united in their opinion of the Ilion person. What you probably should do is find out who this guy's ISP is and report him for abuse,and then block the ISP's IP subnet from being allowed to post on CP.</strong></span></blockquote><br />In response to thje above:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#663366;">John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:That's what Ilion wants</span><br /><span style="color:#cc9933;">Actually it isn't. What he wants is to be able to post his opinions and have them stay in view and not be voted as abusive. Whether or not his posts are abusive, spam, or even vaguely appropriate is another thing.<br />My understanding was that people were ignoring him, so he repeatedly startedposting the same thing and THEN they were marked as spam/abuse.</span></blockquote>And to see that arrogant 'charm' from old Troy the self-identified 'nobody' (he is so humble...):<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#3333ff;">Chris Maunder wrote:Of course you do, as long as you do not abuse the forums or the site.</span><br /><span style="color:#cc33cc;">Mr Maunder, you've giving mixed signals here.<br />On the one hand, I should "probably just move on" if I want to try to discuss thing rationally/logically, because it's "abusive" (as per community consensus) to identify the illogical arguments/assertions others make.<br />On the other hand, if I'm not "abusive" (i.e. if I insult other persons right and left, as per community practice), then there is no difficulty.<br />I gotta tell ya' that's dizzy-making. To me, at any rate.</span></blockquote>Wait - there is more (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#663366;">Look, most of the really active regulars here go out of their way to express contempt for Christianity and for Christians. And that's ok, I'm not complaining; Christianity can take it. And I can take it, <strong>so long as I'm allowed to <em>demolish the so-called arguments.</em></strong>However, because I am trying to get at the illogic and/or absurdity of so many of the claims and/or arguments put forward on the anti-Christianity side of the ledger, I am apparently "abusive," as per community consensus. It isn't true in fact, and I do not appreciate it.<br />Now, if 'atheism' and/or 'atheistic' assertions have a privileged or protected status here at CP, I can live with that. As I told you, I came to CP for the programming, not for the Soapbox. However, it would have been nice to know about that special status beforehand.</span></blockquote>Because after all, a computer cunsultant expert on everything cannot do anything BUT "demolish" all arguments of those that dare oppose his ideologies...<br />But, it <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=2&userid=3274274&mode=all&select=1937539&df=100&fr=9630">goes on</a>.. and on...<br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color:#6600cc;">He's [Ilion] taking you for a ride Chris. If you trace back through the threads, you'llfind he was given ample opportunity to expound his arguments and he declined totake them. People, myself included, attempted to dispute points with him (despite his sillyness), but it was to no avail. When everyone began to ignore him (and rightly so) that's when he started bombing the forums. Despite his claims and protestations, he was treated no differently than anyone else. The difference was in <strong>him refusing to cease his obnoxious behaviour and his blatant disrespect for ALL PATRONS</strong> of this forum. On numerous occasions did several others and I ask him to stop yet he continued. I suggest you continue to monitor this forum for the next few days as I don't believe he is being genuine.</span></blockquote><br /><br />[I grew tired of trying to fix links at this point, but you get the picture...]<br /><br /><br /><p>And on...</p><blockquote><span style="color:#006600;">I am not sure what is worse, the constant posts by Ilion, or our response to it.Some of his messages have been deleted under 10 minutes. They are literallybeing removed before I can read them, although they seem to be the same 1 or 2posts over and over. I don't get what his point is, and I don't get why we don'tignore him. I don't remember Ilion posting before a week or so ago. He has fourarticles (I have not read any) and all of a sudden of deluge of incomprehensibleposts. I think we have all agreed that something is wrong mentally (some kind ofpsychotic break?), but do we need to poke the badger with a spoon?</span> </blockquote><p></p><p><a href=" msg="1930068&forumid="2605#xx1930068xx">And'>http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1930068&forumid=2605#xx1930068xx">And</a> on...</p><p></p><blockquote><span style="color:#cc0000;">A thread for Ilion to demonstrate....his much touted great intellect.Apparently you believe yourself to be beyond the intellectual capabilities of everyone on this message board. Well, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove it. Answer our questions, the ones that (so far) you refuse to answer. There are many of them, but you seem to believe it acceptable to make flippant statements without having to provide any form of cogent argument. Well, I'm putting you on the spot. Either prove you have something to contribute or finalize that once and for all that you're just here trolling these boards to irritate people and you are not to be taken seriously. Show us you're not a cheap pathetic hack...</span></blockquote><p>It is interesting to note that Ilion did not reply once in that thread...</p><p>Hmmmm.....</p><p></p><p>And then:</p><blockquote><p><span style="color:#cc0000;">He [Ilion] was annoying me because he was intentionally twisting my words.Having an argument with somebody is one thing. When somebody twists your wordsto deliberately misrepresent what you said is another. I have a problem withliars and hypocrites. I call them out. Ilion knows he's lying and deceitfulbecause he doesn't respond to my posts. He thinks he's a Christian - but it'scompletely obvious he's a hypocrite and a liar. He's less of a Christian than Iam and I'm an athiest.</span> </p></blockquote><p></p><p>Oh - you noticed all that, too?</p><p>Poor Troy Hailey - he can't even seem to get his fellow computer geeks to be on his side and bow down to his ubermensch status!</p><br />Because people like Ilion will just never let things rest. They HAVE to have it "known" that they "won", that they are "right". Even when they are not.<br />It is interesting to note that on that site, even the conservatives (well, one of them at least) thinks Ilion is a nitwit:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#cc33cc;">Ilíon wrote:Man, that's jest terrible! Political appointees being treated as political appointees.</span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">Redstateler:You know, I read that and thought something odd. The "e" key is nowhere near the "u" key on a keyboard, so how could you mistype "just" (as a typo) unless you're so hopped up on acid that you have no control of your fingers.</span></blockquote><br />He is, of course, welcomed with open arms on the <a href=" cat="0&Board="13">ARN'>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=13">ARN</a> 'Intelligent Design' forum - that is the sort of person that makes up the anti-evolution crowd - arrogant, overconfident, bombastic, and above all, underinformed. So, how can these folks deal with the arrogant blowhard?<br />I have an idea:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><p><span style="color:#cc0000;">Stop talking out of your ass. Everyone on this message board is sick to death ofyour idiocy. Do everyone a favour for once and shut up. It's painfully evident that you don't know a thing about science, you just like to run your mouth and stick quotes around everything. Take your medication. It'll help to make you more lucid. <strong>You can't even address the questions I put to you, because when confronted head on you balk and hide. You're pathetic, ignorant and an idiot.</strong> That's quite the amazing combination, you should be proud. Not just anyone can achieve such infamy. Of course, you can always respond to the thread I directedat you and prove me wrong, but I know you won't because you can't. You're a sadlittle man with an inferiority complex. I pity you. If only you had the sense torealize just how idiotic you are, it would be a blessing for you AND thismessage board.</span> </p></blockquote><br />Boy - these folks figured Ilion out, alright!<br />And Ilion is God's one true messenger... Wow....<br /><br />***************************************<br /><br />Some things never change....Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-27324116980361035432009-08-14T11:08:00.005-04:002009-08-14T11:57:50.391-04:00The Uprightbiped Chronicles...... or how a Dembski acolyte uses big words he doesn't understand... (like 'ad hominem' and non sequitur)...<br /><br /><br />Over on HuffPo, Barrett Brown wrote this article:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/intelligent-design-online_b_253515.html">Intelligent Design, Online Edition</a><br /><br />Sundry Dembski worshippers flocked to HuffPo from UncommonDescent to defend their Ideology. It appears that many of them, including one 'Uprightbiped' - were on autopilot, and responded to the article by complaining that Brown did not discuss the (pseudo)science of ID.<br /><br />But you see, the article was about ID on the internet, specifically, how Dembski runs his blog and how he is a hypocrite, which any sensible, rational, intelligent person could see form actually, you know, reading the article.<br /><br />But not Uprightbiped. Nosirree. You see, he thinks that because the title of the article had the phrase "Intelligent Design" in it, it is supposed to be only about the 'SCIENCE' of ID and nothing else.<br /><br />And so, Uptightbiped decided to reply by first whining about how Barrett did not specifically discuss ID and how all he did was 'condemn' Dembski - which, amazingly, the ARTICLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT!!!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/intelligent-design-online_b_253515.html?show_comment_id=28694605#comment_28694605">See for yourself:</a><br /><br /><blockquote><p><br /><br />Virtually every comment on this post has nothing whatsoever to do with ID -<br />neither does Barrets trivial condemnations of Dembki. One of the commenters here<br />visited Demski's UD site, stomped his feet and said "Where is your inference<br />coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based?" </p><p>I gave him the answer<br />here: <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-you-want-good-science-who-better-to-ask-than-barret-brown/comment-page-2/#comment-329383" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" peppycount="214">http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-you-want-good-science-who-better-to-ask-than-barret-brown/comment-page-2/#comment-329383</a></p><p>For those who would rather KNOW than be just another link in the chain, you might<br />consider reading David Abel's peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Theoretical<br />Biological and Medical Modeling. He spells out the case in no uncertain terms.<br />Its available here: <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" peppycount="215">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</a>There is also another from the International Journal of Molecular Science: <a href="http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" peppycount="216">http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf</a>One thing is for<br />certain, no one here will address the evidence presented in either of these<br />peer-reviewed journals on its face. Building strawmen, as Barret has done, is<br />always more fun.<br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />I guess I should also mention that Uptight (yeah, I know, namecalling - well, he took to calling me 'Scotty' at HuffPo, I guess that was supposed to be an insult, so back at ya, Uptight) seems as enamored with creationist David Abell as he is with Dembski.<br />Of course, Uptight's original post did not even acknowledge what Brown's article was really about. So, I replied:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Isn't is amazing?</p><p>A piece NOT actually intended to be about the vacuous<br />gobbledegook that is "ID" has nothing whatsoever about 'ID" in it!It is a<br />conspiracy, I tells ya!</p><p>Pro-ID zealots are a constant source of entertainment, to<br />be sure.<br /></p></blockquote><br />And it went on from there, with Uptight engaging in the usual hero protection and false accusations that I have grown accustomed to seeing from these people when things don't go there way.<br />In the end, his posts were little more than focused and constrained <a href="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop">Gish gallops</a> and argument via false authority. See for yourself, <em>in toto, </em>starting after my reply above:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Scott, Here is what is amazing: A peer-reviewed article appearing in the Journal<br />of Theoretical Medical and Biological Modeling, and a companion piece in the<br />International Journal of Molecular Sciences implicitly states:"The fundamental<br />contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this<br />paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each<br />configurab­le-switch-­position symbol, algorithmic function and language<br />will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each<br />combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and<br />destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings<br />in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a<br />cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71]."</p><p>"To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it:“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]:<br />physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems<br />requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit<br />integration.”</p><p>"A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis". </p><p>...and so you suggest this has nothing to do with the hypothesis that volitional agency is required to achieve function in the sequencing of nucleotides.Nice. What exactly did you think the author was talking about when he said the phrase “volitional agency”?<a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" peppycount="284">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</a></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />One will note that he replies as if I had responded to him specifically about his links, which I did not. Specifically the last paragraph - Uptight seems to have me confused with others (which he basically admits later, but will not directly acknowledge). I reply:<br /><br /><blockquote>Interestingly, your reply does the same thing to me that your earlier reply<br />did to Brown's article. It ignored it. That or you got me confused with someone<br />else.<br />Perhaps if I use simpler language - Brown's article was not about the lack<br />of scientific merit of ID, or even of ID in general, rather, it was about Bill<br />Dembski and his antics. Why did you expect his article to address ID when it was<br />not about ID?<br />And why would you have expected my reply to you to be about the<br />bafflegab-riddled articles that Trevors and Abel somehow got published when all<br />it was intended to do was point out that your earlier response was essentially a<br />non sequitur?<br />But since you are so enamored with Trevors and Abel, perhaps you can<br />explain how it is that an objective reader should take their claims seriously<br />when ALL of their 'conclusions' are premised on a totally unsupported assumption<br />that the genetric code was 'written'?<br /></blockquote><br /><br />One will also note that despite his obvious adoration of Trevors and Abel, Uptight does nto once even try to answer my challenge in the last part. I continued:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Their 2004 paper contains this as a premise:<br /><br />"How did inanimate nature write:<br />1. the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism?<br />2. a language operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and<br />replicate those instructions?<br />3. a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol<br />meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet<br />codon "block code" symbols (bytes) and amino acid symbols?... "<br /><br />Fails from the get go.They start by assuming their conclusion - that<br />metabolism/genetic code was pre-planned and written, and that "inanimate nature"<br />cannot do this.<br />Theirs is an argument via analogy combined with an argument via defintion<br />combined with an argument via personal incredulity, gussied up with some<br />superfluous jargon and 'information theory' gibberish.<br /><br />What about this peer reviewed scientific paper:Natural selection as the<br />process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolutionM.<br />KimuraGenetical Research (1961), 2:127-140 Cambridge University Press<br /><br />Kimura demonstrated mathematically that adaptive evolution adds information<br />to genomes. Wonder why TnA never mention that...</p><p>I should also note the last sentence of the liked paper:"We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsificationof these null hypotheses."In other words, they've just tossed out some hypotheses. Which is fine. What is not fine is that their acolytes then proceed to present these hypotheses as some sort of unfalsifiable truths.<br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />Uptight responds:<br /><br /><blockquote>Scott, (Part 1)<br />You say: “Interestingly, your reply does the same thing to me that your<br />earlier reply did to Brown's article. It ignored it.”<br /><span style="color:#cc0000;">My comment was targeted directly at the posts being<br />made in this forum</span>. This might have been obvious by the first words of my<br />post, which were “Virtually every comment on this post…” And by the way, <span style="color:#cc0000;">I noticed in your first post you suggested the paper I cited had<br />nothing to do with the inference to volitional agency</span> – and in your<br />second post you’ve seem to have abandoned the claim.<br />You say: “Perhaps if I use simpler language - Brown's article was not about<br />the lack of scientific merit of ID…Why did you expect his article to address ID<br />when it was not about ID?”<br />An article with the words “Intelligent Design” in the heading isn’t about<br />“Intelligent Design”.<br />An article that suggests that ID proponents “can't get away with trying to<br />portray ID as a scientific theory” does not attack the “scientific merit” of ID?<br />So, having had to abandon your original comment as factually untenable, you’ve<br />been left to make observations that are demonstrably incoherent.<br />Tell me why anyone should take these observations of yours seriously.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Interesting... I've highlighted (in red) some interesting, if not unwitting, 'admissions'..<br />For how did I 'abandon' a claim I never made? Note also that Uptight has attempted to diminish anything I might write - I mean, why would anyone take me seriously when I abandon a claim I never made, right? One will see that, in typical IDcreationist fashion, Uptight later essentially accuses me of doing the same thing to his poor heroes...<br />I reply:<br /><br /><blockquote>If your comment was directed at other posts, why reply directly to<br />me?<br /><br />You write:"And by the way, I noticed in your first post you suggested the<br />paper I cited had nothing to do with the inference to volitional agency – and in<br />your second post you’ve seem to have abandoned the claim."<br /><br />In my first post, I mentioned or implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I<br />did not even MENTION anything you had written - you seem to be coflating again.<br />The SOLE purpose of my first post was to point out that you, as have<br />several other anti-'Darwinists', lamented that Brown did not discuss ID when the<br />fact of the matter is that was not the intent of his article!<br />You go on, as ID advocates are wont to do:<br />"An article with the words “Intelligent Design” in the heading isn’t about<br />“Intelligent Design”. ... So, having had to abandon your original comment as<br />factually untenable,"<br /><br />Projection.<br /><br />" you’ve been left to make observations that are demonstrably<br />incoherent."<br /><br />More projection.<br /><br />"Tell me why anyone should take these observations of yours<br />seriously."<br /><br />So, if the article has the phrase "Intelligent Design" in the title, it<br />must by some magical set of unwritten rules, be solely about ID in toto?<br />Please demonstrate how my comments are incoherent - I realise that to the<br />anti-'Darwinist', mere assertions count as irrefutable evidence, but to rational<br />folk, that won't cut it.<br /><br /></blockquote>In the threaded world of blog replies at HuffPo, things get a little hairy, as Uptight also reponded with this:<br /><br />Then you say:<br />“And why would you have expected my reply to you to be about the bafflegab-riddled articles that Trevors and Abel somehow got published when all it was intended to do was point out that your earlier response was essentially a non sequitur?”<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><blockquote><span style="color:#cc0000;">Your original post was nothing but a petty ad hominem<br />attack on ID </span>which made absolutely no mention of a “non-sequitur” in my<br />comments, nor did it provide any rationale that supported the idea that one<br />existed. You are digging a hole.<br />In truth, you portrayed my comment as “gobbledegook” trying to extort<br />a peer-reviewed paper as having anything to do with ID, and then after being<br />corrected you switched to portraying the Abel paper itself as “bafflegab”.<br />You even go so far as to imply that the peer-review process at the<br />International Journal of Molecular Science, and that at the Journal of<br />Theoretical Medical and Biological Modeling, should perhaps be called into<br />question. What is most clear is that amidst all of your repeated attempts to<br />slander the reputation of anyone that disagrees with you, you say nothing<br />whatsoever about the actual evidence.<br />Why is that?<br /></blockquote></span><br /><br />and<br /><br /><blockquote>You say:<br />“But since you are so enamored with Trevors and Abel, perhaps you can<br />explain how it is that an objective reader should take their claims seriously<br />when ALL of their 'conclusions' are premised on a totally unsupported assumption<br />that the genetric (sic) code was 'written'?”<br /><br />Surely you are kidding? You are actually objecting to the completely common<br />phrase that the genetic code was “written”? Well, if that is your objection,<br />then you need to get your objection pen out.<br />You are going to be busy…“…genes were written in a code…” -Cornell<br />University<br />“…DNA sequence, as a book written in a special code…” -Michigan State<br />University<br />“…a text written in a language common to all life…” -Nat Geo<br />“…a code written in multiples of three bases…” -Nature“<br />…a sequence of words written in the alphabet A,C,G,T…” -Carolina<br />University<br /><br />Truly you can’t be serious. <span style="color:#990000;">Trevors and Abel used the<br />term “written” in the exact same way as the authors of the text above </span>–<br />and it is an abject lie to suggest otherwise. So not only must you try to<br />slander the reputations of those scientists that disagree with you, you also<br />must misrepresent their work in order to do so.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Poor Uptight's heroes, so in need of his protection - so much so, that Uptight, as IDcreationists so often do, felt the need to drum up some well poisoning and false accusations against me. That is what these people do. One will note that other than admit that he takes metaphorical langauge literally, he never does actually show how Abel's claims have merit.<br />Of course, when one bothers to learn a bit more about Trevors and Abel, one finds that, in fact, they are not at all using the term "written" in the exact same way those other sources are. I guarantee it, and it is obvious for the loaded language that TnA use. But Uptight and his creatinist cronies turn off their BS meters when reading wrok from 'friendlies'...<br /><br /><br />But he goes on:<br /><br /><blockquote>Finally, you say:<br />“They start by assuming their conclusion - that metabolism/genetic code was<br />pre-planned and written, and that "inanimate nature" cannot do this. Theirs is<br />an argument via analogy combined with an argument via defintion combined with an<br />argument via personal incredulity, gussied up with some superfluous jargon and<br />'information theory' gibberish.<br /><br />Your finale is one long mischaracterization followed by a few ad hominem<br />arrows thrown in for flavor. <span style="color:#990000;">Yet, never do you actually<br />address anything of the observable evidence at the molecular level</span><br />(almost none of which is even in doubt by scientist of any stripe). Nice defense<br />there, Scotty- - - - - - -<br />By the way, Kimura’s demonstration assumes<br />replicatin­g/metaboli­zing cells. Abel didn’t mention it because it has<br />nothing to do with origins research (since it already assumes<br />replicatin­g/metaboli­zing cells).<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Never mind that TnA never actually mention any evidence - their papers are are purely hypothetical. So, I respond:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Ah, the old creationist stand bys - "ad hominem!" "misrepres­entation!"<br />"You're being mean to my hero!"Calm down, fella.Surley, you know what<br />metaphorical languiage is, yes? I am fairly certain that the authors of your<br />sound bites do not think that the genetic and such were 'written' the way<br />creationist Abel and his pals do.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />and<br /><br /><blockquote>So, you read Kimura's paper did you? I did not mention any of the 'evidence' at<br />the molecular level at T and A do not actually present any.The fact is, the only<br />people who take their work seriously are themselves and a handful of<br />IDcreationist types, as evident from the dearth of citation.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Uptight didn't like that much, but he, perhaps, realized that he was in over his head and decided to bow out:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>I didn't reply to you - Scott, ...you REPLIED to MY comment. </p><p>See how that works?In fact, you have now posted on my comment seven seperate times. Yet, you haven't addressed the actual content of my post even once, and indeed, in the your latest post you continue to attack everything but the evidence. I am willing to allow any readers to make of that what they will. </p><p>By all menas you may have the last word.</p></blockquote><br />Poor fellow...<br /><br />But I'll bet he's a regular HERO at Uncommondescent!<br />Note that in the world of the IDcreationist, quotes and disbelief that you don't agree with them count as a demonstration that their sources are correct.<br /><br />Sad people.<br /><br />Unlike the hero-worshipping Uptight, I plan on actually responding to what he has written. It might take me a few days (pretty busy this timie of year), but I'll get to it.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-54179658664919014532009-08-13T19:31:00.003-04:002009-08-14T10:57:31.338-04:00for Uprightbiped - let's see your stuffI realize that you are not under 'moderator' protection here as you would be at uncommentdescent, but go ahead.<br /><br />HuffPo is hardly the place to engage in any real discussion, due in part to the limit of 250 words. But if you think Trevors and Abel's work is so great, let's see your stuff.<br /><br />Be forewarned, however - false charges of 'ad hominem' and the like will not fly. Assertions do not work here. Argumentum ad verecundiam will not work here.<br /><br />Man up.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-72854598734336695492009-01-29T14:34:00.002-05:002009-01-29T14:51:38.986-05:00I think I see the problem (RE: IDcreationist "information" claims)Well, one of them, anyway.<br /><br />A few months ago, Jeff Shallit <a href="http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/06/oh-inanity-slack-in-scientist.html">wrote about an article in The Scientist</a>, and it got creationist Kirk Durston's attention.<br /><br />I won't go through ANY of the details - Durston, like many creationists, prefers overly verbose rhetoric to concise language, but feel free to slog through all his patronizing gibberish if you'd like. Others dealt with the technical details of Durston's claims, but I found this short statement very informative:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>The question is, is the functional information encoded in the gene that codes<br />for RecA an example of ID? (I choose RecA because it is an average length<br />protein, it is a universal protein found in all life forms, and I've done some<br />work on it.) To answer that question, we need a scientific method to identify<br />examples of ID that does not yield false positives, yet does not rule out<br />obvious examples of ID (such as Venter's 'watermarks', or laptop computers) and<br />is general (i.e., can be applied to forensics, SETI, archeology, and biology).</blockquote><br /><br />When I read this (re-read it, actually - I had read the entire exchange some months ago) this really struck me as profound.<br />And maybe I am just slow and others ahve already recognized this, but it seems ot me their entire line of reasoning regarding "informaiton" and how evolution cannot account for it rests on one little subtle assumption. But it is a big one - a great big foundational assumption which makes their entire 'no new infromation' enterprise little more than a tautology.<br /><br />Can you see it?<br /><br />It isn't about ID detection methods or the arcane mathematical details that accompany his boasts. It is this:<br /><br /><blockquote>...is the functional information encoded in the gene that codesfor RecA an<br />example of ID? </blockquote><br /><br />The functional information ENCODED IN the gene.<br />Why would they think it is intelligently derived? Because that start out with the a priori position that the 'information' that the gene contains/possesses was PUT IN IT. <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/encode"> It is ENCODED:</a><br /><br /><br /><div align="center">en⋅code <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html" target="_blank"></a><br />–verb (used with object), -cod⋅ed, -cod⋅ing.<br />to convert (a message, information, etc.) into code.</div><br />And how is this 'conversion' done if NOT by an intelligent agent, right?<br /><br />They start out with the assumption that a gene did <strong>not</strong> arise via natural means and by virtue of the arrangement of it's nucleotides and ends up producing a useful protein, no they start out assuming that a specific protein was needed/desired and that the gene was then 'somehow' acquired in order to make this needed/desired protein.<br /><br />In other words, they start out assuming what they want to be true.<br />To be fair, I suppose one could say the same of non-IDcreationists. They start out with the assumption that genes are natural entities, polynucleotides shaped by natural forces into a gene that when transcribed and translated makes something useful.<br /><br />The difference is, the IDcreationist has mere faulty analogies to support their position.<br /><br />'Materialists' have observation and experimentation.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-64703750740258314532009-01-29T14:04:00.002-05:002009-01-29T14:11:16.457-05:00Republicans 'admire' Rush LimbaughMike Pence (R-IN) says he "admires" Rush Limbaugh. He said this defending Limbaugh's latest racist screed about how we are going to have to "bend over" becaue Obama is black.<br /><br />Sure, Mike - and every other Republican sycophant.. Admire away.<br /><br />What is <strong>not</strong> to admire - and take marching orders from - a draft dodging coward like Limbaugh?<br /><br />A family-values advocate with 3 divorces under his belt. <br /><br />A good Christian man wio smuggles Viagra to the Dominican Republic. Why would he do that? He wasn't married at the time, so he didn't need them for intramarital relations. Must have been for the underage male prostitutes that the Dominacan Republic is known for. <br /><br />Blow him some kisses, Mike! Maybe he'll take you with him next time.<br /><br />And I won't even mention his addiciton to Hillbilly Heroin...<br /><br />I think it says quite a bit about the people who would 'admire' and 'respect' such a pathetic hypritical pile of filth like Limbaugh.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-89122058069509301512009-01-20T08:06:00.004-05:002009-01-21T08:33:37.306-05:00Creationsafaris.com - cesspool of (purposeful?) disinformationI was reading through a creation/evolution discussion board recerntly and the website creationsafaris.com came up. Creationsafaris is the baby of David Coppedge, a computer scientist employed by NASA, who also happens to be a rather adept disinformation peddlar for Christ.<br />Now, I've read some of Coppedge's stuff before, but I'd not visited his site for some time, so I decided to pay a visit and I was reminded of why I hadn't been there in a while - to describe the site as inflammatory is putting it mildly. I searched his site for some issues of interest to me, and no surprise, I was soon rewarded with a number of highly misinforming/disinforming smug dismissals of legitimate science and that characteristic cherry-picking of quotes to employ as 'look how little evolutinists know!' fodder.<br />And let us not forget his condescending name calling and the like.<a href="http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#darwin148" target="_blank">Take a look at this masterpiece of flim flammery, sleight of hand, and inflammatory disinformation, my comments interspersed:</a><br /><br /><blockquote>The Hopeless Task of Building Evolutionary Trees<br />07/25/2002<br />A paper posted in the online early addition July 25 of the Proceedings of<br />the National Academy of Sciences starts out with an optimistic subtitle: “An<br />efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation,” but then<br />opens with a tone of despair:<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">Optimality criterion-based phylogeny inference is a<br />notoriously difficult endeavor because the number of solutions increases<br />explosively with the number of taxa. Indeed, the total number of possible<br />unrooted, bifurcating tree topologies among T-terminal taxa ... [corresponds] to<br />nearly 32 billion different trees for 14 taxa and 3 X 1084 trees (i.e., more<br />than the number of atoms in the known universe) for 55 taxa. ... As most<br />mathematicians expect that no such algorithm [i.e., polynomial time solution]<br />exists, one is forced to admit that no future civilization will ever build a<br />computer capable of solving the problem while guaranteeing that the optimal<br />solution has been found.</span><br /><br />Instead of number-crunching the impossible, the authors propose a heuristic<br />approach. Heuristic approaches sacrifice the goal of getting an optimal tree in<br />hopes of getting one faster that has maximum likelihood (ML).<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Um, no... I would think that a taxpayer-funded NASA "scientist" like David Coppedge would at least try to understand the material he is bashing, but I guess that is too much to ask of a creationist. Even a NASA employee. The whole point of a heuristic search is still to find the optimal tree, but to do so without having to examine every single possible arrangement of taxa.<br /><br />Can a 'computer geek' like Coppedge really not know this?<br /><br />As this applies to phylogeny searches, look at it this way (A spectacularly simplified example) - say you have DNA sequences from 4 taxa and you want to do a phylogenetic analysis. Their sequences are:<br /><br />1. AGGGCCCCAAAATTTTT<br />2. AGGGCCTCAAAATTTTT<br />3. AGGCCCTCAAATTTTTT<br />4. AGGCCTAGAAGTTTAAA<br /><br />We can note that sequences 1 and 2 differ by only one substitution; 1 and 3 by two; 1 and 4 by 8; etc., and we know that taxon 4 is not closely related to the other three. If we choose to root our tree (that is, if we recognize that one of the taxa in our analysis will be the most distantly related to all the others), there are 15 possible arrangements that could be produced (we can quickly see which taxon this is going to be, but we would want to test each one to be sure). Now, we could simply draw out all 15 possible arrangements, count up the number of nucleotide changes needed to 'describe' each tree, then pick the tree with the fewest changes as our optimal tree. But that would take, if we use 5 minutes drawing and calculating each arrangement for our example, 75 minutes. Now, if we employ a heuristic search algorithem, we do not draw and calculate every possible tree, because we can immediately discard 'bad' trees/arrangements without having to draw and calculate them.<br />For example, a quick comparison of each pair of sequences tells us what I wrote above ("We can note that sequences 1 and 2 differ by only one substitution...") and we can use this information, which can be generated in much less than 5 minutes, to see which groupings are the most likely. In our little example here, we can see that taxa 1 and 2 are the closest, with taxon 3 joining the group of 1 and 2, with taxon 4 as out outgroup. So we know that taxon 4 will be the outgroup, therefore, we only have to draw and calculate how taxa 1, 2, and 3 should group. And as we established that taxa 1 and 2 are the closest, there is only one tree that will do. This can be calculated in maybe 10 minutes, if we do it by hand, and use the "heuristic" I just described, which is essentially what computer analysis programs do (albeit, obviously, with much more rigor).<br />Coppedge is just trying to use the classic creationist "argument via big numbers" and relying on the fact that most of his acolytic readers will not know any different.<br />Or care.<br />Further, maximum likelihood is a <em>search criterion</em>, <strong>not</strong> an intrinsic value.<br />Coppedge is clueless. Perhaps for real.<br /><br /><blockquote>Lemmon and Milinkovitch wrote a computer program that converges quicker on an ML model with larger number of taxa. They call theirs the “metapopulation genetic<br />algorithm.” It is a quasi-Darwinian model that tries to optimize trees based on<br />mutations and selection, and it can incorporate rate heterogeneity estimates<br />into the model. The authors try their program on real and imaginary populations<br />and compare their results with other heuristic methods. </blockquote><br /><br />The article in question<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10516.full.pdf+html" target="_blank"> came out in 2002</a>. Coppedge writes as if such an algorithem is a new thing. To put this in perspective, I entered graduate school in 1999, and I started out using a computer analysis package that utilized maximum likelihood methods (as well as about 4 others) that was written nearly 10 years earlier. Below is Coppedge's snarky disinformative commentary:<br /><br /><blockquote>Were you ever told in biology class that generating a phylogenetic tree from the<br />raw data was mathematically impossible, and that no future civilization would<br />ever overcome this barrier? Probably not, yet textbooks are replete with neat,<br />authoritative-looking phylogenetic trees. So how do they determine them? By<br />heuristic methods, which by translation, means guesswork, inference,<br />trial-and-error, hunches and hope. Their model incorporates a number of<br />optimization parameters, such as rate heterogeneity, which means that not all<br />genes mutate at the same rate, and branch length, the presumed evolutionary<br />distance between taxa. </blockquote><br /><br />Wow... Where to begin? No, Coppedge, heuristic methods do NOT at all mean "guesswork" etc. And for a NASA employee to denigrate trial and error??!?!?? Is he for real? One of my interests is spaceflight, and I have seen many programs about the space program, and NASA's history is little BUT trial and error! And the shock of a program incorporating rate heterogeneity! Imagine, incorporating what the evidence indicates! I have little doubt that one can find on Coppedge's site some snarky little essays decrying any notion that all genes mutate at the same rate. And as far as branch length goes - the programs FIND the branch length as part of the analysis! How can it incorporate something that is one of the outputs of the algorithem!<br />This guy is CLUELESS!<br /><br /><blockquote>The tweak space is enormous, and they already have a mental picture of what they<br />want, so this whole approach is based on circular reasoning. If the program<br />outputs a tree that agrees with the evolutionary assumptions, is scores high;<br />otherwise, it is rejected. </blockquote><br /><br />Amazing. Coppedge - who should at least have a basic understanding of the terminology (since things like "heuristic searches" are common computer science terms) , is simply spouting nonsense. I challenge anyone here to read the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10516.full.pdf+html" target="_blank">actual paper</a> and point out where the authors state that they already 'have a mental picture of what they want' and somehow force the program to spit out this desired result. The entire purpose of the paper in question was to outline the authors' procedure for producing phylogenetic trees using large datasets with many, many taxa more quickly than can be done with existing methods. Coppedge acts as if they are merely trying to find a way to make a program that produces what they want it to (he must be confusing real science with baraminology).<br />Of course, what they set out to do - to make a computer analysis program that can analyze large numbers of taxa in large datasets more quickly and just as accurately as existing but slower models all but requires them to 'know' what they want to get - that is how you test your model! Does Coppedgfe REALLY not understand this?<br /><br /><blockquote>Does this provide any confidence that evolution is being confirmed empirically?<br />Is this how scientists in our universities should be spending their time,<br />playing Darwinian computer games?Instead of explaining how mutation and natural<br />selection could produce a Monarch butterfly or a finch or a peppered moth in the<br />first place, scientific papers on evolution seem obsessed with trying to uncover<br />phylogenetic relationships that are impossible to calculate objectively or<br />verify independently without begging the question whether common ancestry is<br />even true.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Is this how a taxpayer-funded NASA scientist should be spending his time -writing disinformation filled drivel to prop up his religious beliefs?<br />And the coup de grace - Coppedge at his sleight of hand best. We see this silly sentiment in many creationist rants - this whole 'those evos are ASSUMING evolution is true when they do their experimets!' as if that is a bad thing to do.<br />Do creationists assume creation is true when they do their experiments (I mean, if they did any)?<br />Do physicists assume that gravity is a constant throughout the universe when they plot spacecraft flight paths?<br />Of course they do - why, I'd even bet that NASA computer technicians like Copppedge assume certain things about the software writing programs they utilize and the models they make.<br /><br />I would like to point out that this distortion-laden diatribe was one of the shortest I could find on Coppedge's site on this subject. I can only assume that longer rants have even more distortions and embellishments. But David Coppedge need not be concerned -his like-minded readers will believe everything he writes - he is a YEC AND he works at NASA, after all - and will think his smug insults are all well deserved by those evilutionists.<br /><br />SadDoppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-69655386135070931552009-01-14T17:12:00.003-05:002009-01-14T17:16:12.234-05:00Oh, the NAME CALLING!!!<a href="http://truthorerrors.blogspot.com/">A fellow</a> who has left a couple of comments here decided to<a href="http://truthorerrors.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-recently-got-comment-on-my-blog-and-i.html"> write about </a>a comment I left for him on his blog. It is pretty funny:<br /><br /><blockquote>I recently got a comment on my blog and I would love to share it with you. I will leave the name of this individual anonymous but see if you can see what is missing in his comment. <div><br /></div><div>"I appreciate the spammed post on my blog. I deleted one and posted the other. No Darwin did not have an electron microscope, nor did he know about DNA. Had he, I predict that the would have really enjoyed the vast amount of evidence supporting his basic premise that one can find there". (Which this person commenting does not mention here!!!). " Are cells simple? Not really(not really, look at your science not at all!!!). But simply arguing that they are so complex that could not have arisen by 'chance' and thus evolution is false thus biblical creationism is true is just wrong on so many levels." (yet he does not mention or give facts stating how it is wrong!!) "And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the claims by the folks at ICR in the first place (which he offers zero evidence why other than they disagree with his ideology).- they require al of those associated with them to take oaths that they will never cast doubt on creationism (simply not true), and have a pretty good tract record of having their, shall we say, less than honest antics exposed (Which again he fails to mention one single occurrence.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Did you see what was missing throughout this man's whole entire argument?? Facts? Again where are the facts, he has been reduced to name calling and empty allegations. Offer me one proof of anything you say. Read my blog post simply not simple in which I quote Charles Darwin!! Yet he offers zero evidence on which his position stands. Then the evolutionist like this man have the audacity to claim that we are the ones who believe in blind faith, who have no evidence. DNA has the amount of info to fill 500 books with a 1000 pages each, an incredible amount of information on a molecular level. Where does this information come from?? How would Darwin be overjoyed if he had an electron microscope?? WHat is it within a cell supports organic evolution?? Darwin himself said the opposite, he said "if it can be demonstrated that any complex organ exited which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (Origin of species) 1872, p.154 </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br /></div><div>So this man who commented said Darwin would be overjoyed, when he himself wrote the quote above which is exactly what we see in a cell. Darwin wouldn't be overjoyed, he would calling for the glory that is due to the Great Creator...</div></blockquote><div><br /><br />I plan on dissecting this when I have the time, but could someone please point out where I called anyone names? Or is this persecution complex thing a common trait in these folks?<br /></div>Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-66957998466724182042008-12-15T10:59:00.010-05:002008-12-17T10:25:46.622-05:00Correlation or causation or neither?<a href="http://network.nature.com/people/U3322E7F8/profile">Andras Pellionisz</a> is an interesting fellow. He appears to have been a productive researcher, who then saw the chance to make some real cash and apparently started up a couple of companies.<br /><br />Of late, however, he seems to be on a <a href="http://www.junkdna.com/">megalomaniacal tirade </a>of sorts, setting himself up as the greatest thing in science since Crick (whose 'dogma' he (Pellionisz) has done away with), with his "establishment" of his "<a href="http://junkdna.com/pellionisz_principle/">Principle of the Recursive Genome"</a> (I won't even mention his <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007/07/creationist-lawyer-and-discovery.html">malicious, self-aggrandizing historical revisionism on junkDNA</a>...).<br /><br />In short, Pellionisz claims that what we used to refer to as 'genes' interact recursively with what we used to call 'junk DNA' to produce structures that can be described via fractal mathematics.<br /><br />He <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16527761?dopt=Abstract">'predicted'</a> in 2006 that because of this 'principle', the Purkinje cells (P-cells) in cerebellums of fish (or other organisms with brains) of 'more recently' developed status, having larger genomes, will have greater branchings in their dendritic networks:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><br />One of us (AJP) has previously proposed that fractal processes associated<br />with DNA are in a causal relation to the fractal properties of organelles such<br />as P-cells (FractoGene, 2002, patent pending). [let us ignore for now the odd<br />depiction of a neuron as an 'organelle'] This fractal postulate<br />predicts that the dendritic arborization of P-cells will be less complex in<br />lower order vertebrates.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Well, OK. A prediction that Fugu will have less arborized dendrites than mouse and human because ... well, let's see...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>The prediction can be tested by systematic comparative neuroanatomy of the<br />P-cell in species for which genome sequences permit inter-species comparison.<br />The Fugu rubripes (Fugu), Danio rerio (Danio) and other species are lower order<br />vertebrates for which genome sequences are available and tests could be<br />conducted. Consistent with the fractal prediction, P-cell dendritic arbor is<br />primitive in Fugu, being much less complex than in Mus musculus and in Homo<br />sapiens. Genomic analysis readily identified PEP19/Pcp4, Calbindin-D28k, and<br />GAD67 genes in Fugu and in Danio that are closely associated with P-cells in<br />Canis familiaris, Rattus norvegicus, Mus musculus and Homo sapiens. Gene L7/Pcp2<br />exhibits strongest association with P-cells in higher vertebrates. L7/Pcp2 shows<br />strong protein residue homology with genes greater than 600 residues and<br />including 2-3 GoLoco domains, designated as having G protein signaling modulator<br />function (AGS3-like proteins). Fugu has a short gene with a single GoLoco<br />domain, but it has greatest homology with the AGS3-like proteins. No similar<br />short gene is present in Danio or in Xenopus. Classical L7/Pcp2 is only detected<br />in higher vertebrates, suggesting that it may be a marker of more recent<br />evolutionary development of cerebellar P-cells. We expect that a new generation<br />of data mining tools will be required to support recursive fractal geometrical,<br />combinatorial, and neural network models of the genomic basis of morphogenesis.</blockquote><br />OK, great. Looks like he's onto something. Right?<br />Now, however, one finds a <a href="http://www.junkdna.com/fractogene/05_simons_pellionisz.html">hyperbole riddled webpage </a>announcing:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><br />UPDATE (14 September, 2007) Question-marks raised by the "Fugu prediction<br />paper" [the paper mentioned above] have met tentative support. The<br />correlation - <em>contrary to blogs whose ideology would prefer otherwise </em>-<br />is further supported, there is no contradiction, no gaps, whatsoever.<br />Peer-reviewed presentation of evidence from independent sources will follow<br />whenever they are ready.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Please note the inconsistency between the first and second sentence - in the first, he states that 'question marks' in his Fugu paper have found "tentative support", but the second indicates that there is near certainty.<br /><br />Anyway, the commentary there is hard to follow, but there are some figures apparently from the paper claimed to have supported his Fugu 'questionmarks' and their legends:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>[original legends] Fig. 4. Sketch of the emerging field of comparison of<br />the complexity of the dendritic trees of P-cells, their genomic analysis,<br />calling for biophysical synthesis. Insert B shows the P-cell in the Fugu<br />rubripes (B is courtesy of Székely33), in which the genome size is 0.37<br />Gigabases. C will show the P-cell in Danio rerio (as it becomes available,<br />according to studies at an early stage to exhibit an interim complexity) in<br />which the genome size is 1.56 Gigabases. D shows the dendritic arbor of the<br />P-cell in the mouse (genome size is 2.6 Gigabases). Insert D is<br />fluorescent-stained photo, courtesy of Prof. Helen Blau40. E shows a<br />computer-reconstruction of the P-cell in the guinea pig21. The genome size in<br />the guinea pig is not known to date, but its sequencing was slated (at Broad<br />Institute and MIT) among other species. Insert H shows the P-cell of the<br />human27. The genome size in the human is 3.1 Gigabases.<br /><br />[updated legends - 14 September, 2007] Fig. 4. Sketch of the emerging<br />field of comparison of the complexity of the dendritic trees of P-cells, their<br />genomic analysis, calling for biophysical synthesis. Insert B shows the P-cell<br />in the Fugu rubripes (B is courtesy of Székely33), in which the genome size is<br />0.37 Gigabases. Question-marks in C will be replaced by finalized results of<br />already known preliminary studies exhibiting an interim complexity, in which the<br />genome size is 1.56 Gigabases. D shows the dendritic arbor of the P-cell in the<br />mouse (genome size is 2.6 Gigabases). Insert D is fluorescent-stained photo,<br />courtesy of Prof. Helen Blau40. E shows a computer-reconstruction of the P-cell<br />in the guinea pig21. The genome size in the guinea pig is not known to date, but<br />its sequencing was slated (at Broad Institute and MIT) among other species, and<br />now preliminary sequencing results project the the genome size right in the<br />predicted range***. Insert H shows the P-cell of the human27. The genome size in<br />the human is 3.1 Gigabases.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that <strong>is</strong> pretty much exactly how it appears on his website (one of apparently a dozen or so that he maintains).<br />So, they show the P-cell in a Fugu with like 3 dendrites, and 'more recently developed' P-cells with greater arborization (hundreds of branches).<br /><br /><br />So this is where I get lost - the recursive genome claims appear to indicate a 're-visiting' to the genome areas associated with a particular structure or process by proteins/RNAs with the end result being a fractalicious outcome.<br /><br />His 'support' appears to be a correlation between genome size and arborization of P-cells in the cerebellum.<br /><br />While this may well hold true for P-cell arborization in a general sense, what we do NOT see is any indication of 'recursivity' at all - what the 'support' paper shows is that the 'more recently developed' organisms have more/larger <em>genes</em> associated with their P-cells:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>L7/Pcp2 showsstrong protein residue homology with genes greater than 600<br />residues andincluding 2-3 GoLoco domains, designated as having G protein<br />signaling modulatorfunction (AGS3-like proteins). <strong>Fugu has a short gene<br />with a single GoLocodomain</strong>, but it has greatest homology with the<br />AGS3-like proteins. No similar short gene is present in Danio or in<br />Xenopus.<strong> Classical L7/Pcp2 is only detectedin higher vertebrates,<br />suggesting that it may be a marker of more recentevolutionary development of cerebellar P-cells</strong>. </blockquote><br /><br />And that was from HIS OWN paper! Implicit in his junk DNA claims is the notion that the recursivity is a function OF the junk DNA (and so it is not junk). To prop this notion up, he has made a great deal of noise about the fact that one can find stop codons in junk DNA. It has been pointed out to him that you can find ALL of the codons for ALL amino acids (including MET - start codons) in 'junk DNA' , too. But he insists that stop codons in junk DNA are special and supportive of his claims. Somehow - he won't really say how, just that they are.<br /><br />So is the larger genome - more 'junk DNA' anyway - of a 'more recently' evolved oganism the <em>cause</em> of the greater arborization in their P-cells and thus Pellionisz's recursive genome principle is real and true? Or is greater arborization unrelated to genome size directly and the degree of arborization has a different cause - maybe arborization is influenced by <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pmc&cmd=search&term=induction%20purkinje%20cell%20cerebellum">inductive</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez">processes</a>* that have little if anything to do with recursivity?<br /><br /><br />Like anyone envisioning him or herself as a paradigm-busting visionary - who also has a product to sell - Pellionisz seems to make reckless extrapolations and to ignore or downplay potentially disconfirming evidence (none of the 93 citations in his 'Principle' paper, for example, seem to even mention indiction).<br /><br /><br />Now, about that junk DNA revisionism of his.....<br /><br /><br />UPDATE:<br />While perusing the web for more interesting info on Pellionisz's claims, I came across his foray onto the <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/another_unintel.html#comment-panels">Panda's Thumb </a>last year. As I mentioned, Pellionisz cites as "evidence" for his claims the observation that Fugu has a smaller genome compared to 'higher' vertebrates and also has less arborized P-cells. Andrea Bottaro asks him to look at the lungfish, whose genome is some 10 times the size of our own, to see if they have 10X the arborization that human P-cells have.<br />Pellionisz's response was to engage in some ego-boosting and ranting but not once did he even mention testing his claims as Bottaro suggests. In fact, when it came up again later, Pellionisz only mentioned the guinea pig genome, which he declared to fulfill one of his 'predictions'. Apparently, he is afraid that the lungfish will negate the predictive power of his 'theory' (which he claims is true). Later, when pressed again, he punted, claiming that he believes that their larger genomes probaly have to do with metamorphosis and have nothing to do with the cerebellum... Cute, but it would clearly violate his claims re: the P-cells in Fugu, guinea pig and human. Not to mention the fact that lungfish do not undergo metamorphosis.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Later, it is pointed out that lots of people were research in junk DNA before he and his hero M. Simons came along, and that their claims of martyrdom were just to generate sympathy for their cause. Pellionisz responds to that by ignoring the fact that junk DNA research had been going on all along and instead merely trying to gain more sympathy by mentioning that Simons has a 'junk DNA-related' disease. Pellionisz also refers to promoter regions as "junkDNA", implying that research on such areas had 'also' been neglected. Such regions have been not only hypothesized but in fact known about for decades.<br /><br />Also, when he was reminded that things like promoters had been discovered prior to Simons' work and that research into junk DNA had been going on all along, he disissed it by quoting a section from Brenner's Nobel speech in which he characterized junk DNA as useless. The speech was given in 1985.<br />Later in the comments, we see this:<br />" Perhaps he feels I have no right to comment, since my Ph.D. is in sociology, not science proper. But I must say, if my work in the sociology of science had played as fast and loose with historical accuracy as Dr. Pellionisz’s does, I would have been booted out of the program before I got my MA."<br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br /><br />UPDATE UPDATE:<br /><br />Pellionisz later (in the PT thread linked above) states:<br /><br />"Since Malcolm (Simones, Pellionisz's 'partner') is widely known to be affected by a “Junk DNA disease” himself, <strong>after having pinned down that “junk was anything but”</strong> he is motivated having already spent two decades to finding out the best approach to what might exactly be the function that Darwinian theory actually required. "<br /><br />More historical revisionism from Pellionisz. Simons published ZERO papers having anything to do with junk DNA or junk DNA diseases or anything until about 10 years after Zuckerkandl has identified promoters and hypoethesized about functionin junk DNA. Amazing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">*I am aware that only a few of the returns on those searches deal directly with the topic of arborization of P-cells, my point is there ARE other potential explanations which one can find by doing a little searching.</span>Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-83310458423934683362008-12-11T08:26:00.003-05:002008-12-11T08:28:37.618-05:00Republican Party in denialAmazing. I just listened to the chair of the Republican Natinal Committee claim on NPR that contrary to public opinion, the Republicans really have the best ideas on how to fix the economy (trickle down works!).<br />Further, he refused to address concerns from other republicans about the undue influence of the religious right.<br /><br /><br />Keep it up! The further they run to the right, the less they allow that their positions might not be the best, the more irrelevant they will be.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-5796295431876656032008-11-15T13:03:00.003-05:002008-11-15T13:39:44.563-05:00I really don't understand ConservativesAt least not the politically active ones, be they advocates, pundits, spokespersons, or politicians themselves.<br /><br />Read though a few 'analyeses' of this past election by them.<br /><br />As usual, the blame game and revisionism is up and running at full speed in the right-wing fantasy land, where Obama's and the Democrat's victories, despite being above and beyond anything the Republicans have seen in decades, is diminished, where Bush's slimmer victories were heralded as 'mandates', Obama is already being blamed for the economic crisis despite not even being president yet, etc.<br /><br />But what really baffles me is the notion, exhibited by many on the right including Sarah Palin, that republicans have to be MORE conservative to win again. They have to be MORE hawkish, MORE religious, MORE anti-immigrant, MORE tax-cuts for billionaires, MORE pro-death penalty, MORE in love with embryoes, MORE anti-Constitution, etc. That they must go FURTHER to the right because they somehow think that mainstream America is conservative like they are.<br /><br />Are these folks for real?<br /><br />Did they actually look at the election results?<br /><br />Liddy Dole -right-wing bible nut W-is-my-hero lost in North Carolina!<br /><br />Draft-deferment monger and reliable right-winger Saxby Chambliss won election to the senate with a 7% lead (at 53%) in 2002. This year, there will be a runoff election as nobody earned more than 50% of the vote.<br /><br />Ted 'Felon' Stevens won his last election with 78% of the vote - this year, there is a re-count as it is too close to call, with his Democratic opponant holding a slight lead as of the writing of this post.<br /><br />And so it goes. Even those conservative Republicans that held on to their seats did so with much less of a margin than in past elections, including Mitch McConnell, Wicker in Mississippi (winning his House seat with 66% of the vote in 2006, winning his senate seat this time with 55%), etc.<br /><br />The "true" conservatives LOST their wide margins of victory, and in many cases LOST altogether.<br /><br />Yet the true believers insist that to win, the party must go even further to the right!<br />It is like Robert E. Lee insisting that one more open field charge at Gettyburg would have won the battle for them*.<br /><br />They keep saying that America is a center-right country, but this year's election says something different. The times are changing, and if the Conservative movement wants to survive, they are going to have to change, too.<br /><br />Frankly, I've had enough of these people. I hope they DO go further to the right. I hope they DO put forth Palin as their presidential candidate next time around. She won't be able to hide from reporters as the Presidential candidate, and the more she opens her mouth, the more idiotic and incompetnet she makes herself out to be (which doesn't say much for the Alaskans who keep votinng for her). I hope they adopt a platform premised on a requirement that all Republicans must take an oath pledging to be biblical fundamentalists, to give tax cuts only to the wealthy (for we all kow how well trickle down works), to increase military spending and start more wars against the heathen, the execution of homosexuals and abortionists, the de-funding of public education, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Let the rational people in this country - the REAL real Americans - see just how fucked up loony these people are so they can be officially marginalized - as they should be.<br /><br /><br />*Lee ordered an open-field charge (a march, really) by George Pickett's division (and others)- Pickett lost nearly half his division; Lee later ordered him to rally his division to defend the Confederate line, Pickett is said to have replied, "Sir, I have no Division."Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-61616242351324247392008-11-14T08:51:00.002-05:002008-11-14T08:54:04.204-05:00Now that a Democrat is president....... with troops in the field, can we expect the Right to offer only unyielding support for his every decision?<br /><br />After all, critics of W. were called traitors and the like for publicly disagreeing with the CinC while we are at war.<br /><br />My guess is that they will suddenly abandon their pro-president 'principles'.<br /><br />Because Conservatives' really have no principles.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-31668645848048319462008-11-11T08:32:00.002-05:002008-11-11T08:34:57.942-05:00Berlinski babbles on<a href="http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2008/11/id-was-spanked-in-fort-worth.html">Pity that the poor poseur keeps getting pwned.</a><br /><br /><br />How ridiculous can this guy be?<br /><br />The existence of mathematics is supportive of ID??<br /><br />Come on....<br /><br /><br /><br />But hey - the DI keeps paying him!Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-89740579774289772982008-10-28T17:49:00.004-04:002008-10-28T18:06:29.751-04:00"Fair and Balanced"? Fake News?I have to laugh whenever I hear Fox News personalities carrying on about how 'fair and balanced' they are.<br /><br />It is almost as if the pundits conflate actual news reporting - such as one might get with Shepard Smith (the one Fox News personality that retains some integrity) - with all of the propagandizing and agenda-pushing they do for the other 22 hours a day.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/27/192223/89/689/644083">Here for example.</a><br /><br />You can see 'anchor' Megyn Kelly getting indignant that Bill Burton states the truth - that their recent anti-Obama gibberish (such as the "B girl" hoax, which unfortunately was not mentioned) was a Fox embellishment/concoction.<br /><br />She mentions that only 36% of news stories on other networks are positive for McCain.<br /><br />As if there is some reason that all stations should have an exactly equal number of positive and negative stories about all political figures (this, let us remember, is the network that runs Obama=terrorist nonsense around the clock).<br /><br />Let us consider this possibility - other networks report only 36% favorable stories on McCain because, I don't know, maybe the McCain campaign is 64% crap and lies and nonsense?<br /><br />These people are just plain insane, and anyone that thinks Fox News really is "Fair and Balanced" should have their little pinheads examined.<br /><br /><a href="http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions">Curious - Megyn didn't mention this poll, also done by Pew, </a> showing that Fox news viewers are basically idiots.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-70172775768869771742008-10-21T20:11:00.002-04:002008-10-21T20:42:10.432-04:00Collin B., yet again....Collin the photographer had posted a reply (presented below in toto) to an exchange we had <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-return-collin-brendemuehl-is.html">earlier</a> (our initial exchanges on this blog are <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-does-ceationist-blogger-do-when.html">here</a>).<br /><br />I took a bit of a blogging break, and actually forgot about his histrionics, but now have gotten around ot this stuff.<br /><br />My replies interspersed with Collin's claims:<br /><br />***************************************************************************<br /><blockquote><br /><a href="http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/questions-on-evolutionary-theory-part.html">Questions<br />on Evolutionary Theory, part II</a><br />In the <a href="http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/04/questions-on-evolutionary-theory.html">first part</a> I raised a question. In the <a href="http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-too-common-avoidance.html">follow-up</a> I tried to clarify the question. In both instances the question was open to correction.<br /></blockquote><br />Well, not quite. Yes, you posed a 'question', but the question was exceptionally wrong-headed. When I pointed this out, you asked MORE wrong-headed questions, then got indignant. Open to correction? Hardly.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>But so far no <a href="http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-too-common-avoidance.html">intelligent</a> <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-return-collin-brendemuehl-is.html">responses</a> have been gleaned from the posts. It's sad because <a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/">Doppelganger</a> claims to be a PhD in the field yet remains anonymous to the world. </blockquote><br />Yes, it is just a 'claim.' Must be. I remain semi-anonymous so I don't have mouth-breathing lunatics harrass my colleagues and superiors, like what happens to folks like PZ Myers.<br />Of course, the fact is that I corrected your misconceptions and answered you as was warranted. You didn't like the answers, so you insult me and ignore them. That is what creatinists do.<br /><br /><blockquote>I think there is cause to question this in light of unanswered questions. I<br />don't mind being wrong. In fact, if I am wrong, I want to be shown precisely how<br />I am wrong. </blockquote><br /><br />No you don't. I showed you how and why you were wrong. You just kept rambling on with the same erroneous tripe. One can follow the links to see the exchanges, but I will offer but 1 example from our exchanges after my May 10 blog post. You had initially written that you felt there were millions of 'trait changes' between humans and chimps. I asked you to name 1000 of these millions. Your response was to claim that you thought there were more than 1000 trait changes!<br />You apparently cannot even understand the words written in response to your claims, how do you expect to be able to understand technical responses?<br /><br /><blockquote>One would hope for civility, but alas Doppelganger would rather insult the<br />questioner than construct a meaningful and substantive response. </blockquote><br /><br />Ah yes, it is always the 'civility' issue. If only I were so civil, Collin would have admitted that his claims and 'questions' were bogus and accepted the informaiton I gave him.<br /><br /><blockquote>So let's revisit the second post and change the question to something more<br />precise:<br />Give me the genetic changes in reverse that would take humans back<br />to the rodent stage, per the current model? (re: To the Yucatan impact of 65mya<br />fromhumans today.)It's a simple enough question -- what precisely happened? Not<br />what might have happened or what could have happened (which, when you read the<br />posts that came before, is all I got -- possibility, but neither probability nor<br />historical fact.) Don't give me a model. I've read that stuff. Give me the<br />detail? Is it there or not? Or is your "proof" a workable model but not a<br />working history?</blockquote><br /><br />Details? Details on all of the genetic changes that occurred between modern humans and the 'rodent' stage - and this is supposed to be a rational, reasonable 'question'? <br />Imagine - I was actually providinng tentative answers! How horrible! I guess Collin is more used to absolutist proclamations that the standard tentative nature of a scientific answer was interpreted as ignorance. Poor Collin, so confused and out of his league...<br />Of course, what Collin the creationist has done is set up a perfect little win-win scenario - he pretends to have produced a reasonable, rational 'question'. If I try to answer it, he will reject the answer by asking more. If I don't answer it, he will claim victory. Of course, none of this negates the fact that his request is silly - we do not and cannot know what the genome of the 'rodent stage' was.<br /><br />The best we can do is compare a modern human with a modern rodent. That would produce an approximation of the changes that have occurred in BOTH lineages since they last shared a common ancestor. But since that woul dnot specifically address Collin's 'question', he will reject it.<br /><br />As a commenter on Collin's blog prsented, he asked for the impossible, and I add, that he doesn't even know why it is impossible.<br /><br />But I have to wonder - if I produce a pairwise DNA sequence alignment for a mouse gene and it's human homologue, point out the differences, and deduce what the 'original' sequence might have been, would Collin accept that?Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-38033156397417715762008-10-03T12:17:00.002-04:002008-10-03T14:09:24.507-04:00The word is NUC-LE-AR!!!!Amazing...<br /><br /><br />Caught some of the vice presidential debate last night and Palin pronounces the word nuclear incorrectly just like moron Bush does - nuculer.<br /><br />Is being stupid the new requisite for being a NeoCon politician?Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-28431117990456840362008-09-21T13:15:00.003-04:002008-09-21T13:26:42.756-04:00Why so many Yellow Elephants?A Yellow Elephant is essentially a conservative republican that advocates military action yet has not or will not enlist themselves.<br /><br />I came across <a href="http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/military-service.html">this list</a>, and it says much (any emphases mine):<br /><br /><br />==============================<br /><strong>Democrats</strong><br />David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72<br />Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, etc<br />Jimmy Carter: Lt. Commander in the Navy 1946-53<br />Wesley Clark: Army 1966-2000, Vietnam, Silver star, purple heart<br />Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver/Bronze stars, Vietnam<br />Bill Clinton: Did not serve<br />Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72<br />Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze star<br />Michael Dukakis: Army 1955-57<br />John Edwards: Did not serve<br />Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71<br />John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs; Air Medal w/18 Clusters<br />Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam as journalist<br />Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74<br />Howell Heflin: Silver star<br />Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze star<br /><strong>Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII</strong><br />Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53<br /><strong>Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam </strong><br />John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver/Bronze stars, purple hearts<br />Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII<br />Jim McDermott: Navy 1968-70<br />George McGovern: Silver star & DFC during WWII<br />Zell Miller: Marine Corps, 1953-56<br />Walter Mondale: Army 1951-53<br />Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver star, etc<br />Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze star, Korea<br />Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-79; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91<br />Chuck Robb: U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam<br />Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57<br />Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart<br /><br /><strong>Republicans</strong><br />Spencer Abraham: Did not serve<br />Eliot Abrams: Did not serve<br />Richard Armitage: Navy, three tours in Vietnam<br />John Ashcroft: Did not serve<br />Roy Blunt: Did not serve<br />Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve<br />George H.W. Bush: Youngest Navy pilot in WW II; awarded DFC<br />George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; didn't take physical; suspended from flying<br />Jeb Bush: Did not serve<br />Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Cleland's patriotism<br />Dick Cheney: Did not serve<br />Christopher Cox: Did not serve<br />Tom DeLay: Did not serve<br />Bob Dole: Army in WWII, Bronze star, two purple hearts<br />Bob Dornan: Enlisted after fighting was over in Korea<br />John Engler: Did not serve<br />Douglas Feith: Did not serve<br />Gerald Ford: Lt. Commander, Navy in WWII<br />Bill Frist: Did not serve<br />Newt Gingrich: Did not serve<br />Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve<br />Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer<br />Phil Gramm: Did not serve<br />Chuck Hagel: Served in Vietnam, two Bronze stars and purple heart<br />Dennis Hastert: Did not serve<br />Tim Hutchison: Did not serve<br />Jack Kemp: Did not serve. "Knee problem," continued in NFL for 8 years<br />Jon Kyl: Did not serve<br />Trent Lott: Did not serve<br />Richard Lugar: Intelligence officer in Navy 1957-60<br />John McCain: POW in Vietnam, Legion of Merit, Silver star, DFC, many more<br />Mitch McConnell: Did not serve<br />John McHugh: Did not serve<br />George Pataki: Did not serve<br />Richard Perle: Did not serve<br />Colin Powell: 35 years in Army, 4-star general<br />Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard<br />Ronald Reagan: Served in WWII making movies<br />Tom Ridge: Army in Vietnam, Bronze star<br />Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve<br />Karl Rove: Did not serve<br />Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor<br />Rick Santorum: Did not serve<br />Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base<br />Richard Shelby: Did not serve<br />JC Watts: Did not serve<br />Vin Weber: Did not serve<br />Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve<br /><br /><strong>Pundits, Preachers, and Judges</strong><br />Bill Bennett: Did not serve<br />Wolf Blitzer: Did not serve<br /><strong>Pat Buchanan: Did not serve</strong><br />William Buckley: Army in WWII<br />Charlie Daniels: Did not serve<br />Lou Dobbs: Did not serve<br />Paul Gigot: Did not serve<br /><strong>Sean Hannity: Did not serve </strong><br />Bill Kristol: Did not serve<br />Jim Lehrer: U.S. Marine Corps<br /><strong>Rush Limbaugh: Did not serve</strong><br />Chris Matthews: Did not serve<br />Michael Medved: Did not serve<br /><strong>Ted Nugent: Did not serve </strong><br /><strong>Bill O'Reilly: Did not serve </strong><br />Dan Rather: Army Reserve<br />Ralph Reed: Did not serve<br />Michael Savage: Did not serve<br />Antonin Scalia: Did not serve<br />Kenneth Starr: Did not serve<br />Clarence Thomas: Did not serve<br />John Wayne: Did not serve<br />George Will: Did not serve<br />=================================<br /><br /><br />See a trend?<br /><br />Clearly, this list is not exhaustive and not all-inclusive. But the names on it are chosen wisely.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-82427838123644807642008-09-21T12:29:00.007-04:002008-10-03T14:11:14.851-04:00Sean Hannity - blowhard, coward<p>On a whim, I signed up for the Sean Hannity Discussion forum today.</p><p></p><p>I went to the 'America at War' board, and made the following post:</p><p></p><p>title:</p><blockquote>Did Hannity serve in the military?</blockquote><p>body:</p><blockquote>I was just curious as to whether his uber-patriotism has teeth.</blockquote><p></p><p>A mere 6 minutes later, I went back to the forum to see if anyone had replied.</p><p>As I logged in, I got the follwong message:</p><p></p><blockquote><br />You have been banned for the following reason:Troll / Contempt of Host<br />Date the ban will be lifted: Never</blockquote><p></p><p>Imagine that....</p><p>Well, it is true that I have nothing but contempt for phony-patriot Hannity and his moronic fans, but it seemed to me that my question was pretty tame.</p><p>Of course, this is how conservatives maintain their facades - by controlling and quashing dissent. Even if such 'dissent' is little more than asking a relevant question, the answer to which may not act to add to the sheen on the Hero's Halo...</p><p></p><p>Must be a touchy subject for the fragile-ego'd Hannity.</p><p></p><p>He is a coward, no two ways about it.</p><p></p><p><br /></p>Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-20970667198507472282008-09-21T11:47:00.002-04:002008-09-21T12:12:18.347-04:00John McCain has no HonorThere was a time, many many years ago, when I would have actually considered voting for McCain. That was when I, like os manh people, actually believed the claimed 'maverick' status for him. Had I been better informed back then, I would have seen the he did not deserve the label - going against your party on one or two issues does not make you a maverick.<br /><br />Being in Congress for 26 years does not make you a maverick. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/669/"> Voting with Bush 90% of the time </a>does not make you a maverick. Calling Bush's tax cuts something he could not support in <a href="http://www.changetowin.org/connect/2008/04/mccainonomics_more_of_the_same.html">"good conscience"</a> one year, then a few years later, while still at war, claiming that he would try to make them permanent, does not make you a maverick. <br /> I could go on.<br /><br />But for me, as a veteran, what I find perhaps the most deplorable - not the flip flops, not the lying, not the pandering - is the constant harping on his POW history.<br /><br />It is as if they want us to think that because he was a POW, he is superhuman. He is the most qualified to be president (nevermind that the folks who are telling us this today, <a href="http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-55260">were telling us that this made him unstable and perhaps made him a traitor</a> when he ran against Bush). He is excused for being such an out of touch millionaire elitist that he <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/24/mccain-himself-uses-pow-e_n_120927.html">doesn't know how many mansions he owns.</a><br /><br />This is disgusting.<br /><br />This is pathetic.<br /><br />This is disgraceful.<br /><br />It seems every time he makes an ass out of himself, he pulls out the POW card. 'What's that? I flip flopped on issue X? Well you see, when I was a POW, I didn't even HAVE X!'<br /><br />Give me a break, McCain.<br /><br />Using your history as a POW to score political points, in my book, removes your cloak of Honorable service. <br />You are a disgrace and an embarrassment to the men who sacrificed for their country and are NOT using that sacrifice as a means of securing cheap political points and to cloud issues and to sway the ignorant rubes for whom bumpersticker patriotism is REAL patriotism.<br /><br />These are the acts not of an American Hero, but an American Idiot. <br /><br />For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee...Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-35606504364572048262008-09-14T10:27:00.005-04:002008-09-14T10:36:20.220-04:00Sarah Palin - Right Wing Lying LoonyWhile Palin's indiscretions and embellished personal history have not been secret for some time, the New York Times finally had the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin">guts to print</a>, on page 1, an expose of Palin and her antics. The caption for a picture reads, in part:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who<br />crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance.<br /></blockquote><br />Which means she is a lot like George Bush:<br /><br /><blockquote>Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on<br />loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal<br />e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The<br />New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records. </blockquote><br /><br />Nice. More Star Chamber sleaze.<br /><br />Add to her description 'ignorant' (she thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance); religious nut (thinks God wanted the war in Iraq and is a Young Earth Creationist); and lying sack of stool (she STILL claims to have opposed the 'bridge to nowhere'), and she is W with a skirt.Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-91705994472498784082008-07-17T14:17:00.002-04:002008-07-17T14:35:05.785-04:00Brief return - Collin Brendemuehl is upset that he is so wrong about things...Poor Collin Brendemuehl. Having been repeatedly humiliated at multiple blogs, he decided to try mine on for size, and<a href="http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-does-ceationist-blogger-do-when.html"> it didn't go too well for him</a>.<br /><br />He had asked a couple of 'wrong' questions about evolution - wondered 'are there' "10 million" random changes were that were required to explain human evolution from a rodent-like ancestor. I explained that the questions did not even make sense. He didn't like that. He 'allowed' that it might only be 1 million. I asked him to name just 1000 of the 'trait changes' he believes exist. Ultimately, he could produce only those listed below, all dealing with the same structure, most of which are likley goverened by but a few genes. After several rounds of Collin trying to change subjects, dodge questions, and accusing me of all manner of things, I told Collin that until he decided to actually address the original issues, I would not allow more of his comments here.<a href="http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-too-common-avoidance.html"> He called it 'censorship.'</a><br /><br />I left the following reply (I've cleaned up a few typos):<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Hilarious hubris...<br />I guess you ignored the parts where I explaiend that the 'parts' you seem to think require their own specific sets of mutations are actually all part of the same structure (a limb, for example) and I provided you a real example of how ALL those things can be affected by a single mutation.<br />In fact, I specifically countered each of your supposed structures and physiological issues, but you bailed.<br />Regarding an arm, you naively believed the following:<br /><br /><blockquote>1. circulatory system<br />2. bone structure<br />3. muscles<br />4.<br />skin<br />5. foot/hand<br /><br />Each of these has a variety of qualities that need<br />to change. Let'slist<br />a few. There are more, but this is a good<br />start.<br /><br />1. circulatory system<br />1.1 Vessel size<br />1.2 vessel<br />capacity<br />1.3 valve strength<br />1.4 elasticity<br />2. bone structure<br />2.1<br />formulation<br />2.2 thickness<br />2.3 marrow capacity<br />2.4 strength<br />3.<br />muscles<br />3.1 tendon strength<br />3.2 size<br />3.3 strength<br />3.4<br />oxygenation<br />4. skin<br />4.1 sweat capacity<br />4.2 elasticity<br />4.3 hair<br />capacity<br />4.4 coloration<br />5. foot/hand<br />5.1 Shape<br />5.2 Nails<br />5.3<br />Surface<br />5.4 Thumb behavior<br /></blockquote><p><br /><br /><br />I provided the example of the FGFR-3 mutation in humans producing dwarfism that affects ALL of those things. ONE SINGLE mutation. I explicitly did not give that as an example of evolution, rather, as an example of how gene changes can ilicit major phenotypic changes.<br /><em>ADDED COMMENT: But then, you insisted that getting a nail from a claw was a "major" phenotypic change requiring many mutations.<br />I explained how several of those 'individual' changes were actually<br />essentially the same thing - changing a vessels size will affect it's capacity;<br />making abone larger increases it's "marrow capacity", etc. To no<br />avail.</em><br /><br />A rational person might want to quit while they are ahead.<br /><br />And by the way - even if we are generous and grant that the 20 things you mention are legitimate individual changes each requiring their own suite of mutations (which they are not), YOU said there were MILLIONS, and I asked you to provide 1000.<br />You have 980 more to go. But I suspect that they, too, would all fall under the same umbrella of multiple changes that really are not multiple changes.<br />It is too bad that an untrained internet pseudoexpert cannot realize his limitations and actually acknowledge the possibility that he might not be up to snuff on the things he rants about.<br />Too much to ask, I suppose.<br />And by the way - discretion is not censorship. Post something of substance, and it will get through. </p></blockquote><br />Internet creationist types also seem to like to try to imply - or state outright - that professors and such have some sort of obligation to put up with trollish behavior and address all manner of shallow nonsense presented as unasailable truth. Collin writes:<br /><br /><blockquote>Now, if the terms I used were too colloquial, the list was certainly subject to<br />correction and clarification. A Ph. D. scientist should be able to competently<br />accomplish that.</blockquote><br /><br />Um, OK, well, the names were certainly colloquial enough, but that was hardly the issue, as I explained.<br />I can only imagine what he would have written if I had provided the anatomically-correct terms for each of the structures he had referred to - let me guess, I would have been labelled an elitist? I would have been accused of trying to embarrass the poor creationist? I would have been accused of trying to cloud the issues with minutiae?<br />In the end, clarification of terminology is the least of Collin's problems.<br /><br />Ho hum... Back to vacation...Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528115.post-83144328785281344242008-06-30T12:44:00.003-04:002008-06-30T12:49:24.200-04:00I agree with Wes CLarkRetired General Wesley Clark stated recently that "... <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/clark-mccain-a-hero-but-l_n_109988.html">being shot down" doesn't qualify McCain to be commander in chief</a>, and the McCain camp is "outraged."<br /><br />But the problem is, it is the truth. <br /><br />I have read that McCain finished in the bottom 1-2% of his class at Annapolis. That he lost 5 aircraft during his career - only once to enemy action. That is what is referred to as a 'Black Ace' (a feat shared with right-wing nutjob Bob Dornan, who used to brag about his stint as a fighter pilot - never mentioned that he somehow managed to stay stateside during Viet Nam and lost 5 planes while he was at it).<br /><br />McCain's service is honorable. But getting shot down doesn't make you a hero, nor does it make you more qualified to be CinC than anyone else, especially when you intend to follow the failed policies of the Bush administration....Doppelgangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com5