Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was looking for different videos of Richard Dawkins and I stumbled upon this one. If you haven't seen it, you really should:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


And then I read this:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867




What are your opinions on this? How does this affect Dawkins' credibility?

[JoeEllison]

This stupid thing again?

[Dr. Imago]

But, I loved this post in the comments under the video...

Even kids understand that their Christmas/birthday gifts did not materialise out of thin air, but were PLACED THERE BY SOMEONE, though they did not see them.

We all know that the existence of every Tangible Product can be traced to a Responsible Maker/Agent. (Eg, buildings, cars, ships, roads, computers, crime, whatever).

The hypocrisy of atheists is the belief in the above principle, but the blatant denial of the same principle where earth/humans are concerned.

WOW! What insight! What a revelation! How can anyone argue against such watertight reasoning?

-Dr. Imago

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oooook?

Maybe we could try dealing with the question raised in the topic so that you guys don't start loosing credibility also? :D

[ravdin]

So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?

[cafink]

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html

[Ron_Tomkins]

So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?



I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

[ravdin]

I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.



I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."

[Puppycow]

I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

Yes. cafink linked to the answer:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

[cyborg]

Dawkins was dumbfounded by the stupid canard of "information adding".

It's a stupid question that doesn't even understand what it asks.

Loss of credibility? Not from Dawkins' end that's for damn sure.

[sol invictus]

The question he was asked didn't make much sense. How do you define "the information in the genome"?

I can think of a few (not necessarily very good) ways, and with those definitions some mutations will increase the information, and some will decrease it.

So?

[dsmith]

This stupid thing again?

Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

[Dr. Imago]

t would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

In the words of Dale Carnegie, "No one kicks a dead dog."

-Dr. Imago

[articulett]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?

[fuelair]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?

Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:

[articulett]

Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:

Although it does exist primarily in their minds... like their intelligent designer... I think that the uninformed masses may assume credibility or controversy where none exists.

That whole "adding info." canard is such an idiocy. Humans have much smaller genomes than amphibians and even rice. What the hell does "add info." mean? genes? regulation? function? DNA? Do they think "more" is better??... the question itself shows such cluelessness while inferring something dishonest-- which is the whole technique of this smarmy group. And once they think they have a good question... a million of them repeat it as though they came up with it themselves-- and a biologists thinks-- "crap, one of these bozos again"--

Creationists are always so incurious as to new developments in science and so impervious to the answers to the questions they ask-- much less why the question is wrong and gives their intent away.

[m_huber]

Oh, look at the truth! They must be right! They have their own video gallery!

answersingenesis .com / video / ondemand

[EatatJoes]

OK, I do believe that Dawkins addressed this issue on Penn Radio at least a year ago. He knew that the question was loaded and was taken completely off guard by it. He paused because he wasn't sure how to proceed. I do believe he stated that when the question was asked he was no longer interested in the discussion because the whole basis of the interview was a deception. He knew that he was dealing w/ fundies and no longer wanted to engage them. I think this link (http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25/) will direct you to an mp3 of that show.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

The God Delusion is about atheism. The "stumped Dawkins" myth is from the area of Creationism and evolution. A better suggestion would be Ancestors Tale, River out of Eden or any of his other books dealing with biology.

[Complexity]

No.

[Acleron]

Dawkins explained this episode in The Devil's Chaplain. He had been asked to give an interview on Evolution. At this point in the interview he realised that the film crew were creationist/IDs. The reason for the pause was that he was considering terminating the interview. They eventually persuaded him to continue when he answered the very complex question on development of information.

The Creationist/ID's case is so weak they have to resort to these cheap tricks.

Because of this and other situations, Dawkins decided to avoid debating with these people and constructed a memorandum with Stephen Gould explaining why, unfortunately Gould died before he could sign it.

[T'ai Chi]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

[Hawk one]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?

[Acleron]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

One of the reasons for not publicly debating them is that a cool considered reply to a difficult question scores less than a quick sound bite. The general public is more likely to respond to a charismatic speaker than the cold facts.

I see that Dawkins is quite prepared to take on religious figures such as John Lennox. The concepts are easier to put across. The interview with Lennox also shows the difficulties that can be found from the format of these events.

Hawk One's comment is also true, why give them the publicity.

Stephen Novella is one of the most articulate skeptics I'm aware of but even he says such discussion often comes down to who has the better rhetoric.

[fls]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I suspect that the world-renowned Darwinist would relish debate.

I think the point is that 'debate' is not a reasonable descriptor for the aforementioned activities.

Linda

[UnrepentantSinner]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

[Acleron]

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

There are plenty of examples of this, see ERV (http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/).

The debate always seems to follow this scenario.

ID/Creationist makes silly scientific style comment.
Scientist corrects it.
ID/Creationist makes silly gratuitous insults, calls the scientist unscientific and close minded.

BTW, the ID/Creationist always responds on his own website so the deconstruction of his idiocy is not seen by his own followers.

Any debate can only succeed when both sides are constrained to follow rules of logic and truth, when this happened in the Dover trial, the ID/Creationists lost.

The Skepticality podcast labelled 'Flock of Dodos' has a good discussion with Randy Olsen on this topic.

[Mashuna]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I thought you were an advocate for 'proper scientific methods', T'ai. I mean, isn't that usually your criticism of the $1m challenge, that it doesn't follow proper scientific channels? Why would you expect a debate in front of a live audience to be a more useful method?

[This Guy]

I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."

Problem is that your side (I assume you back the views of these charlatans) have to cheat and distort the facts. You should try to look at the issue from multiple angles.

Of course, if your comfortable without considering all the facts, that's cool too, just don't expect us to join you there :)

[T'ai Chi]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

[Acleron]

One of the problems is the breadth of knowledge required. In a live debate id/creationist could easily ambush you on some obscure piece of biology e.g. a particular sequence in DNA and leaving you look foolish when you have to admit your ignorance. Whereas scientists spend most of their time trying to get the science right, id/creationists spend their time practising debating points like this.

When debating specific points, they will always lose if the TofE is correct. ERV regularly excoriates Behe whenever he ventures on to her turf.

[hgc]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.


Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats. Makes you wonder if there isn't something fishy about this whole Darwinism enterprise afterall.

:crazy:

[Lonewulf]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

[CFLarsen]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

[This Guy]

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?



Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

Obviously it's OK for creationist/ID'ers to mislead, lie and tell half truths. We should still respect them, and welcome them to the debate table.

After all, debating them wouldn't add any credibility to their stance would it?

And just because they have to mislead and take things out of context to be convincing, that doesn't mean their arguments can't stand on their own merit!
:rolleyes:

I know if I ran across a sales person that used the same tactics these folks use I'd not buy anything they were selling.

I guess some people have different standards for honesty and truthfulness.:con2:

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats.

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').

[sol invictus]

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

[hgc]

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').


Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be? Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is. If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism," then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.

As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home. Then they sprang their trap in the form of woo gibberish about information gained from mutations.

[T'ai Chi]

Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be?


I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.


Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is.


Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.


If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism,"


Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.


then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.


That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?


As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home.


But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

[This Guy]

I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.



Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.



Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.



That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?



But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

The question was what alerted Dawkins to the fact that he had been deceived by those recording the discussion. The pause wasn't because he didn't have an answer to the question, it was because it was at that point that he became aware of how dishonest the crew were. He wasn't thinking about answering the question, he was trying to decide how to deal with the situation he was in. The fact that the people involved have tried to use this clip to imply that Dawkins could not answer the question just shows more evidence of how dishonest they are.

[Alice Shortcake]

Of course, what Dawkins SHOULD have done was to embark on a Gish Gallop, spouting a load of irrelevant crap to confuse his opponent. Instead he realized that he had been misled by the film crew, paused to work out what the hell the question actually meant, and thereby "lost credibility" with the type of people who never had any credibility to lose. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Yet more "genius" from the anti-dawkins fools. :rolleyes:

[Acleron]

But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.

The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them. Read Murray Gellmann's The Quark and the Jaguar, he spent a whole book trying to explain what complexity actually is.
It reminds me of Feynmann's comment when asked to explain QED in a single sentence. "If I could explain it that simply it wouldn't be worth a Nobel prize'

[UnrepentantSinner]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Thanks for ignoring the gist of my reply T'roll Chi, I'd expected nothing less of you and you didn't disappoint me.

As I pointed out, and as Acleron repeated, it's easy to spew out BS soundbites in a verbal debate, but in scientists are more interested in advocating science and educating their audiences than winning the claps and hoots of intellectual fellow travellers, they will have to take time to explain the details of evidences like ERVs, human Chromosome 2, embryology, extant and fossil biogeography, fossil morphology, genetically based phylogenies... what phylogenies are, etc. And that's on top of explaining how the BS claims of Creationists like moon regression, sea salt, Lucy's knee joint, and Turkana boys cranial capacity vs. his height are the utter crap they are.

I personally think I could smoke any preacher turned "EVILution refuter" out there, but the majority of C/ID public faces are so trained in turning on the fire hose of BS that the temptation to correct every one of their lies, distortions and straw men would burn up my entire speaking time and I'd only be able to address one or two since they're more complex.

You're also avoided my question. If Creationists are so sure of their postitions, why won't they accept an invitation to a formal written debate?

If their positions are so solid, why won't they commit them to a permanent record that can be evaluated by both the judges and the audience? Why must they rely on soundbites and the cheers of fellow travellers if their positions can withstand scruitiny?

[T'ai Chi]

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.


But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.


The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them.

Then he could have answered them in a different manner.

[cyborg]

The real question is: why to you talk as if T'ai Chi hadn't already made up his mind?

[Hawk one]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

What makes you think that would have made a difference to them? These are professional liars we're talking about.

Why do you keep defending the liars? Why aren't you attacking them for their dishonesty?

[Dr. Imago]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

Imagine you're selling your house and you invite a couple of potential buyers, after they called you demonstrating interest, inside to see the place. They stroll around, like what they see, and you decide to sit down and discuss an offer. Things start off as planned, and you talk about the neighborhood, neighbors, school district, local shops... etc. Then, the person sitting immediately across from you suddenly pulls out gun and says, "Give me all your money."

What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? I know you're going to claim "straw man", so forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're selling your house ...


Well, let's just stick to what actually occured instead of hypothetical scenarios.


What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? Forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.


If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

[cyborg]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

[Dr. Imago]

If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

Just answer my question above: Does the scenario I present constitute ambush in your mind?

ambush
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1: a trap in which concealed persons lie in wait to attack by surprise2: the persons stationed in ambush; also : their concealed position3: an attack especially from an ambush

And, would that mean that the original premise under which you'd invited those people into your house had changed? Would you still owe any courtesy to them at that point?

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

I understand my personal response is super important to you, but let's stick to the topic, to an expert in Darwinian evolution, Dawkins, and his response to the question he was asked.

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question? The question certaintly wasn't new to him before he was asked it.

[cyborg]

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question?

The standard answer is: "Your question is stupid."

[sol invictus]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

Nice! :p

[Dr. Imago]

Nevermind, I'll answer for you:

"A trap (showing up under false pretenses and rolling videotape) in which concealed persons (concealed, a.k.a. lied about, who they really were to gain access) lie in wait (let the camera roll and ask a series of questions that had Dawkins lead to believe was the topic of discussion so he would be relaxed and off-guard) to attack by surprise (springing this question on him, in non-sequitir fashion, catching him off-guard changing the whole tenor of the interview)."

This is, in no other terms, an example of the worst form of yellow journalism out there. When "60 minutes" tried to pull this crap, they found themselves in a multi-million dollar lawsuit and eventually had to publicly apologize.

I'm not expecting that much.

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

[cyborg]

the information increase question made sense

No, it doesn't. The question is loaded. The meaning of "information" is such that it is impossible for evolution to "add" to it because the questioner has already decided that this is the case.

Of course I am talking to someone who will probably gag at the fact that 'randomness' maximises information (as used in information theory where it is defined precisely).

[CFLarsen]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

Note that T'ai Chi says nothing about the methods of the film crew.

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

[cyborg]

Well duh.

What I want to know is who is T'ai Chi's audience that he thinks he is getting this crap by exactly?

[Smiledriver]

This is a truly remarkable post. It's gonna actually make me come to Dr. Dawkins defense. Amazing!

Here's the thing...

Think about anything in which you are well educated. Art, auto mechanics, fantasy literature, anything. Now consider the simplest question you can be asked about that subject. Now consider pausing for 11 seconds before dodging the question. Would you do that, if so why?

I am well educated in Philosophy, if someone asked me if Socrates retracted all of his idea's because Xenophon and Plato wrote an Apology of Socrates. Why the hell would I be stumped, or even hesitate to answer that question? Further, why would I not point out how the question itself is ridiculous. Apology in the sense used in Plato and Xenophon's dialogues means "reasoned defense speach" not a admission of guilt. On the contrary both dialogues are historical accounts of Socrates defending his ideas to the Athenians however ironically.

The only way you could ask me, or a first year philosophy student for that matter, that question on film and make me look confused is with trickery.

Shame on these people.

[CFLarsen]

Well duh.

What I want to know is who is T'ai Chi's audience that he thinks he is getting this crap by exactly?

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

[cyborg]

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

I'm sure he does. That just makes it all the more funny/sad.

[Lonewulf]

To answer the OP: Yes, Dawkins lost his credibility... but only to those that felt that he had none in the first place.

I.E., the same ignoramuses as have always criticized Dawkins blindly.

[wahrheit]

Note that T'ai Chi says nothing about the methods of the film crew.

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

Couldn't agree more. You can sum this up to a one word term that has been mentioned before.

[Smiledriver]

Y'know part of me wants to agree with the whole "Dawkin's should have corrected them answered the interviewer if truth was on his side" argument. I support a thriving free marketplace of ideas. However, the point of the marketplace is to eventually weed out falsehood. You engage in debate only to the point were the idea is repeatedly shown to have no merit and then you don't need to listen to it anymore.

The good doctor has debated, written and spoke on the matter repeatly. His responses are widely available to anyone with a internet connected or failing that a library card. That is to say nothing about countless others who have done the same.

It's telling the lengths these people will go to make it appear that there is a lively debate raging in science on the matter. It's the only way to keep these ideas rattling around the marketplace.

[sol invictus]

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

Aha! So maybe you're actually interested in this, rather than just in trolling? Probably not, but I'll try to explain anyway.

There are ways to define the "information in the genome". One way is to use a version of entropy - determine (there are several ways to do that) the probability p_i that a given codon will appear in a given position i in the genome, then compute S = -Sum_i (p_i log(p_i)) over the genome sequence. The larger S is, the more information there is in the genome.

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it. It's actually an interesting question to ask which a random mutation is likely to do. But the question they asked is nonsensical, because there are an enormous number of boring answers which don't teach you anything.

It's like asking for an example of a stock price which when you multiply it by the square-root of 3 has a 7 in the 16 digit of its decimal expansion. If I'm an expert on the stock market, does my pausing after you ask me that mean that the stock market is a myth?

[articulett]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

[Biscuit]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

I love this point but want to express a pet peeve of mine regarding the word belief.

I feel strongly that rational thinkers need to stop saying they believe in gravity or believe in the TOE. While I, and most people understand what you mean when you say that, there needs to be a distinction between belief and comprehension. We should get in the habit of saying that one does not have belief in scientific theories but rather one either understands a theory or does not.

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.

Got that off my chest, sorry for the derail.

[articulett]

I agree... when people ask if I believe in evolution-- I say I accept evolution... just like I accept that the earth is spherical.... just as all scientists accept evolution. We accept facts we understand and use them to understand more.

Faith refers to believing something without or despite evidence-- often because there are rewards promised for that belief.

That's another dishonest inference proffered by the ID crowd (and all they've got is dishonest inferences)-- it's the idea that science is a "belief". The earth is spherical whether one believes in it or not. And humans are subject to gravity even if they have no clue as to what it is and they think it's demons that keep things stuck to the earth.

[wahrheit]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

Just wanted to take the opportunity and say that I liked the posts made by articulett I recently read very much. I have no idea who articulett is, but I enjoyed reading the posts a lot.

[T'ai Chi]

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it.


Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

[T'ai Chi]

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.


Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

[Biscuit]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.

How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme? Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has? I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.

Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?

I know I am getting way off topic here but it appears we all agree Dawkins' pause has not lost him credibility.

[Acleron]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

[T'ai Chi]

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.


At least it is a real word. :)


How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme?


That is not negative, never suggested it was. I suggested carrying the belief in science to the extreme, at the expense of everything else, is.


Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has?


Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:


October 24, 2007 - White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Convenes Roundtable to Discuss Human Trafficking

WASHINGTON, DC — The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives hosted “Faith-Based and Community Solutions to Combat Human Trafficking” as part of their Compassion in Action Roundtable series.

“Faith-Based and Community Organizations are freeing innocent victims and restoring the lives of those forced into modern-day slavery,” said Jay Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “These organizations are fighting for those coerced into bonded labor, bought and sold in prostitution, exploited in domestic servitude, enslaved in factories and captured to serve unlawfully as child soldiers. By partnering U.S. Government resources with the efforts of the faith-based and community organizations, we are determined to end human trafficking.”


and


Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative

Each year more than 650,000 men and women return from prison. Department of Justice studies of this population indicate that almost two-thirds of those individuals will return to prison within three years of release, many within the first few months. In 2004, President Bush announced his Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI) designed to assist ex-prisoners and the communities to which they return. Through this program, returning offenders are linked to faith-based and community institutions that help ex-prisoners find work and avoid a relapse into a life of criminal activity. Currently there are 30 PRI grantees across the country that are providing mentoring, employment and other transitional services to more than 5,789 participants. Initial results are promising with high levels of employment and significantly reduced recidivism rates.


These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.


I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.


Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.


Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?


Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

[T'ai Chi]

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.


I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.


Use of the word Scientism.

Yeah....


Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).


..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

[Acleron]

I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way. Where is the substance in your accusation?

..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

All cows eat grass, John eats grass, John is a cow? I learned that logical fallacy 50 years ago.

However if John has four legs, a stomach divided into four parts and eats grass, he is very probably an id/creationist like yourself descended by uncommon descent from a primate ancestor.

And while I'm typing let me say that Dawkins has not lost any credibility by being ambushed by people who have to resort to the tactics of lying and fraud.

Unfortunately there is a new film being produced to be called Expelled. Various scientists, including Dawkins, were interviewed by a group claiming to be making a film about evolution called Crossroads. These interviews, no doubt highly edited with 'pauses', are to be used to claim that id/creationists are being denied access to mainstream science university departments. (Is this familiar to you?) I presume they will not feature Dembski's totally fraudulent letter purporting to come from the Dean of such a university in support of another of his ilk who tried to gain credence by registering in that university.

If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect, scientists would love it, but if your only premise is to attack a leading proponent of the theory with a bogus argument you have already lost because even if, (and he could), Professor Dawkins couldn't answer the question, it would have no relevance to theory of evolution.

[Foster Zygote]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

[Alareth]

The real question is: why to you talk as if T'ai Chi hadn't already made up his mind?


No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

[Acleron]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

[T'ai Chi]

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way.


I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.


If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect,


No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

[T'ai Chi]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious. :)

[Biscuit]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?

Of course faith based movements can do lots of good but often times their religion holds them back. Look at aids relief in Africa where they only teach abstinence. Look how religious groups use their ability to help the less fortunate as a a recruting tactic. "If you had faith in god this wouldn't have happened to you." Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people. Religion always has an alterier motive, to expand. Groups like Peace Corp are not hindered by this.

I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones. Just because a group isn't faith based does not mean it is an athiest organization.

Science is never trying to compete with religion. Religion is terrified of science because it makes religion obsolete.

Atom bomb - Had to be created in order to stop WWII which was started by a religous madman.

Tuskeegee - A group of seriously misguided scientist. No one ever claimed just because you are a scientist you are morally untouchable.

The shooters in finland and columbine - Neither group represented science as whole just as Dawkins does not represent TOE. Insane people who happen to support TOE is no evidence at all.

Entire religions have acted as a whole to supress and kill people of other religions. This has happened time and time again. No section of science has ever acted as a group to supress or even injur another group of people. Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

[orpheus]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

No it doesn't since it's a BS question. IDers don't have any real definition of "genetic information" just some nebulous concept. Does a change in a HOX gene making legs on a snake not develop constitute an increase in information? One could argue it does since it takes a lizard and makes it into a new type of being. Does bacteria evolving to consume nylon constitute an increase in information? Of course it does but lying creationist weasels will claim that bacteria already had the information to eat and it just started eating something new.

Until C/IDers come up with an honest definition for "genetic information" as they want to use it, it's a BS questin and a BS issue.

Go ahead and keep defending those liars though... it does wonders for your credibility around here.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

But who will care and if enough of us start ignoring him, maybe he'll finally stop trolling here. (I say right after replying to him :))

[CFLarsen]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

No scientist worth his salt will ever claim that "science can explain everything".

The only ones who uses this argument are Creationists - like yourself - who want to set up a strawman.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

Oh, no. T'ai Chi has exposed himself as a Creationist a long time ago. He just enforced that with his response above.

At least it is a real word. :)

If you don't think truthiness is a real word, please tell us the definition of a "real word".

Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:

and

These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.

You didn't answer the question.

The question was what problems were fixed by religion. Not what problems were helped.

It's the same ruse that Sylvia Browne and her fans use, when they are pressed to answer which murder cases Sylvia Browne has solved. They say she helped, and bank on people not detecting the swindle.

Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.

What you deliberately leave out is that they don't base the science on their beliefs.

Like all Creationists, you don't tell the full story. You leave out the pertinent parts, because you know those will destroy your argument.

It's fraud, pure and simple.

Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

Ah, yes. Yet, another Creationist argument. Everything that is bad in society is due to science. Only a return to Creationism will save us. (http://www.inquiringminds.org/newsletter/0504/images/treeofevil.jpg)

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

No.

I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.

....what??

No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

If that was the only time you had voiced criticizm against Evolution, you could defend yourself that way. But when you constantly try to attack Evolution, not just by making Creationist arguments, but also resort to the fraudulous methods of Creationists, it is justified to call you a Creationist.

If it walks like a duck....

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious. :)

You really believe that you are successfully attacking Evolution here? Especially when you deliberately ignore the many posts that show how wrong you are?

You are seriously deluded.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

[T'ai Chi]

"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out.


Well we don't know that. We only have his account.


He might have answered brilliantly.


That is all the more reason he should do some public debates.

[T'ai Chi]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm


No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny. Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?


Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?


This was already provided to you.


Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people.


No one has claimed that there aren't good and bad religous and atheistic groups. But if you're paying attention, the original query was for examples of religion doing good.


I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones.


Well that's nice. But I'm asking for the exact counterpart to a religious group, which would be a group that is actively promoting atheism.

Your responses to my examples were nice. You basically admitted they occured.


Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the same argument applies to religion.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.

Ah, but of course. It wasn't edited at all!

T'ai Chi won't even entertain the notion that the Creationists could be cheating.

It is only those Evil-utionists that can be bad.

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage

Yes, there is.

, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny.

Huh? Words used for purposes of being funny aren't words?

Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?

Truthiness was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)

There are plenty of real life uses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness#Use_in_political_and_social_commentary)

[Dick Atkinson]

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

I'm just picking up this debate, and I have a number of points to make: there are a lot of worms in this can! In case anyone wants to address any of them, I'll call them (a), (b), etc, but they're not in any particular logical order. I'll limit myself to 3 issues here rather than rewrite "War and Peace". By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist.

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example). The issue is that (according to orthodox Neo-Darwinism) starting from some simple replicator maybe 3 billion years ago genomes containing huge amounts of information have evolved. The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

b) Dawkins is not apparently up to the task of tackling the mathematics even in a simple way. Read his "Methinks it is like a weasel" argument if you are in any doubt about this. There's no particular reason why he should be - "It doesn't make you a bad person" - but if he makes a strong claim about the adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution, he either needs to have his own answer to the problem, or be able to rely on somebody else's.

c) Dawkins and his allies regularly sidestep this issue in at least three dubious ways. Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism. (Check it out: Dawkins simply indexes "'Intelligent Design theorist' see 'Creationist'.) Secondly, they pretend that any disagreement with the Neo-Darwinian position is a denial of evolution itself. Thirdly, they pretend that any challenge from a credible scientific source - take "Life Itself" again - is actually whimsical, tongue-in-cheek mental doodling. In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue from Creationism vs Evolution. (Of course, you may point out that the likes of Behe and Dembski are strongly motivated by religious commitment - true but irrelevant here. Answer the argument, not the person.)

[Lonewulf]

Can you please define the "orthodox Neo-Darwinian" position, please?

[cyborg]

This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example).

Yes. The word "information" is used. However when used by a creationist is sure is "nonsensical" since they have a "nonsensical" view of what that constitutes - designed in such a way as to produce a question that cannot be answered as to gain any insight whatsoever.

When someone asks you the question: "So when has there ever been example of evolution adding information?" You know that any sensible meaning for "information" and "adding" have been thrown out the window.

The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

It sure is.

Now: define information in a mathematical way.

(Note: randomness maximises information mathematically).

Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism.

Anyone who denies the roots of the ID movement is either a fool, delusional or naive.

The ID "challenge" is nothing more than a false dichotomy - with not a moments thought even pondered about what "intelligence" or "design" is: just that we "know" without question what those things are.

In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism.

If there is I sure haven't seen it.

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

[Niobe]

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.


The video circulating has a womans voice pasted in in the start, where in actuality a man was asking him a question later on, and Dawkins is attentively listening to his question. By cutting out the man and pasting in the woman, it looks like he's dumbfounded where in actuality he's still listening to a talking person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4

[JoeEllison]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty.


They had credibility? Really?

The ID thing is a fraud and a con game, ans has been from the start. Since it is based on completely dishonest intent, created by a pack of professional liars, and founded with the sole purpose of misleading people, I suggest that it has never contained even the slightest bit of credibility.

The fact that they tell a single lie is almost irrelevant; the entire thing is a lie from top to bottom.

[Alice Shortcake]

T'ai seems to be completely indifferent to the method by which the film crew gained access to Dawkins' home in the first place. Not that there's anything surprising about that.

[JoeEllison]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.


Imagine you have the Internet.

There is a deception that keeps getting repeated and debunked over and over again. You are provided links and explanations time and again. Failure to examine and understand the evidence results in everyone seeing that you aren't interested in reality or honesty.

Wouldn't you, T'ai Chi, actually pay attention to the evidence, and stop pretending that lies are the truth? Seems the intelligent thing to do.

[sol invictus]

Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

Examples of actual mutations which increased the entropy of the genome? I very much doubt there are any specific examples of that in the literature.

First of all, there are several different definitions of information and they will disagree, especially when you ask about individual mutations.

Second, information isn't (at least so far) a particularly useful concept when applied to the genome, so it's not discussed much in the literature.

Third, the change in information due to a single mutation is really quite meaningless. It's a useful concept only when applied to a large set, or to changes over a long time.

It was a meaningless question.

[Hawk one]

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way. Where is the substance in your accusation?

Well, I can only assume that Justin (T'ai chi's real name) has put me on ignore because I've been keeping on asking questions he's incapable of answering. In Justin's world, asking him difficult questions and calling out his lies and general dishonesty amounts to trolling, see.

[Dr. Imago]

Examples of actual mutations which increased the entropy of the genome? I very much doubt there are any specific examples of that in the literature.

The concept of "entropy", and what that actually means, in the genome is baffling to me... a tendency to move towards a state of disorder? I am a medical doctor, not a geneticist, and I just don't know what that means. But, I'm not sure geneticists widely agree on this "theory" (offered primarily by a retired geneticist and self-proclaimed born-again Christian). There are known mechanisms that add to and change the genome, and part of the human genome project now elucidates that a large portion of our genetic material may be viral in origin. But, I don't think anyone is convinced that they have this all figured out, and even perhaps large sections of the genome previously thought inactive may actually serve some function other than structural.

Fragile X syndrome is a good example, if I even remotely understand what that question is asking, where there is a decrease in "entropy" and genetic material is actually added to the human genome in a heritable pattern, with some deleterious consequences. We can observe this and understand the basics of why this happens through successive generations.

At first I'd been concentrating more on the deception of the interviewer's tactics, which dismissed any further considertaion of the actual question surrounding the incident. But, the more I think about it, you guys are convincing me that this really, REALLY was a stupid and confusing question in the first place as it demonstrates a complete basic lack of understanding of genetics, a science that is arguably still in its relative infancy in the first place (in that we seem to understand what the forest looks like, have been able to define a few trees, but certainly don't have a very solid and complete description of the bark on those trees).

-Dr. Imago

[Biscuit]

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny. Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?



This was already provided to you.



No one has claimed that there aren't good and bad religous and atheistic groups. But if you're paying attention, the original query was for examples of religion doing good.



Well that's nice. But I'm asking for the exact counterpart to a religious group, which would be a group that is actively promoting atheism.

Your responses to my examples were nice. You basically admitted they occured.



I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the same argument applies to religion.

Because a word is used in jest it is not a word? You are just amazing.

You have not provided me with anything other than dodging and non answers like that one.

No, the original query was for examples of religion solving a problem. As someone else pointed out you gave examples of religion helping people in need, not religion itself solving a problem. Like say, vaccinations or a cure for polio. You need to pay attention and stop rephrasing the discussion.

What would really be the differeence between an aetheist charity and a secular one? Both would be based on doing good for the sake of doing good and not for the sake of spreading their faith. Regardless I found one so shove it.
http://earthward.org/index.shtml
And no I am not a member or have any affiliation with this group. You asked for one I gave it to you.

I did more than admitt they occured, I showed how they were useless as evidence for your argument.

No the same argument does not apply to religion in all cases. When a nutty loan gunman with a love of christ guns down 10 people it applies. When the catholic church went on crusades or torture binges it does not apply. Science has never organized itself for the purpose of death and destruction. Something religions do on a regular basis. This is because science is not afraid of being wrong, science loves new ideas provided you can back them up.

This is my first interaction with and I fear my last as you have no ability to actually answer questions and quite frankly are so dogmatic as to be about as interesting as watching paint dry.

[sol invictus]

The concept of "entropy", and what that actually means, in the genome is baffling to me... a tendency to move towards a state of disorder? I am a medical doctor, not a geneticist, and I just don't know what that means. But, I'm not sure geneticists widely agree on this "theory" (offered primarily by a retired geneticist and self-proclaimed born-again Christian).

Sorry - I should have used the word "information" rather than "entropy". I'm not sure which "theory" you're referring to... there's a very profound connection between entropy and information, which was first elucidated by Claude Shannon in the 40's and has since given rise to an entire academic discipline (information theory), which is central to computer science, cryptography, coding, etc. The fundamental point is that there is really one unique way to define both entropy and information, and both are maximized when the signal is maximally disordered. That sounds counterintuitive at first, but I can explain further if you're interested.

In any case I agree with your basic point, which is that how to apply this to the genome is very unclear. The science of bioinformatics is still in its infancy, and it's not clear this is a useful way to think about thinks. Furthermore, even though the fundamental definition of information is essentially unique, you can't calculate it exactly - and therefore you must choose a functional definition, and those choices will differ (which is why I said different definitions will sometimes disagree).

I suspect the interviewers didn't have a clue about any of this - they probably meant "information" in some very naive and imprecise sense, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. But there actually are a set of interesting questions on this topic - it's just that asking about a specific mutation that increases information isn't among them.

[cyborg]

In any case I agree with your basic point, which is that how to apply this to the genome is very unclear.

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

[Dr. Imago]

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

Well, it has to be not quite so simplistic, though. Those are the basic building block (amino acids) structures of DNA, but these are further organized into 3-base groups to provide the genetic recipe, if you will, for cells to build proteins and other molecules that trigger different cellular functions.

It's just not so simply, I feel, to surmise that this "information" is static. I think the key to the anti-evolutionists/pro-ID proponents argument is that such changes, in order to be heritable, would have to occur within gametes. And, since gametogenesis (at least female) is formed before birth, then it would be unlikely that such meaningful and additive changes could be passed to offspring at the time of conception.

But, we know this is the case. Fragile X syndrome is an example of a deleterious addition to oocytes that occurs during gamete formation in female fetuses. Secondly, spermatogenesis occurs regularly by Sertoli cells within the testes, and there is ample room for genetic variation at that level. Therefore, I don't know what it is unreasonable to suspect that this could not occur. Lastly, there is clearly evidence that genes jump and move, as well as rearrange themselves, early developmentally. We don't always directly observe these changes because these changes are either deleterious and result in fetal loss, they occur in what are currently believed to be "unimportant" regions of DNA, or they are so subtle that it is currently hard to observe them without actually mapping individual genome and comparing it to a reference set.

I'm not sure how "informatics" would apply to genomics, but this may just be that I don't know enough about informatics. Some theories, though, look enticing and may be helpful in letting us to begin to understand how processes interact. My analogy, however, is that the human genome is probably more like one big Sudoku puzzle: as we think we've figured out the specific regional effects of one area, some new information will come back and cause us to rethink what we had already solved. The knowledge with the genome, and genetics as a field, is exciting because of this fact, namely that the knowledge is turing over rapidly. But, the fundamental knowledge (the forest) is already well established, born out by rigorous scientific study, and unlikely to change. So, a lot of this discourse with the current state of knowledge is like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

That's why I think the question posed to Dawkins is a no-win trap that doesn't really have a meaningful answer in the first place. If he'd answered it definitively, there's a high likelihood that later down the road someone could say, "See, here now is proof that he didn't know what he was talking about back then." No-win situation.

-copro

[CFLarsen]

Well, I can only assume that Justin (T'ai chi's real name) has put me on ignore because I've been keeping on asking questions he's incapable of answering. In Justin's world, asking him difficult questions and calling out his lies and general dishonesty amounts to trolling, see.

No, no.

Merely asking Justin a question will land you on his ignore list.

Sure, he can't answer most questions put to him, but it isn't a requirement.

[articulett]

No, no.

Merely asking Justin a question will land you on his ignore list.

Sure, he can't answer most questions put to him, but it isn't a requirement.

Ignorance is necessary to keep his delusions of grandeur and god alive.

[SomeGuy]

I'm just picking up this debate, and I have a number of points to make: there are a lot of worms in this can! In case anyone wants to address any of them, I'll call them (a), (b), etc, but they're not in any particular logical order. I'll limit myself to 3 issues here rather than rewrite "War and Peace". By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist.

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example). The issue is that (according to orthodox Neo-Darwinism) starting from some simple replicator maybe 3 billion years ago genomes containing huge amounts of information have evolved. The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

b) Dawkins is not apparently up to the task of tackling the mathematics even in a simple way. Read his "Methinks it is like a weasel" argument if you are in any doubt about this. There's no particular reason why he should be - "It doesn't make you a bad person" - but if he makes a strong claim about the adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution, he either needs to have his own answer to the problem, or be able to rely on somebody else's.

c) Dawkins and his allies regularly sidestep this issue in at least three dubious ways. Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism. (Check it out: Dawkins simply indexes "'Intelligent Design theorist' see 'Creationist'.) Secondly, they pretend that any disagreement with the Neo-Darwinian position is a denial of evolution itself. Thirdly, they pretend that any challenge from a credible scientific source - take "Life Itself" again - is actually whimsical, tongue-in-cheek mental doodling. In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue from Creationism vs Evolution. (Of course, you may point out that the likes of Behe and Dembski are strongly motivated by religious commitment - true but irrelevant here. Answer the argument, not the person.)

Any creationist coming onto this board who then uses the strophe: "By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"

Should be insta-banned for being the lying, trolling scum that they are.

[SomeGuy]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

Okay, I'm imaging I'm a world class scientist in Zoology.

There is a stumper question "what is the square root of two sheep and a horse" that my academic 'enemies' always trot out at me about zooology, as if it's the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete and utter debunking of Zoology.

I wouldn't prepare an answer to counter "what is the square root of two sheep and a horse". Something so inane would not really seem all that intelligent to prepare for.

Of course I would be dumbfounded for a few seconds hearing that question when I was under the impression (prior to the question) that I was speaking to people genuinely knowledgable of Zoology.

[articulett]

Any creationist coming onto this board who then uses the strophe: "By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"

Should be insta-banned for being the lying, trolling scum that they are.

The clue is in the screen name... "dick"...

Lying in the name of Jesus...what else is new?

I wonder if atheists go to theist boards pretending to be believers?

The problem with the question is that it shows a huge amount of ignorance and a bias in it's asking. It's truly like asking "how far to the end of the earth"? Such a question presupposes a flat earth... or at least ignorance that needs a lot of explanation to remedy. I guess he could just have said, "non-disjunction"-- that adds info. to the genome-- in the form of an extra chromosome... or "methylation"-- that adds triple codon repeats. But the question is on par with "how does information get added to cookbooks". It's a bizarre question that infers ignorance on the part of those who can't answer, while also asking a question that nobody really wants an answer to. This is what creationists do. They ask ridiculous questions and ignore all answers because they have the answer they want and that answer is "scientists can't answer this, therefore my god is true".

No matter how facile they are with language and semantics-- it all boils down to the exact same nothingness. Inferences are used in place of facts. They offer no facts for their own "hypothesis"- just oblique inferences about the other side that are dishonest and ignorant. And they have no actual interest in correcting their mis perceptions. They are impervious to admitting that they HAVE a lack of understanding on the topic-- they imagine themselves experts, but have no curiosity on new knowledge in this field they are supposedly so expert in.

To answer the question would be like trying explain calculus to a first grader. And it's not like they actually have any interest or ability to appreciate the answer anyhow. They are like T'ai. They are sure they have the answers... so why waste time on the impervious and dishonest. They are just drawing you in to prop up whatever delusion they are nursing. There's this sense that they are playing an imaginary game in their heads where they are always winning while all the rational people are having a conversation about something completely different.

[Dick Atkinson]

Cyborg: Who cares about "the roots of the ID movement"? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Francis Crick misunderstood molecular genetics, and that Fred Hoyle misunderstood the concept of information (and entropy)? They are/were FOOLS, DELUSIONAL or NAIVE? Forget where the name ID came from - it postdates Crick and Hoyle in any case.

Cyborg: You wish me to define information in a mathematical sense - but you insist on a particular sense of the word. Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples. I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other - but that if a player is dealt all 13 spades (especially on his birthday) purposeful intervention is all but certain. The information question for evolution is not answered by pointing out that a random jumble of DNA - a dead gloop of chemicals - requires as much information to define it as a human being does. The question is HOW the viable organisms are sorted from the dead junk. This could be called a "design specification", and the issue is whether that is more than a metaphor.

d) To specify a crucial protein - Hoyle takes one of the histones as an example - around a hundred aminoacids must be coded for, from a choice of twenty, in the correct order. The amount of information involved is, in these terms, of the order of 20 raised to the power 100, which I roughly calculate is 2 to the power 400 (the actual number is irrelevant - it's BIG). Suppose (as is the case) that this universal protein - vital for cell division - must be specific, barring a handful of acceptable aminoacid variations. (Almost) any change is lethal. BUT THIS HISTONE MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME. That means that there must have been a complete sequence of dozens of ancestral proteins, successfully involved in (well adapted) cell division... But this molecule is so specific that it is virtually identical in ALL living organisms (all eukaryotes, anyway). So we have empirical evidence that significant difference would destroy the essential information (design information if you like), and a theoretical requirement that a whole spate of differences would be fine. When the facts contradict the theory, there is a problem with the theory. The "awkward question" the Australian Creationists put to Dawkins was ill-defined, but the theoretical problem was clear enough - when almost any random change is deleterious, empirical evidence for adaptive change is needed. (There is a prima facie Evo-Devo answer, but that has its own problems. Dawkins did not take that line.)

Lonewulf: You asked me to define Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can be involved in this discussion unless they already know this. However, it is very relevant to Dawkins and the "awkward question", so I guess I will have to write "War and Peace" after all.

e) Darwinism as now defined is the theory that evolution can be accounted for by Natural Selection (ultimately, differential fertility) acting on random variation. Darwin had no notion of the genetic mechanism, but when Darwin is coupled with Mendel we have Neo-Darwinism - and during the 20th century the molecular basis for Mendel's heritable factors was elucidated, completing the basic Neo-Darwinian theory. A Neo-Darwinian account of evolution must describe it in terms of DNA mutations effecting protein changes. Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" was outstanding because it brought something of that kind of thinking into the non-academic forum; but he seems to have abandoned genes before he got round to the molecular reality (see (d) for the protein end of the business). Dawkins writes about eyes, for example, as if an eye-spot evolved into a light-sensitive pit, and so on; but the spot and the pit were parts of different organisms. A spot can't turn into a pit. A gene - or a number of genes - undergo point mutations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which are deleterious. Many may be relatively neutral, and a vanishingly small number will be "adaptive". (Again, Evo-Devo offers a different account, but that's another argument.) There is no way to gauge the likelihood or plausibility of the chance from spot to pit except in molecular terms. When Dawkins tried to explicate the molecular/information account with his "Methinks" argument he fell flat on his face. Since then he doesn't go there in his popular publications. The "awkward question" put him back in that hot seat. It appears that he squirmed, but that is not really relevant. Whether Dawkins had a good answer is unimportant in the scheme of things. The real issue is whether ANYONE has a good answer. This problem worried Crick and Orgel enough to spend a year or two working on it. Fred Hoyle was sure there was no Darwinian, or Neo-Darwinian, answer. All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.

[cyborg]

Cyborg: Who cares about "the roots of the ID movement"? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Francis Crick misunderstood molecular genetics, and that Fred Hoyle misunderstood the concept of information (and entropy)? They are/were FOOLS, DELUSIONAL or NAIVE? Forget where the name ID came from - it postdates Crick and Hoyle in any case.

I don't think "Directed panspermia" is really the same thing as ID do you?

The Wikipedia entry on Francis Crick says:

During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[48] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[49] In a retrospective article,[50] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Now it is easier to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of some self-replicating polymer besides protein.

Nothing on that page suggests that the man would have anything to do with the views of the people pushing ID. What is designed is the propagation of the necessary ingredients for life. What is not designed is the life itself - that still had to arise naturally.

But, as ever, we see old scientific ideas pounced upon and utilised for propaganda with no regard to the updates in knowledge about the theories referenced.

So what is your point here?

Cyborg: You wish me to define information in a mathematical sense - but you insist on a particular sense of the word. Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples.

Uh... that would be mathematical.

I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other - but that if a player is dealt all 13 spades (especially on his birthday) purposeful intervention is all but certain.

Your point here is...?

The information question for evolution is not answered by pointing out that a random jumble of DNA - a dead gloop of chemicals - requires as much information to define it as a human being does.

I don't know what question it is your asking since you haven't really said what you mean by "information".

It sure doesn't bode well for sensible discussion that you're using emotive terms like "dead gloop of chemicals," with the tacit implication that there should be something different about "non-dead gloops of chemicals."

The question is HOW the viable organisms are sorted from the dead junk.

Er... natural selection?

(And I still don't understand what this "dead" business is supposed to mean for chemicals.)

BUT THIS HISTONE MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME.

Nope. Simplistic probabilistic reasoning.

Typical.

when almost any random change is deleterious

Ah, that old canard.

Could we have some proof for that please?

Dawkins writes about eyes, for example, as if an eye-spot evolved into a light-sensitive pit, and so on; but the spot and the pit were parts of different organisms. A spot can't turn into a pit.

Why not?

A gene - or a number of genes - undergo point mutations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which are deleterious.

Where are you getting this from? This is all very familiar standard rhetoric.

(Why do I get the feeling the justification for deleterious mutations will come from an argument from cancer?)

All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.[/COLOR]

And that input comes from?

And that designer was constructed by?

[articulett]

The question has been answered multiple times... it's just that those asking the question don't have the intelligence or education to understand the answer. Moreover, the question truly is as lame as asking "how far to the end of the earth"-- it reveals ignorance of profound proportions that is not subject to ready amelioration. It also shows the arrogance of the faithful-- this notion that they already know all there is to know on a topic-- and so they cannot hear any new information (see Behe at the Dover trial).

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/dawkins.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_indexx.html#ridley
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/serpentine07_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/biocomp05/biocomp05_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/serpentine07_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/tooby.html

It gets old--the answer to how genomes evolve is becoming increasingly clear every day, but creationists and pedants can't absorb the new information because they are so sure that science can't answer their loaded questions and that that means something or other in favor of some other hypothesis.

Evolution can and does explain increasing complexity and seeming design in all systems. It's just that those who think they know everything already can't understand the science enough to comprehend the information no matter how it is presented.

[cyborg]

BTW Dick you should meet kleinman. I think you two would get on famously.

[articulett]

How much copying do you think is going on at a time, Dick? So what if most are deleterious. Most people don't win the lottery either. That doesn't change the fact that some do.

Lying creationists can always be counted on to argue using the same tangents and nothingness and inferences. They just never ever say anything. It's all inferences and stuff that you can't pin down. They have no evidence... they say things in a meal mouthed way that makes it hard to refute because nothing is said-- but digs at evolution are inferred. There is endless digging at a process that they don't seem to understand as well as they pretend with the inference that this must mean that there is something wrong about evolution-- or a gap that some other theory somewhere might fill. Oddly enough, scientists don't see this gap-- and there is no evidence that anything other than evolution will explain the areas we don't have a full understanding of yet.

[Thabiguy]

Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples. I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other ...
Good.
... around a hundred aminoacids must be coded for, from a choice of twenty, in the correct order. The amount of information involved is, in these terms, of the order of 20 raised to the power 100, which I roughly calculate is 2 to the power 400 (the actual number is irrelevant - it's BIG).
Didn't you just say that the amount of information is measured in bits? The amount of information in your example is not on the order of 20 raised to the 100th power, or anything like that. It is about 432 bits. That is on the order of 20 raised to the 2nd power, or 2 raised to the 9th power.

As for the rest of the... hmm... text in your post, I'll let someone else address that.
ETA: ... I see some already did.

[articulett]

BTW Dick you should meet kleinman. I think you two would get on famously.

You'd think so... but all the woo think they are smarter than the other woo. They all are sure they are the ones designated to teach... with nothing to learn. They sound so confident and sure of themselves that I suspect they do make others think that they are saying something valuable that the listener just doesn't have the knowledge to comprehend. But they really aren't saying anything at all. Good communicators make the difficult simple to understand-- blowhards make the simple difficult to understand-- the more they speak... the less you know. And yet such confidence! It's as if sounding like you know what you are talking about has more value than actually knowing what you are talking about.

But I agree. That dick and kleinman are cut from the same smarmy cloth... and now the point mutation canard... how long before he'll be asking about the time it takes to "evolve a gene de novo"?

[jimbob]

Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?


Which is a reason for "educated laypeople" and famous critical thinkers but not evolutionary biologists to debate them.

I am thinking of people like the late Linda Smith, standup and chair of the humanist association.

Dawkins engaging in such a debate can not win, as by his presence he is giving it creditibility. A stand-up isn't.

[Dunstan]

Whether Dawkins had a good answer is unimportant in the scheme of things. The real issue is whether ANYONE has a good answer. This problem worried Crick and Orgel enough to spend a year or two working on it. Fred Hoyle was sure there was no Darwinian, or Neo-Darwinian, answer. All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.

Since you are a "lifelong atheist/evolutionist," I presume you have found a satisfactory answer to this question.

[JoeEllison]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

[cyborg]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

[JoeEllison]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!:D

[articulett]

I have never heard an actual lifelong atheist/evolutionist use that terminology.

In fact, I don't think I've heard an evolution supporter call themselves an evolutionist... it would be like those who accept gravity calling themselves a Newtonist...

I've heard Dawkins referred as an "evolutionary biologist"-- by his colleagues. But evolutionist? The vast majority of people on this forum understand and accept evolution-- have any of you ever referred to yourself as an "evolutionist"? How about "lifelong atheist"? Even if you never had a belief in god-- have you ever described yourself as a lifelong atheist? And in what context?

It reminds me of the Jonbenet ransom note that opens with "we are a small foreign faction"-- what group describes themselves as a "foreign faction"? Foreign is a term used for "others"--not groups that include yourself.

[articulett]

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!:D

Well, we can give them points for bravado and conviction and using some intelligent segues... but not for originality. Some people are fabulous to talk to... and some people are easier to talk about.

[sol invictus]

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

Yes, that's an obvious starting point. But one might want instead to use the sequence of codons (three base-pair sequences coding for a particular amino acid). But there are synonymous codons (several may code for the same AA) - should we take that into account? How about so-called "junk" DNA, which doesn't code for any proteins? (Recently it's been realized that it may be extremely important, because it affects the shape of the DNA molecule, which in turn can effect which genes are active.) What about DNA sequences with more than one frame (the same sequence offset by one base-pair can code for two different AA sequences), which some viruses employ? Etc. etc....

It's a fascinating field, but it's nowhere near convergence on these questions.

[JoeEllison]

It reminds me of those people who go on Fox "News" claiming to be "lifelong Democrats", who then disagree with Democrats on every single issue imaginable, and agree with every comment from all but the most very extreme right-wing Republicans.

It is a way for liars to try to cover their lie by pretending that they are not driven by their real ideology, by claiming to be the opposite of what they really are.

[sol invictus]

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so.

Sorry, but the fact that information in the genome is a valid area of inquiry doesn't mean their question was sensible - it wasn't. And "pathetic" referred not to that, but to the fact that a pause in answering a question is regarded as a discredit to Dawkins.

If that's the best you creationists can do, that's utterly pathetic.

[articulett]

Yes, that's an obvious starting point. But one might want instead to use the sequence of codons (three base-pair sequences coding for a particular amino acid). But there are synonymous codons (several may code for the same AA) - should we take that into account? How about so-called "junk" DNA, which doesn't code for any proteins? (Recently it's been realized that it may be extremely important, because it affects the shape of the DNA molecule, which in turn can effect which genes are active.) What about DNA sequences with more than one frame (the same sequence offset by one base-pair can code for two different AA sequences), which some viruses employ? Etc. etc....

It's a fascinating field, but it's nowhere near convergence on these questions.

The question presumes that information has to do with the number of genes or whatever. Yet humans have much smaller genomes than amphibians and Oak trees and rice plants. It's not numbers... that's like saying more ingredients make the recipe better. You would have to say exactly what is meant by information as Dawkins notes. If we are talking about higher functioning-- then that has more to do with pruning and regulation that adding codons.

[Dick Atkinson]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

[articulett]

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

Actually it is evidence which makes us suspect people who speak as you do. We get a lot of "intelligent design proponents" that sound, well, like you. You use the exact creationist talking points. You seem to act like you understand evolution, but you don't understand why it was a bad question. And then the silly canard about most mutations being deleterious... so what- you have trillions of cells in your own body-- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body--all replicating-- you don't think somethings going to be an improvement with all that replication and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further and multiply exponentially. See hox genes. And then the point mutation canard. If you are interested in evolution, then why haven't you kept up to date on the many ways information in genomes is known to have evolved over time? You can thank Kleinman for us associating the point mutation canard with "intelligent design" dishonesty dressed up as "evidence".

I don't know what books you are reading on the subject, but clearly, your information is out of date and you don't seem to have an interest on getting up to date. You seem to be critical of Dawkins without even having read or understood the knowledge he's assimilated for the rest of us... You judge someone whom you are clearly much less knowledgeable then without even understanding why the question is on par with demanding an answer to how far it is to the end of the earth. It's a nonsense question... until or unless you define information. It's a particularly nonsensical question when you understand that humans have a lot fewer genes that simpler life forms. It presupposes a weird kind of ignorance... the kind that you are also projecting... a dishonesty... your words like the creationist words presume facts not in evidence and infer judgment on someone when it's the you who is the clueless one.

Great... so you accept evolution. Excellent. But you don't understand it enough to critique it or to critique Dawkins reaction or to understand why you sound fraudulent. You don't understand evolution enough to engage in this conversation from the angle you are coming from. You presume to be more knowledgeable than the people here while not having exhibited that knowledge to anyone here or without having read much from anyone here.

If we confused you for a woo-- it's your fault... you sound identical to many a woo that come here-- identical... and THAT, my friend, IS evidence. If you want to be perceived differently, perhaps it's your approach you ought to alter. Try humility. Curiosity on the subject you pretend to be knowledgeable about. Less pedantry. More clarity. Less judgment. More reading of others. I mean most "evolutionists" and atheists on this forum never need to say as much. We presume rationality and sincerity on behalf of participants until the woo smarminess starts to ooze. No need to get defensive unless you have something you are trying to hide, right?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

I, for one, am not a lifelong atheist/evolutionist. I was, I guess marginally, a Christian until my late teens, but I was, emphatically, an acceptor of evolution since I was like in 5th grade or earlier.

Actually it is evidence which makes us suspect people who speak as you do. We get a lot of "intelligent design proponents" that sound, well, like you.{snip long crazy rant}

It's hysteric comments like this, especially in light of the post you were responding to, that makes me think you're a God-Hater who is so conditioned to respond with long rambling rants against "stupid x-ians" you can't recognize sarcasm, parody or devil's advocacy. :rolleyes:

[articulett]

Now, I remember why I had you on ignore...

You keep accusing me of hating a god I don't believe in. (Yes, and I hate Santa and Thor too). Moreover... it most decidedly was not a rand against "stupid X-ians"-- you seem to be the only person who interprets things that way... which is why a lot of people have you on ignore, I imagine. I'm sure intelligent will quote you is you say something of value.

[Lonewulf]

that makes me think you're a God-Hater
Sure. And I'm up there with Thor Haters, and I also hate Zeus. But I'm okay with FSM and the invisible pink unicorn.

Silly goof. Why don't you accuse people of something that would actually stick, m'kay?

[JoeEllison]

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

You're a weird kid. :cool:

[JoeEllison]

I, for one, am not a lifelong atheist/evolutionist. I was, I guess marginally, a Christian until my late teens, but I was, emphatically, an acceptor of evolution since I was like in 5th grade or earlier.
I've been an atheist my entire life, and I suppose I accepted evolution the way everyone accepts gravity, long before I had the background to understand the scientific underpinnings.

When someone posts things that sound very much like religious-based nonsense and very little like anything most rationalists would post, and preface it by saying "I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"... well, it seems to me as though they are seeking to deceive. I could be wrong, but it simply doesn't ring true to me.

[godless dave]

When someone claims Francis Crick is or was an advocate of intelligent design, then I strongly suspect that that person is lying.

[JoeEllison]

When someone claims Francis Crick is or was an advocate of intelligent design, then I strongly suspect that that person is lying.

Yes, well, accepting that ID is a fundamentally religious idea(not to mention a dishonest one), and that Crick was relatively anti-religious, the link between him and ID seems to be very unlikely.

[articulett]

Yes, well, accepting that ID is a fundamentally religious idea(not to mention a dishonest one), and that Crick was relatively anti-religious, the link between him and ID seems to be very unlikely.

Francis Crick wrote The Astonishing Hypothesis
-- the hypothesis being that there were no such thing as souls. He was most definitely a materialist. And your instincts are correct. Cyborg caught it early on. (For what it's worth-- Cyborg is an excellent source in regards to evolution--and very funny... and crisp.)

The guy had the same old arguments-- "deleterious", "point mutation", "add info."-- old arguments... long since addressed... but oft dragged out as though such a person thought of it for the first time themselves. How can someone expect to be treated as some magical expert when they haven't got a clue and haven't kept up on the recent developments? I mean the eye canard is old-- and anyone interested on the details steadily amassing can readily download videos and information all over the web-- unless they wanted to presume that Richard Dawkins et. al. doesn't know a damn thing while they, miraculously do.

And then trying to make us feel bad when caught?... I mean, he's hardly ever posted... doesn't know anybody's expertise... and yet assumes we'd consider him an expert? Based on what? Surely not facts--since he was in short supply. He was big on pedantry, low on respect, and petulant when queried. He's just one of those guys so sure he has something to teach while being clueless as to what he could learn. And it's only his first or 2nd post.

And then we're supposed to feel bad when we probe him and he explodes calling us all meanies? Reality and science are all about examining the facts. Religion is being shamed into showing deference and not daring to ask questions. Someone clearly hasn't been hanging out on the skeptic side of the fence to have such thin skin and few facts.

If someone thought I was an apologist or a creationist or dishonest-- I would endeavor to make them understand otherwise through evidence, facts, curiosity, dialogue, clarification. Why would someone need to shame someone into treating their ideas with respect? Why would someone come here and just assume more than any of the other members they had never even read?? Bizarro.

[JoeEllison]

Ummm... ok? :D

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.

[articulett]

Ummm... ok? :D

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.

Yes... they have lost the ability to see themselves through the eyes of others... and to understand that we are not any more eager for their "opinions" than they are for ours. How come they never extend that "do unto other" thing to those who might believe differently? If they want their opinion respected, they might first try respecting the opinions of their "audience"-- rather than assuming they know more than that audience. Ugh.

[JoeEllison]

Yes... they have lost the ability to see themselves through the eyes of others... and to understand that we are not any more eager for their "opinions" than they are for ours. How come they never extend that "do unto other" thing to those who might believe differently? If they want their opinion respected, they might first try respecting the opinions of their "audience"-- rather than assuming they know more than that audience. Ugh.

You have to remember that religion is inherently amoral... so you cannot assume or expect moral or ethical behavior from religious people. Everything that they claim as ethical or moral travels in one direction, towards them from others, and not the other way around.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ummm... ok? :D

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.



Just a quick second-explanation: I presented the material because I was having doubts about the event itself. I know virtually nothing about genetics and evolution and genomes so I had no criteria to know that the question itself made "no sense" as it has been explained. That's why the post's title is "Has Dawkins lost credibility?" as opposed to "Dawkins looses credibility". I already pointed on a previous post that I had understood, thanks to the generous explanations, what Dawkin's reaction really meant. That's it.

[articulett]

Just a quick second-explanation: I presented the material because I was having doubts about the event itself. I know virtually nothing about genetics and evolution and genomes so I had no criteria to know that the question itself made "no sense" as it has been explained. That's why the post's title is "Has Dawkins lost credibility?" as opposed to "Dawkins looses credibility". I already pointed on a previous post that I had understood, thanks to the generous explanations, what Dawkin's reaction really meant. That's it.


PBS Nova has a special on the Dover trial tonight where you can get a quick update on evolution... http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Dawkins gives a great speech on the video canard here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Matthew Chapman is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1809,Matthew-Chapman-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

This is really interesting stuff to understand... and you will understand why what "intelligent design proponents" are doing is smarmy, dishonest, and an attempt to keep you and others from understanding some of the most interesting information humans have assimilated of late. We get a lot of them here doing their dishonest obfuscating, and I hope you forgive us, if we presumed you might be one of them. Dick Atkinson certainly seems to be.

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.

[CapelDodger]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

You are not alone. I too have seen it before, in many guises. It's a technique, not a fact. Any sound propaganda handbook features it. Appear to position yourself next to the mark, then steer them in the desired direction.

[CapelDodger]

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.

And marvellous. Let's not forget the marvelling.

[articulett]

And marvellous. Let's not forget the marvelling.

That too! I don't want to sound preachy-- but what Darwin could only theorize-- we have illustrated in amazing detail with the advent of molecular genetics and genome mapping. We can SEE it. It's a fact-- and it's revealing so much, so quickly. (Darwin never even saw a chromosome.) And there is nothing in any old scripture that can begin to hold a candle to it. Plus it's true. You don't have to "believe" it... and it will keep being true just like the earth was a sphere even as people believed that it was flat. The only punishment for not knowing is ignorance... but that is a huge loss-- because we live in a time when we can finally KNOW our origins. All of life is related to each other. And we can see how... and know how far back in time we shared a common ancestor... and what that ancestor was like.

[VonNeumann]

...we live in a time when we can finally KNOW our origins. ...
Hey Art'. Just dropping in after a few months of absence. I think of you as a tireless crusader here for evolution, against those who'd dare dissent. ...but I don't think I remember what you think with regard to something more fundamental. I mean, you said we can finally KNOW our origins. But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

[Foster Zygote]

Hey Art'. Just dropping in after a few months of absence. I think of you as a tireless crusader here for evolution, against those who'd dare dissent. ...but I don't think I remember what you think with regard to something more fundamental. I mean, you said we can finally KNOW our origins. But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

That's easy! That's the gap that God fits into.

[Ron_Tomkins]

PBS Nova has a special on the Dover trial tonight where you can get a quick update on evolution... http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Dawkins gives a great speech on the video canard here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Dawkins-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

and Matthew Chapman is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1809,Matthew-Chapman-at-AAI-07,RichardDawkinsnet

This is really interesting stuff to understand... and you will understand why what "intelligent design proponents" are doing is smarmy, dishonest, and an attempt to keep you and others from understanding some of the most interesting information humans have assimilated of late. We get a lot of them here doing their dishonest obfuscating, and I hope you forgive us, if we presumed you might be one of them. Dick Atkinson certainly seems to be.

Don't miss this opportunity to understand more if you have the slightest interest in the subject. It is not hard to understand, and it is profoundly fascinating.




Thank you. I'll check that information out.

[VonNeumann]

That's easy! That's the gap that God fits into.
To each his own...

So Art', if you were to wildly speculate, would you entertain something like Smolin's baby universe idea? ...sort of a supra-cosmological Darwinistic idea?

[articulett]

To each his own...

So Art', if you were to wildly speculate, would you entertain something like Smolin's baby universe idea? ...sort of a supra-cosmological Darwinistic idea?

I like this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html


But my area of interest and expertise is genetics. And I'm trying to curb my discussion with maddening "intelligent design proponents", Von-- though, as always, you are my favorite. The rest lack your charm... that's for sure.

[Mashuna]

But what about the physical laws. What do you think about the origin of such as that? ...and where does Dawkins stand on that subject?

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.

[UnrepentantSinner]

When someone posts things that sound very much like religious-based nonsense and very little like anything most rationalists would post, and preface it by saying "I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"... well, it seems to me as though they are seeking to deceive. I could be wrong, but it simply doesn't ring true to me.

You mean you don't think Lee Strobel was an atheist/evolutionist and had a sudden epiphany just by studying "the evidence"? ;) There have been some cases of folks I encounter in what used to be Chrisitanforums that spent some time agnostic or as an atheist in their teens or twenties and then returned to the flock, but they tend to not play that up or to offer the intellectual abortions that apologists like Strobel do.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Now, I remember why I had you on ignore...
{typo filled rant snipped}

Why did you ever take me off?

Sure. And I'm up there with Thor Haters, and I also hate Zeus. But I'm okay with FSM and the invisible pink unicorn.

Silly goof. Why don't you accuse people of something that would actually stick, m'kay?

Unless my post is a reponse to one of yours, please refrain from lecturing me on rhetorical devices when you don't seem to understand the rhetorical device I'm using.

TYIA.

[Lonewulf]

Unless my post is a reponse to one of yours, please refrain from lecturing me on rhetorical devices when you don't seem to understand the rhetorical device I'm using.
It's a pretty silly rhetorical device, whether I know it or not. Besides, FSM haters shouldn't have a right to talk.

TYIA.
Please refrain from telling me what to do.

TYIA.

[JoeEllison]

You mean you don't think Lee Strobel was an atheist/evolutionist and had a sudden epiphany just by studying "the evidence"? ;) There have been some cases of folks I encounter in what used to be Chrisitanforums that spent some time agnostic or as an atheist in their teens or twenties and then returned to the flock, but they tend to not play that up or to offer the intellectual abortions that apologists like Strobel do.

Well, that's like that Kirk Cameron goon from that TV show, going on about how he is a "former evolutionist"... as though he was reading Origin of Species between takes or something. :rolleyes:

[VonNeumann]

I like this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

But my area of interest and expertise is genetics. And I'm trying to curb my discussion with maddening "intelligent design proponents", Von-- though, as always, you are my favorite. The rest lack your charm... that's for sure.
Art'! I am shocked! Have I had some effect on you? Don't you realize Seth Lloyd favors the concept of our universe being as a computer? I thought you bucked me when I suggested the likes of that.

[VonNeumann]

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.
I remember reading a response Dawkins wrote to Lee Smolin where Smolin was fishing for some blessing from Dawkins that his baby universe idea was in line with the darwinistic paradigm, and Dawkins declined. Publically, I can't see how it would help Dawkins to get into the territory of fundamental origins. He knows that, too.

[Cuddles]

Let's try to keep the bickering out of it, shall we?

[Dunstan]

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.

I agree. He does briefly discuss some of the possibilities in The God Delusion, but doesn't endorse any particular one as far as I recall.

[articulett]

Art'! I am shocked! Have I had some effect on you? Don't you realize Seth Lloyd favors the concept of our universe being as a computer? I thought you bucked me when I suggested the likes of that.


No Von-- it's your slam of Dawkins, your misunderstanding of natural selection, and your insinuation of a purposeful design/designer with a plan.

[VonNeumann]

No Von-- it's your slam of Dawkins, your misunderstanding of natural selection, and your insinuation of a purposeful design/designer with a plan.

1. My "slam" of Dawkins? Perhaps you make reference to my pointing out his "illustration" of natural selection via nothing more than a stencil. His "Methinks" illustration was no more instructive of a natural selection function than what one should expect of dropping sand through a stencil. He merely built a software filter and called it a demonstration of natural selection. Is my pointing that fact out a "slam"? The question he was trying to answer begs the question what is the natural source of the stencil's specification. If Dawkins had a better demonstration then I am sure he would have delivered. He is not stupid. It's the best he could do and if you are an astute skeptic, you'd want more than to be bamboozled.
2. My misunderstanding of natural selection? No, sister. My deeper understanding, apparently deeper than yours, that what is called natural selection applies to a complex system, a system that I've pointed out is orders of magnitude more complex than all the human neural networks on earth combined. You assign this super complex system the power of creating long strings of DNA codes for all kinds of purposes, yet, it is blind and purposeless. The burden is on science to have a "theory" of how natural selection can do this self-bootstrapping, without merely resorting to hand-waving and saying "it's obvious it should work and you are slow if you can't see that it should and in fact does work." There is no argument from me nor from most dissenters (I assume) that natural selection is a negative force that prunes and thereby weeds out poorly adapted forms, but to jump to the conclusion that this pruning can work along with random generation of new forms to cause progressive advancement of lifeforms is something not proven.
3. My insinuation of teleology? The current paradigm of science is to eschew teleology in any/all theoretical models. This has been a successful plank in the method. Science is a method. We must understand this and not forget it. Science is not synonymous with truth. There are things that you know exist that are not touched by science. Science cannot prove you are conscious. I bet you are though. I don't know that your are, but I know that you are. The latter being a statement of faith, not of science. I could be wrong, but I'll bet you a dollar you are. So if this forum is for the purpose of adhering to science in all things we can talk about here, then mention of teleology in nature would be out of order. But the whole paradigm of science is in need of a new revolution. The need for overhaul has been cooking since the dawn of the quantum understanding of what lies at the fundamental level of existence. I was surprised you champion the likes of Seth Lloyd because I've made many references to the fact that our universe acts more like a computer than any other thing we humans can use as metaphor. More than a hundred years ago, metaphor of billiard balls or solar systems may have been reasonable metaphors when we tried to understand how an atom might appear/behave. Today, the best metaphor for fundamental understanding of the universe come from information theory and numerical computation. Algorithmic complexity needs to be basically understood and the old ideas of randomness need to be upgraded to current knowledge. But the question of teleology is not ruled out by science because teleology is FALSE, rather because teleology is not what science is ABOUT.

Back to Dawkins... He is smart, but he appears to me as a very religious person. His religion is "science" but he does not appear to me to be a person that Lee Smolin would call a "seer". This forum is full of very bright people but probably is not an attractor for seers. ...birds of feather... That's what I see here. There's a lot of good stuff on this forum and a lot of bright people. IMHO, Dawkins and Hawking are not seers. Penrose is a seer.

I don't know if Dawkins lost credibility with the general public, but he is more a guy who spouts well the 'establishment', he is not a revolutionary. And he appears to me more a theologian, a conservative (conserving 150 year old ideas), not a progressive.

As I've said to you before Art', I am too much a skeptic to believe the creative force of the universe is as simple as randomness coupled with natural selection. There is too much underlying the physical universe that we cannot/have-not probed for us to conclude so wishfully. A hundred years ago (even 50 years ago) we looked at cytoplasm and saw jelly--now we see a city's-worth conglomeration of fine-tuned machinery. We look at quantum mechanics and see that our models are good at predicting statistical outcomes of experiments. Then we get into arguments over whether it is meaningful for science to ask questions about the mechanism underlying quantum physics (eg Einstein-Bohr arguments). Let's not pretend that we can conclude no-teleology when we cannot (yet?) probe the fundamental quantum computer that makes up our universe. Since you give Seth Lloyd some credence, I must say I am pleased... you are expanding your religion and you are showing you can think outside the box. Good for you, girl! :)

[articulett]

I'm not flattered by your approval Von. Complexity is always built from the bottom up by information that is good at getting itself replicated-- there is no model of top down telelogical design... it's backwards. It doesn't happen. It's anti-entropic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Tooby.html

And rest assured-- I find your complaints of Dawkins and skeptics as smarmy and misguided as all woo. I suspect you are jealous, because no one takes your expertise very seriously. And I'm too much of a skeptic to think that you are saying anything more valuable than what Behe et. al. are saying.

[VonNeumann]

I'm not flattered by your approval Von. Complexity is always built from the bottom up by information that is good at getting itself replicated-- there is no model of top down telelogical design... it's backwards. It doesn't happen. It's anti-entropic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Tooby.html

And rest assured-- I find your complaints of Dawkins and skeptics as smarmy and misguided as all woo. I suspect you are jealous, because no one takes your expertise very seriously. And I'm too much of a skeptic to think that you are saying anything more valuable than what Behe et. al. are saying.

I will credit myself with having had some positive impact on you since you have expanded your consideration in the direction of my slant on things (I wouldn't call it "expertise", but thanks...you could have chosen some lesser term) -- I'm speaking of the Seth Lloyd reference you made.

I'm not sure I can rest assured that my complaints of Dawkins or Hawking are "smarmy" and "misguided". I don't know if you mean "insincere" -- I'm not that. Perhaps you think, since i don't follow lockstep with the establishment, that I'm overconfident to not be riding in the same track you are, and therefore am misguided. No, I think for myself as any person who is truly skeptical, should.

I don't think it is likely for me to change the minds of others -- not in any confrontation. It is not human nature to admit in front of a challenger. So i don't expect you to say so or even to recognize it yourself. But after the thousands of words that have fired back/forth twixt us, it is possible you have opened a little -- that's good. Couldn't hurt you. I've never admitted to my business partner, of many years ago, that he opened my eyes to the vacant foundation of random mutation and natural selection. I don't think you've moved an inch on that...but if you start looking into quantum physics (and along the lines of NKS, Zuse, etc) a bit and ask yourself if the universe could be based upon information (as opposed to matter/energy) you might start asking yourself more and more questions until you start to take a peek outside of the groove you're in.

BTW, I was just reading what Hawking said circa 25 years ago. (Since Dawkins doesn't address Physics, I bring in Hawking). He predicted it could easily come true that a unified field theory be established within 20 years -- meaning it is 5 years late right now. I am not slamming him -- not dissing Dawkins either... but Hawking is extremely bright yet he still suffers from the human flaw -- what the Greeks called hubris. ...or overconfidence, if not "pride". String theory was called by many, our best chance of achieving a theory of everything. Now String theory will soon become a big embarrassment when it is considered how much research money was wasted on the boondoggle. The frontier is more difficult than ever to approach in the right way. The best minds can be quite wrong -- reality is stranger than fiction.

Why don't you communicate what you really think, instead of calling me names, Art'. Really! Is that all you've got, girl?

[Acleron]

Is my pointing that fact out a "slam"? The question he was trying to answer begs the question what is the natural source of the stencil's specification.
The environment.
You assign this super complex system the power of creating long strings of DNA codes for all kinds of purposes, yet, it is blind and purposeless. The burden is on science to have a "theory" of how natural selection can do this self-bootstrapping, without merely resorting to hand-waving and saying "it's obvious it should work and you are slow if you can't see that it should and in fact does work." There is no argument from me nor from most dissenters (I assume) that natural selection is a negative force that prunes and thereby weeds out poorly adapted forms, but to jump to the conclusion that this pruning can work along with random generation of new forms to cause progressive advancement of lifeforms is something not proven.
Evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms, it produces organisms best fitted for their environment. Sometimes this means losing a part of the phenotype as in blind cave fish.
New forms are produced by random mutation and natural selection, a good recent example is the production of a viroporin in HIV that makes the virus more effective. Behe realises this is important and damaging to his cause because he is just uttering rather puerile invective while trying to ignore it.
There are things that you know exist that are not touched by science. Science cannot prove you are conscious. I bet you are though. I don't know that your are, but I know that you are. The latter being a statement of faith, not of science.
By "conscious", I will make the assumption you mean self-aware. This is a difficult problem but perhaps not intractable. We already recognise various levels of self-awareness in animals and in humans under different conditions. This is being investigated with PET scans. This research may not be successful in the near future but it is incorrect to imply that the topic is outside the remit of science.


But the whole paradigm of science is in need of a new revolution. The need for overhaul has been cooking since the dawn of the quantum understanding of what lies at the fundamental level of existence.:confused:

Science appears to be working very well, explaining more and more as our understanding grows. For example, it was the scientists who developed quantum theory and mechanics using scientific methods.

Today, the best metaphor for fundamental understanding of the universe come from information theory and numerical computation. Algorithmic complexity needs to be basically understood and the old ideas of randomness need to be upgraded to current knowledge.

I thought about answering these sentences but there is just too much internal contradiction.


Back to Dawkins... He is smart, but he appears to me as a very religious person. His religion is "science" but he does not appear to me to be a person that Lee Smolin would call a "seer". This forum is full of very bright people but probably is not an attractor for seers. ...birds of feather... That's what I see here. There's a lot of good stuff on this forum and a lot of bright people. IMHO, Dawkins and Hawking are not seers. Penrose is a seer.

Lee Smolin has a very strange and indeed elastic definition of seer and seers, it changes from one edition of his book to another.

I don't know if Dawkins lost credibility with the general public, but he is more a guy who spouts well the 'establishment', he is not a revolutionary. And he appears to me more a theologian, a conservative (conserving 150 year old ideas), not a progressive.

Yes, a theory with a long history that is falsifiable yet has stood the test of time. More than can be said for the 'universe is a computer' argument.

I suppose that the combination of the words Dawkins and strident have failed so is the new attack 'Dawkins and discredited'?

[articulett]

Why don't you communicate what you really think, instead of calling me names, Art'. Really! Is that all you've got, girl?

I think I've had my fill of creationist doublespeak. Maybe someone else will play the "lets talk in circles" game.

[VonNeumann]

I think I've had my fill of creationist doublespeak. Maybe someone else will play the "lets talk in circles" game.

What? I've lost my charm?

[VonNeumann]

The environment.

Evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms, it produces organisms best fitted for their environment. Sometimes this means losing a part of the phenotype as in blind cave fish.
New forms are produced by random mutation and natural selection, a good recent example is the production of a viroporin in HIV that makes the virus more effective. Behe realises this is important and damaging to his cause because he is just uttering rather puerile invective while trying to ignore it.

By "conscious", I will make the assumption you mean self-aware. This is a difficult problem but perhaps not intractable. We already recognise various levels of self-awareness in animals and in humans under different conditions. This is being investigated with PET scans. This research may not be successful in the near future but it is incorrect to imply that the topic is outside the remit of science.

Science appears to be working very well, explaining more and more as our understanding grows. For example, it was the scientists who developed quantum theory and mechanics using scientific methods.

I thought about answering these sentences but there is just too much internal contradiction.

Lee Smolin has a very strange and indeed elastic definition of seer and seers, it changes from one edition of his book to another.

Yes, a theory with a long history that is falsifiable yet has stood the test of time. More than can be said for the 'universe is a computer' argument.

I suppose that the combination of the words Dawkins and strident have failed so is the new attack 'Dawkins and discredited'?

You say “the environment” answers the question ‘what is the natural source of the stencil’s specification’? I meant, in Dawkin’s program, the software filter (the stencil) was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”. He didn’t need a computer to demonstrate it. He could have dropped sand through a template. It was trivial. It was teleological. It did not demonstrate anything about natural selection. He demonstrated how a template works – that’s all.

You say evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms. Well if evolution is merely adaptation to the environment, then there is no beef. However, would I be wrong if I said you would attribute the fact that we evolved from single-celled life of more than 0.5BYA? Yes? That single-celled life evolved from some older more primitive life, maybe billions of years old? Yes? Do you not attribute ALL of that to evolution? No? ..or, rather YES: it’s due to evolution? Then I don’t understand why you would say that the progressive advancement from pre-cellular organisms to human organisms is not a product of evolution. Which is it: mere adaptation? …or is evolution responsible for a long progressive advancement of organisms?

The term “self-aware” is okay with me. The only test we have right now for self-awareness is for the specimen to tell us that they are. We have to take their word for it. Surely a theory may encompass a correlation between specific neural activity and self-awareness. Maybe if we can find someone who lapses in and out of self-awareness, we could use in a test, but he can only tell us when he is self-aware; he can’t say “now, I’m not self-aware” because he’d have to be aware of his non-self-awareness to make such a report. So that’s why I think such a theory will be impossible to verify. At this point, I’d add to my comment by noting that dualism is not ruled-out by science – but dualism is incompatible with the present day paradigm. Science cannot decide this one yet.

Science is still working very well, I agree. You indicated confusion over what I might mean regarding “overhaul” and fundamental level of existence. Try this for more clarity… We still have the problem of locality. In the history of quantum discovery over the last 70 years, the problem since EPR first expressed it, still stands. Yes, we know now that space is not a “stage”. Some people think that hidden variables were ruled out. There is confusion over what is this phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Hidden variables were NOT ruled out (sorry John von Neumann – at least this one time you were wrong). Hidden variables are still in the game as long as they are non-local. What does that mean? Who knows? That’s all science delivers so far on that. But I’ll give you my interpretation (and most people here give me little credence). First, I think I’ll go with Einstein on GR, and say that information does NOT travel through space faster than the speed of light. The other idea, that the conditions for the split particle experiments were predetermined, I think we can also dismiss. That means all this recent fad about free-will being an illusion, based on quantum physics, can go away. Free-will is back. What it means is that the split particle is really one object at some other level of existence. The object projects into our space-time but it’s “description” is not here in space-time. This is conjecture, but as far as I know, it is consistent with observation. That is what I mean by needing an overhaul though. Waiting seventy years for resolution of non-locality and hidden variables, there appears to be no avoiding a stark change in the way we think of space-time.

You declined to try to make sense of my statement of how computation is a good metaphor for how the universe behaves. In my paragraph above, the split particle mystery at least has a metaphor for us to hang onto if we think of the particle as being an algorithm. What we think of as particles separated by space is really a single object with two almost identical instantiations, each with different space-time coordinates. We need to think of space being an attribute of an object rather than a stage in which particles move around. While you read these words, you may think of the words as being fundamentally pixels on your screen – and they are. But more fundamentally, the words are coded representations in the RAM on your Main board. If I go to your graphics chip and pop a bit in the character ROM, I can make all the letter “a”-s on the screen instantly have a bad pixel. If you live in the screen you’d have a hard time explaining how they all changed at once. We live in “space-time” which is a place where we cannot see the fundamental mechanism, so some things look “spooky”. So I just tried to illustrate how a different way of thinking can become a basis of a new paradigm to explain non-locality. The present state of science is such that you could lose tenure saying stuff like this, though. Oh, I don’t know. MIT has allowed guys like Ed Fredkin to hang around there a long time.

What you say about Smolin may be true. But I wish there were more Smolins around.

Harking back to what you said evolution is… you said it was merely about adaptation and it is not about progressive advancement… okay: if THAT is all that evolution is then fine with me; it has stood the test of time. And I have no trouble with you stating that “universe as a computer” is mere conjecture, either. But finally, I’ll say that at the core of evolution is “randomness” and there are new ways of looking at what randomness is at a fundamental level. This is where the mechanism of evolution has its creative power (since selection takes away – that leaves randomness as the basic driving force). I don’t know if Dawkins has taken that subject to much depth.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, that's like that Kirk Cameron goon from that TV show, going on about how he is a "former evolutionist"... as though he was reading Origin of Species between takes or something. :rolleyes:

Given the level of sophistication of his arguments he more likely read The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter after his epiphany. At least Willie Ames is enough of a mess he's pretty much dropped off the radar as did Lisa Welchel after she made her preacher hubby the luckiest man of 1988.

[Acleron]

It was remiss of me to debate you so much off topic, I'd be delighted to converse in a more appropriate thread.

But going back to the OP
Harking back to what you said evolution is… you said it was merely about adaptation and it is not about progressive advancement… okay: if THAT is all that evolution is then fine with me; it has stood the test of time. And I have no trouble with you stating that “universe as a computer” is mere conjecture, either. But finally, I’ll say that at the core of evolution is “randomness” and there are new ways of looking at what randomness is at a fundamental level. This is where the mechanism of evolution has its creative power (since selection takes away – that leaves randomness as the basic driving force). I don’t know if Dawkins has taken that subject to much depth.

Put very simply, the random nature of mutation and recombination, strikes out in all directions. Natural selection is the guiding force. The random part of mutation follows classical statistical randomness, no further explanation is required. The randomness induced by recombination of genes is, however, very complex and Dawkins, and others, have studied this to considerable depths, but again, as yet the position of the crossover appears to be classically random unless interfered with by other well understood effects. It is the main point of being an evolutionary biologist. He is now the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and he's pretty good at that too, I suggest you read some of his biology books to see the depth and breadth of his understanding of the subject of evolution.

Just to tie in with the OP and not in response to your comments, if anyone believes that Dawkins is discredited by a lying, fraudulent and unethical set of id/creationists they are very credulous.

[Dr Adequate]

You say “the environment” answers the question ‘what is the natural source of the stencil’s specification’? I meant, in Dawkin’s program, the software filter (the stencil) was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”. He didn’t need a computer to demonstrate it. He could have dropped sand through a template. It was trivial. Yes. He was making things simple for the kiddies.

He might have known that however simple you make an explanation, an idiot will always manage to misunderstand it. Or, as a last resort, whine about how it's too simple.

[Dr Adequate]

Now String theory will soon become a big embarrassment ... How splendid that you can predict the future of physics without doing any.

When Stephen Hawking does it, it's "hubris". When you do it ... well, I guess you're just smarter than him.

... when it is considered how much research money was wasted on the boondoggle. Are pencils and paper expensive where you live?

[VonNeumann]

Yes. He was making things simple for the kiddies.

He might have known that however simple you make an explanation, an idiot will always manage to misunderstand it. Or, as a last resort, whine about how it's too simple.
Dawkin's demonstration was misleading. I said "[The program] was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”.

Dawkins demonstrated that a mechanism that is designed to output a unique and predefined set will produce a unique and predefined set. Short of a bug, an early halt, or fault in his computer, it is impossible for his program to have delivered anything but the string "Methinks it is like a weasel.".

I can see that. I presume you can see that. If Dawkins intends this computer model to represent natural selection, he is teaching that natural selection has a built-in purpose. Surely Dawkins would not be intending to teach THAT.

[articulett]

What? I've lost my charm?

I'm burnt out from this thread with others like you (with much less charm of course) where this nearly identical thing is being discussed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834

Yes, I am quite certain that natural selection explains what we observe quite well.

[Dr Adequate]

Dawkin's demonstration was misleading ... I can see that. I presume you can see that. You go ahead and pwn yourself, I'll just sit quietly in a corner.

If Dawkins intends this computer model to represent natural selection, he is teaching that natural selection has a built-in purpose. No, of course not, as you admit that you can see when you post:

Surely Dawkins would not be intending to teach THAT. Surely he wasn't. You know that he wasn't.

---

He has not misled you. He has not taught that natural selection has a built-in purpose. You know perfectly well what point he was trying to put across, as your own post makes perfectly clear, you slimy little weasel.

[Dr Adequate]

Dawkins demonstrated that a mechanism that is designed to output a unique and predefined set ... ... via random mutation and selection, with no intelligent guidance ...

... will produce a unique and predefined set.

Short of a bug, an early halt, or fault in his computer ... ... or the stupid ravings of creationists having any kind of validity ...

... it is impossible for his program to have delivered anything but the string "Methinks it is like a weasel.".

[VonNeumann]

How splendid that you can predict the future of physics without doing any.

When Stephen Hawking does it, it's "hubris". When you do it ... well, I guess you're just smarter than him.

Are pencils and paper expensive where you live?
In general, I received these impressions from Lee Smolin's book (I think it was called The Trouble With Physics). This forum is not restricted to research scientists who are allowed only to opine in their line of expertise.

[Dr Adequate]

In general, I received these impressions from Lee Smolin's book (I think it was called The Trouble With Physics). This forum is not restricted to research scientists who are allowed only to opine in their line of expertise. Quite so. The forums are also open to people who've read pop science books and want to prophecy the future of physics based on the "impressions" that they've received "in general" from these works.

They are also open to those of us who think that this is an amusing way to behave, such as me.

[VonNeumann]

You go ahead and pwn yourself, I'll just sit quietly in a corner.

No, of course not, as you admit that you can see when you post:

Surely he wasn't. You know that he wasn't.

---

He has not misled you. He has not taught that natural selection has a built-in purpose. You know perfectly well what point he was trying to put across, as your own post makes perfectly clear, you slimy little weasel.
Of course I think we know what point Dawkins was trying to make. Clearly a program that produces a singular output, in a roundabout way, demonstrates NOTHING about the point that Dawkins WANTED to make. He failed.

Since you would rather get emotional and call me names, you are the one who has humiliated himself. :)

If Dawkins could have achieved what he intended to, he would have illustrated natural selection with a program that might select useful theorems out of a set of randomly generated theorems, or something of that sort, where the result would be unspecified, unexpected but wonderful. ... not a mere canned output. (why can't you see this?)

[VonNeumann]

... via random mutation and selection, with no intelligent guidance ...
... or the stupid ravings of creationists having any kind of validity ...

You are reacting so emotionally I am concerned I've offended you and your religion by merely questioning it.

[VonNeumann]

Quite so. The forums are also open to people who've read pop science books and want to prophecy the future of physics based on the "impressions" that they've received "in general" from these works.

They are also open to those of us who think that this is an amusing way to behave, such as me.
Well then, I'd say you behave in a particularly unfriendly manner when you are "amused".

[Dick Atkinson]

So Articulett's field of expertise is genetics. Let's test that:

"You have trillions of cells in your own body -- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body -- all replicating -- you don't think something's going to be an improvement with all that replicating and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further..."

Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.

You didn't grasp the point about information. The thermodynamic definition you insist on is not relevant to genetics nor to information science. Let's prove it. You have a computer in front of you - a metal box with stuff inside, and information. In my thought experiment I just take out the stuff, and replace it with the exact same mass ofsome different stuff: genuine ******** as kicked by authentic red-neck shitkickers. Now you insist that the information needed to specify the quantum state of every particle of ******** is at least equal to the amount of information we threw away. But when you switch on, you'll find all you have is ********.

When Crick, Hoyle or Dawkins write about information, they are referring to something else, akin to language.

You've drawn a few conclusions about me from my postings and my description of myself as atheist and evolutionist (Chambers Dictionary: "One who believes in evolution as a principle in science"). Let me return the compliment. Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist. Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.

So now you needn't make excuses for not feeling bad about being a meanie. I can stick up for myself "my friend".

[VonNeumann]

I'm burnt out from this thread with others like you (with much less charm of course) where this nearly identical thing is being discussed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834

I understand how that can be. I leave for a few months and do other things and come back and you are still at it. I don't know how you do it.

[articulett]

Dick--

Is hizzums having a tantrum?

I suspect you may only be making sense to yourself. I'm not the one having trouble understanding Dawkins et. al. or his reaction or why the question is misleading. I am well read on current information-- you seem sorely lacking while imagining yourself an expert. Why don't you and Von Neumann indulge in your hubris filled contentless pedantry. I prefer actual experts rather than self appointed ones. The actual experts make so much more sense... and they are funnier, clearer, and so much more humble. They actually convey useful information! Information-- that thing you and the dishonest creationist questioners (from the OP) don't have much of a clue about...

[articulett]

I understand how that can be. I leave for a few months and do other things and come back and you are still at it. I don't know how you do it.

I amaze even myself. :)

[cyborg]

Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.

Anybody who doesn't understand forum titles and makes unsupported judgements upon them has to look like an idiot.

Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann

The Weismann barrier is often confused with the Central dogma of molecular biology which is incorrectly said to be a restatement of Weismann's idea by Francis Crick. In fact the central dogma states that DNA makes DNA and RNA copies within an organism, but RNA cannot make DNA. This is now known not to be true.

So far as showing you aren't a lying scumbag flying under a false flag you're making a rather poor show: 0 for 2 as far as correctly citing scientific ideas. So where is your source of this misinformation?

Would you like to take another stab?

[Dr Adequate]

You are reacting so emotionally I am concerned I've offended you and your religion by merely questioning it. You're very bad at reading other people's minds, aren't you?

"Emotionally"?

[Dr Adequate]

Of course I think we know what point Dawkins was trying to make. Then he was successful, and did not mislead you.

Since you would rather get emotional and call me names, you are the one who has humiliated himself. What an interesting daydream. I hope that you find it consoling.

If Dawkins could have achieved what he intended to, he would have illustrated natural selection with a program that might select useful theorems out of a set of randomly generated theorems, or something of that sort, where the result would be unspecified, unexpected but wonderful. ... not a mere canned output. (why can't you see this?) Many people have done such things. Dawkins was trying to make things simple for beginners. He succeeded in doing so, as witness the fact that you understand exactly what he meant.

[Acleron]

Articulett's tiredness with arguing against creationist/ids is quite understandable he/she has won their spurs. However, I think somebody should take up the challenge rather than we are just worn down by inanity.


"You have trillions of cells in your own body -- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body -- all replicating -- you don't think something's going to be an improvement with all that replicating and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further..."
I just have to assume you made a typo, but the general argument is rebutted by antibiotoic resistance.

Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.
As opposed to creationist/ids, science actually moves on, Weisman was not aware of DNA and RNA.

You didn't grasp the point about information. The thermodynamic definition you insist on is not relevant to genetics nor to information science. Let's prove it. You have a computer in front of you - a metal box with stuff inside, and information. In my thought experiment I just take out the stuff, and replace it with the exact same mass ofsome different stuff: genuine ******** as kicked by authentic red-neck shitkickers. Now you insist that the information needed to specify the quantum state of every particle of ******** is at least equal to the amount of information we threw away. But when you switch on, you'll find all you have is ********.


Illogical, ungrammatical and precisely ********.

When Crick, Hoyle or Dawkins write about information, they are referring to something else, akin to language.

Interesting, but I'd like to see references from all three to justify that broad statement.

You've drawn a few conclusions about me from my postings and my description of myself as atheist and evolutionist (Chambers Dictionary: "One who believes in evolution as a principle in science"). Let me return the compliment. Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist. Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.

So now you needn't make excuses for not feeling bad about being a meanie. I can stick up for myself "my friend".

Having read the posts, I can see that Articulett has been abrasive but nowhere near as offensive as the above. The central dogma that you refer to no longer exists, we have moved on. This is the distinction between real scientists and those who pretend to science by making false statements dressed up in pseudoscientific words and who have an agenda but no real hypothesis or theory.

[Dr Adequate]

Well then, I'd say you behave in a particularly unfriendly manner when you are "amused". Poor mind-reading skills again.

If you keep trying, then eventually you will still be no good at it.

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist. I take it, then, that you don't know that the existence of retroviruses proves that the "Central Dogma" is wrong?

Well, so much for your expertise.

[Dick Atkinson]

Another stab? Sure. Weisman importantly stated that the germ line is independent of the somatic cells. Crick was responsible for the molecular justification for this view. And, as you correctly found from that infallible specialist source of reference, Wikipedia, Crick is responsible for the term "Central Dogma". That same wonderful source has actually screwed up somewhat, since Crick's C.D. was that DNA produced PROTEIN and not vice-versa (reference "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, Pelican edition, pp 64-5 for all this detail) but that doesn't matter. It's just the same if you talk about tRNA. If you look at the right organism you'll find that somatic cells may become reproductive cells, and that RNA can and does make DNA.

But we are talking about the human body. Every cell is replicating (not strictly true, but never mind). Does the mighty Wikipedia suggest that, a la Articulett, everyone of those cells is capable of contributing an evolutionary improvement.

But I am no expert - I came onto this site with questions, not answers. I was quite amused by the robust style of debate, but not fazed, no tizz, no defensiveness. No lying scumbag flying under false colours, either. By the way, was that another of those ad hominem whatchamacallems?

Dawkins reference requested: The Blind Watchmaker" Ch 3 (the infamous "Methinks it is like a weasel" section), and also Ch 5: "What lies at the heart of every living thing is... information, words, instructions." That's pretty clear. See also Crick ("Life Itself" Ch 4).

[Acleron]

Not sure who you are arguing with, try the quote button next time
Another stab? Sure. Weisman importantly stated that the germ line is independent of the somatic cells. Crick was responsible for the molecular justification for this view. And, as you correctly found from that infallible specialist source of reference, Wikipedia, Crick is responsible for the term "Central Dogma". That same wonderful source has actually screwed up somewhat, since Crick's C.D. was that DNA produced PROTEIN and not vice-versa (reference "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, Pelican edition, pp 64-5 for all this detail) but that doesn't matter. It's just the same if you talk about tRNA. If you look at the right organism you'll find that somatic cells may become reproductive cells, and that RNA can and does make DNA.

But we are talking about the human body. Every cell is replicating (not strictly true, but never mind). Does the mighty Wikipedia suggest that, a la Articulett, everyone of those cells is capable of contributing an evolutionary improvement.

But I am no expert - I came onto this site with questions, not answers. I was quite amused by the robust style of debate, but not fazed, no tizz, no defensiveness. No lying scumbag flying under false colours, either. By the way, was that another of those ad hominem whatchamacallems?

Dawkins reference requested: The Blind Watchmaker" Ch 3 (the infamous "Methinks it is like a weasel" section), and also Ch 5: "What lies at the heart of every living thing is... information, words, instructions." That's pretty clear. See also Crick ("Life Itself" Ch 4).

Sorry I had to leave your complete post as a whole because it is best described by the central phrase 'I am no expert'. I can't claim to be either, but I can follow a logical series of arguments and yours isn't. Try, as a starter, to choose a single point to debate, otherwise you lose the force of any argument in the noise level. And by the way we were discussing the credibility of Richard Dawkins not the human body.

[VonNeumann]

Then he was successful, and did not mislead you.
...
Dawkins was trying to make things simple for beginners. He succeeded in doing so, as witness the fact that you understand exactly what he meant.
Yes, I understood exactly of what he meant to try to convince his naive audience (perhaps he himself is naive?). It is as if one built a contraption with a motor, a generator and a battery and claimed it as a demonstration of the principle of "perpetual motion". Then he starts it up and it runs for a while and then it stops, the battery depleted.

It would be easy to understand that:
1. the person claimed he was demonstrating perpetual motion.
2. that the person did not demonstrate perpetual motion.
3. that the person demonstrated, in fact, what is typical of the kind of naivety w.r.t. perpetual motion is typical among "true believers" of perpetual motion.

What would be arguable is whether the person was being fraudulent, or whether he himself falls into the class of person who is a wishful thinker or "true believer".

I can only gather that you are also a true believer in getting something for nothing. I wish it were true, but I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

[VonNeumann]

I amaze even myself. :)
Does your hub know what you are doing when you are typing madly away with that mean smile on your face till 3AM?

[articulett]

Does your hub know what you are doing when you are typing madly away with that mean smile on your face till 3AM?

We are clearly on different time zones. And I'm widowed (no, I didn't kill him.) I am, however, as always a free agent, and only hang out with people who find my mean smile winsome.
:angelica:

[VonNeumann]

Put very simply, the random nature of mutation and recombination, strikes out in all directions. Natural selection is the guiding force. The random part of mutation follows classical statistical randomness, no further explanation is required. The randomness induced by recombination of genes is, however, very complex and Dawkins, and others, have studied this to considerable depths, but again, as yet the position of the crossover appears to be classically random unless interfered with by other well understood effects. It is the main point of being an evolutionary biologist. He is now the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and he's pretty good at that too, I suggest you read some of his biology books to see the depth and breadth of his understanding of the subject of evolution.
I was hoping you were going to clarify how you could say that evolution is not about progressive advancement. If life started out as something simpler than uni-cellular and progressed to self-aware organisms, in a mere span of ~10^9 years, then is that not "progressive advancement"? And if that is progressive advancement, why do you not attribute it to what we call "evolution"? I don't think it is typical that someone who takes stock in evolution, would emasculate it to the point it becomes merely about adaptation.

About the re-shuffle of big chunks of DNA, I don't take issue with how new species might emerge from that sort of thing. It is very complex. We don't even know to what extent that there are biological processes that reorganize the data on purpose. That is...some of the recombination of DNA goes by some built in mechanism. I'll wait and see what more we learn about all that. So I don't know how much of that can really be considered random. At least it is not on the same scale of randomness as bootstrapping the first DNA strands from whatever there was before.

In other words, if I took a novel and started snipping it into paragraphs and reshuffling it to come up with a new story, the result would appear more than likely insane, but would not be jibberish. But before we ever had a novel, before we ever had paragraphs to shuffle around, the random strings of letters to produce words and then sentences would be full of jibberish. It is at this level of random mutation that is the hardest, at least for me, to feel like a billion years is enough time. Of course, Darwin only addressed "origin of species" and that presumably begins with a huge myriad of DNA information to start with. He didn't theorize on what seeded the world with a beginning library of Terabytes of useful DNA. That question is merely out of scope, and from a scientific view, still is.

That's really where my mind was when I made mention of randomness and how we attribute the appearance of all the things leading up to primordial life: matter, physical laws, even space-time itself. We have to invoke some kind of mental object that we call "randomness". We have something to talk about when we talk about rolling dice or the likelihood of a codon changing from an A to a G in a certain span of time. But we have no clue what mechanism lies at the basis of the timing of an emission of a subatomic particle. Surely there exists some cause of it. All we know is that it statistically produces a distribution or otherwise we could not assign a half-life value to it. It is not scientific, not in our current paradigm, to ask what kind of mechanism could give such perfect random timing. And why can we not detect the mechanism. So we ignore the hole in our knowledge and we pretend that it "just happens". BUT... it is on that huge vacancy in our understanding that the magic of where stuff comes from, stands.

When it comes to origins, we are all just guessing. It is out of scope for science to answer.

[CFLarsen]

Does your hub know what you are doing when you are typing madly away with that mean smile on your face till 3AM?

Just a clarification:

There are people from all over the world on this forum.

[VonNeumann]

There are people from all over the world on this forum.
Obviously. For all you know, I'm in Sri Lanka or Madagascar. If you go back and look at her posts over the last year, she has occasionally posted in the wee hours, USA Mountain Time which is her admitted location. I am very conscious of time zones and I notice things like that.

[Dick Atkinson]

Not sure who you are arguing with, try the quote button next time


Sorry I had to leave your complete post as a whole because it is best described by the central phrase 'I am no expert'. I can't claim to be either, but I can follow a logical series of arguments and yours isn't. Try, as a starter, to choose a single point to debate, otherwise you lose the force of any argument in the noise level. And by the way we were discussing the credibility of Richard Dawkins not the human body.

I can't work that way - somebody challenges my points and I clarify. Articulett introduced the human body and its trillions of replicating cells all potentially contributing to evolution. In fact only four of my cells have done that - I have two sons and two daughters. That is an error of 12 orders of magnitude. That is absolutely RIGHT in the groove of the so called "information challenge".

That's a single point.

[UnrepentantSinner]

And I'm widowed.

Oooof. I never knew this and would have taken a differnt tack in previous conversations if I had. And I definately will in the future (even though she has me on ignore).

Just a clarification:

There are people from all over the world on this forum.

There are also people in those disperate areas who don't live a normal 9-5 lifestyle.

:D for example.

[Acleron]

I was hoping you were going to clarify how you could say that evolution is not about progressive advancement. If life started out as something simpler than uni-cellular and progressed to self-aware organisms, in a mere span of ~10^9 years, then is that not "progressive advancement"? And if that is progressive advancement, why do you not attribute it to what we call "evolution"? I don't think it is typical that someone who takes stock in evolution, would emasculate it to the point it becomes merely about adaptation.

Perhaps we have different views on the meaning of 'progressive advancement'. To me the the phrase implies some external measuring stick that can be applied to a species. The most successful species in terms of their numbers are bacteria, ants are pretty good too. It is a misconception to believe that humans are the most advanced species, we may be more intelligent but we are not the fastest, numerous, largest etc. We are certainly not the pinnacle of evolution being merely a transient species like all the rest. The theory of evolution is not emasculated by throwing out a concept like progressive advancement, that is its glory, a simple mechanism that can produce the diversity we see today and in the past.

Of course, Darwin only addressed "origin of species" and that presumably begins with a huge myriad of DNA information to start with. He didn't theorize on what seeded the world with a beginning library of Terabytes of useful DNA. That question is merely out of scope, and from a scientific view, still is.
{snip}
When it comes to origins, we are all just guessing. It is out of scope for science to answer.

But it is not out of the scope of science. It is being investigated from the building blocks end e.g. the Miller Urey experiment, presence of adenine in galactic clouds etc, from the emergence of complexity, by the identification of the simplist replicating organism. This is a difficult area of science but that does not make it impossible.

That's really where my mind was when I made mention of randomness and how we attribute the appearance of all the things leading up to primordial life: matter, physical laws, even space-time itself. We have to invoke some kind of mental object that we call "randomness". We have something to talk about when we talk about rolling dice or the likelihood of a codon changing from an A to a G in a certain span of time. But we have no clue what mechanism lies at the basis of the timing of an emission of a subatomic particle. Surely there exists some cause of it. All we know is that it statistically produces a distribution or otherwise we could not assign a half-life value to it. It is not scientific, not in our current paradigm, to ask what kind of mechanism could give such perfect random timing. And why can we not detect the mechanism. So we ignore the hole in our knowledge and we pretend that it "just happens". BUT... it is on that huge vacancy in our understanding that the magic of where stuff comes from, stands.
But I don't have to know how an atom decides when to decay or how a nucleic acid base mutates to understand evolution, I just need to know it happens with a certain frequency under given conditions. Your points are interesting topics of research in themselves but irrelevant to our understanding of evolution.

[CFLarsen]

There are also people in those disperate areas who don't live a normal 9-5 lifestyle.

:D for example.

No, some live a 9-17 lifestyle. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

No, some live a 9-17 lifestyle. :)

Or a 23 to 7. :p

[sol invictus]

You didn't grasp the point about information. The thermodynamic definition you insist on is not relevant to genetics nor to information science.

<snip>

When Crick, Hoyle or Dawkins write about information, they are referring to something else, akin to language.


There's too much nonsense in this thread to make it worth participating, but I'll just point out that the above is completely wrong.

First of all, there's only one mathematical definition of information, and it's closely related to entropy in thermodynamics. Claude Shannon proved that in the 1940's, founding the discipline of information theory. I recommend reading his paper - it's absolutely beautiful.

Secondly, Dawkins knows that and it is what he means. A quick google search will verify that.


In general, I received these impressions from Lee Smolin's book (I think it was called The Trouble With Physics).

Since this is a forum for skeptics, you might try applying a little critical thinking. Are you aware of the fact that Smolin is a proponent of an alternative theory (one that is probably indistinguishable from string theory to the layperson), which suffers from all the same ills (being difficult to test, for example) only to a much greater degree, and is a direct competitor for resources and funding? I might add that (very much unlike string theory) it hasn't produced a single useful insight into math, particle physics, cosmology, or anything else.

Smolin is a scientific failure, so rather than do science he writes books to try to convince people he's a "seer" and deserves more funding.

[articulett]

Obviously. For all you know, I'm in Sri Lanka or Madagascar. If you go back and look at her posts over the last year, she has occasionally posted in the wee hours, USA Mountain Time which is her admitted location. I am very conscious of time zones and I notice things like that.

Pacific time. And I haven't posted in the wee hours lately because I get up early for teaching... though I do leave my computer on, and sometimes I'll post in the middle of the night. We returned to standard time on November 4-- a week later than they did in Europe.

[maxpower1227]

I'm just posting in here to say that even though I think(/fear) that Dawkins may be right about much (but certainly not all) of what he says, he is nevertheless an arrogant d****bag who I have no use for.

[Acleron]

I'm just posting in here to say that even though I think(/fear) that Dawkins may be right about much (but certainly not all) of what he says, he is nevertheless an arrogant d****bag who I have no use for.

Highly intelligent people often appear arrogant to those less enabled.

[maxpower1227]

Highly intelligent people often appear arrogant to those less enabled.

No, elitist, arrogant snobs do. I have no such problems with the likes of Einstein, Faraday, Edison, Planck, Hubble, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Newton, ... you get the idea.

Don't rush to an assumption on how "enabled" I am due to my opinion of Richard Dawkins.

[cyborg]

The only way people can formulate such opinions of Dawkins can be if they are actually unfamiliar with the man in toto.

[Roboramma]

No, elitist, arrogant snobs do. I have no such problems with the likes of Einstein, Faraday, Edison, Planck, Hubble, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Newton, ... you get the idea. Have you read the writings of all of those people? From what I hear Newton was a bit of a "db".

Don't rush to an assumption on how "enabled" I am due to my opinion of Richard Dawkins.
Well, I don't, anyway. But I am surprised at it. I've seen Dawkins (or read him) a little more straightforward than I would have been, but I've never read anything that gives me an impression of arrogance. Do you have any examples?

[articulett]

I'm just posting in here to say that even though I think(/fear) that Dawkins may be right about much (but certainly not all) of what he says, he is nevertheless an arrogant d****bag who I have no use for.

I'd be much more interested in hearing Richard Dawkins opinions of people like you. I've never heard him speak like a Junior High School child regarding anyone's character. To me, those who call him arrogant, always sound so much more arrogant anything I've ever heard him say, and I am well acquainted with his works, speeches, etc. I suspect, that anything an atheist says is viewed with through some very biased lenses by the majority, while the opinion-spouter remains clueless to how very obnoxious and envious-of-Dawkins they sound.

[articulett]

To me, the arrogant dirtbags are the one's claiming, not only to know there is a god, but telling others they know what god wants! And all those folks claiming to somehow having tapped into "special truths" or "divine knowledge" via faith, feelings, or whatever. That is arrogant for those of us not trained in doublespeak.

[articulett]

No, elitist, arrogant snobs do. I have no such problems with the likes of Einstein, Faraday, Edison, Planck, Hubble, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Newton, ... you get the idea.

Don't rush to an assumption on how "enabled" I am due to my opinion of Richard Dawkins.

Ah... so don't judge you while you judge Dawkins, right?

Well, there aren't a plethora of quotes for those non-elist, non-arrogant, non-snob scientists available over the web, but there are quotes and video clips of Dawkins everywhere. Can you link us to a quote or clip where he sounds more arrogant than you did in your assessment of him?

[jjramsey]

With regards to his expertise in evolution, Dawkins hasn't lost credibility, but as Ed Brayton and Glenn Morton found out (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php) by getting access to the unedited tapes, Dawkins did screw up by providing a non-responsive answer, and he did show himself to be less than honest by not acknowledging this and instead claiming that it was the usual misleading editing from creationists. Or in Brayton's own words:

The simple fact is this...Dawkins got flustered because he realized they were creationists. He let it upset him, but he consented to go on with the interview, and they used the horrible answer that he gave. Yes, it makes him look bad, but that's his fault, not theirs. There is nothing dishonest about it other than the way he handled it. Rather than just admitting that he had a bad day and blew the answer, he protected his ego at the expense of his integrity. It should also be noted that he has since answered the question, and I think answered it quite well. I regard the question as an absurd one. But he should have pointed that out, and why, at the time and all of this could have been avoided. So that's it, the infamous Dawkins Incident. There is no truth to the rumor that the unedited video footage shows Stephen Jay Gould on the grassy knoll.

BTW, Brayton does the Dispatches from the Culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/) blog.

[articulett]

The infamous pause has been used in multiple tapes from the dishonest creationist camp... he gave an excellent speech on this with examples at the Atheist Alliance convention-- available for viewing at richarddawkins.net or at youtube. I don't think anything he said regarding the topic can be construed as dishonest... he did answer, and the answer was edited out... the pause was left in, and is left to imply that Dawkins didn't know the answer. It was a question on par with "how far is it to the end of the earth"-- there is no quick answer for such a misguided question... especially not when asked by people you suddenly realize have very dishonest intent. Dawkins is eager to teach everybody what he knows-- with tons of evidence... he loves knowing this stuff and sharing it with others... he doesn't pretend to be the only one in the know-- I am convinced that everything he does is hyper scrutinized for "error" while the egregious actions of those trusted folks that are supposedly speaking on behalf of an invisible moral guide-- regularly get a pass to do the most dishonest, vile, objectionable stuff while people look the other way.

[jjramsey]

I don't think anything he said regarding the topic can be construed as dishonest... he did answer, and the answer was edited out... the pause was left in, and is left to imply that Dawkins didn't know the answer.

No, articulett, the problem is that Dawkins' answer wasn't edited out. That's what Brayton found out. Surprisingly enough, the bad answer that the creationists showed was the bad answer that Dawkins gave.

[Dunstan]

No, articulett, the problem is that Dawkins' answer wasn't edited out. That's what Brayton found out. Surprisingly enough, the bad answer that the creationists showed was the bad answer that Dawkins gave.

Although I realize this happened in a recorded interview rather than a debate, this incident still demonstrates another reason why debating creationists is a mug's game. Even a biologist of Dawkins' credentials and experience in public speaking will make the occasional verbal gaffe or weak answer, and when it happens, creationists will milk it for years, and claim that it is evidence against evolution generally rather than of a debating mistake. It's not good enough to be at the top of your game 99.9% of the time, and no human being is going to top that.

[articulett]

No, articulett, the problem is that Dawkins' answer wasn't edited out. That's what Brayton found out. Surprisingly enough, the bad answer that the creationists showed was the bad answer that Dawkins gave.

In the clips that I've seen-- the answer is not shown at all... just the pause... and it's used in several different clips-- with different questions asked... I didn't see any clip where any answer was provided-- maybe the OP linked such a clip. I have however seen several clips from creationists where no answer is shown at all... and some even where different questions are asked and Dawkins' pause inserted. The understanding of most creationists who observe that clip (as was intended) was that Dawkins' didn't know the answer-- had Dawkins not paused, I'm sure that whatever answer he did give would not be remembered or recognized... it's a bad question.

I am sure, that like myself, most people viewed clips involving no answer at all... just the pause and it's inference. To make Dawkins sound dishonest when he accurately reflects the clips I saw in comparison to the dishonesty of the creationists, amazes me. To repeat, the clips I saw had no answer at all... I suspect this is true of the clip that most people have seen.

You are free to cut and paste the words of Dawkins being dishonest compared to the link of the actual show as aired... to support your viewpoint. I find that those accusing Dawkins of dishonesty are a little more dishonest than he is when the facts are examined. I have not heard Dawkins like with facts or inferences... I don't even hear him mispeak very often... I am well aware of creationists and their dishonest inferences which they will insist are not "lies".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Perhaps rationalists have a different view of what is and isn't honest just like some of us clearly have different views about what is and isn't arrogant.

[CFLarsen]

No, articulett, the problem is that Dawkins' answer wasn't edited out.

Of what?

[jjramsey]

In the clips that I've seen-- the answer is not shown at all... just the pause... and it's used in several different clips-- with different questions asked... I didn't see any clip where any answer was provided-- maybe the OP linked such a clip.

The OP did link to such a clip.

I find that those accusing Dawkins of dishonesty are a little more dishonest than he is when the facts are examined.

The facts were examined in the post on Dispatches from the Culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php), and this time around, it was Dawkins who ended up being dishonest. Not that the creationists fared too well, either. They misrepresented Dawkins' failure as an indication that the question they posed was unanswerable, when it was just Dawkins having a bad moment. But Dawkins should have just said that the creationists took advantage of that bad moment, rather than stretch the truth about the aftermath.

I am well aware of creationists and their dishonest inferences which they will insist are not "lies".

So am I. That's what made Dawkins' distortion so plausible.

[articulett]

The OP did link to such a clip.



The facts were examined in the post on Dispatches from the Culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php), and this time around, it was Dawkins who ended up being dishonest. Not that the creationists fared too well, either. They misrepresented Dawkins' failure as an indication that the question they posed was unanswerable, when it was just Dawkins having a bad moment. But Dawkins should have just said that the creationists took advantage of that bad moment, rather than stretch the truth about the aftermath.



So am I. That's what made Dawkins' distortion so plausible.

What is the distortion... his supposed claims in an email? The video camera was shut off... and then resumed with a seeming answer that was a non- sequitur. I asked that you cut and paste what it was Dawkins' said that is a dishonest appraisal of such. You gave a link which posts his supposed response and non-responses in an email. I'm a fan of Ed Brayton's column; however, Dawkins supposed distortion has to do with what he supposedly said or didn't say in an email, correct? The question was dishonest and revealed the documentary makers (just like those in Expelled) to be other than what they represented. How else could one answer?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_MN_O9ICzY&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bXy0aOI_zT4&feature=related

I don't think Dawkins has ever purposely distorted any information as far as I can tell. And it would take more than allegations about an email for me to presume as much. His writings and speeches and video clips are all over the web. If he misrepresented what happened or purposely distorted it, it should be easy to find, correct? It should not be based on something he supposedly wrote in an email when asked to reflect about what was said and when--especially when he hadn't viewed the result of the editing etc.

Pharyngula could be accused of doing the same regarding Expelled.

[articulett]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=huEMVJb4Js8

Deceitful editing discussed 12 minutes in. Where is Dawkins being dishonest?

In any case-- very amusing and worth watching.

[Acleron]

With regards to his expertise in evolution, Dawkins hasn't lost credibility, but as Ed Brayton and Glenn Morton found out (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php) by getting access to the unedited tapes, Dawkins did screw up by providing a non-responsive answer, and he did show himself to be less than honest by not acknowledging this and instead claiming that it was the usual misleading editing from creationists. Or in Brayton's own words:



BTW, Brayton does the Dispatches from the Culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/) blog.

I am often illiterate, stupid, and uneducated but I do try to be logical, but sometimes I just lose my temper, so...

If someone gained access to your house by fraudulent means how would you rectify that position. By answering a nonsenical question?

Try understanding the garbage they asked, try to define what they meant by their silly question and when you do, apologise.

Aaargh!!!!

[VonNeumann]

There's too much nonsense in this thread to make it worth participating, but I'll just point out that the above is completely wrong.

First of all, there's only one mathematical definition of information, and it's closely related to entropy in thermodynamics. Claude Shannon proved that in the 1940's, founding the discipline of information theory. I recommend reading his paper - it's absolutely beautiful.

Secondly, Dawkins knows that and it is what he means. A quick google search will verify that.

Since this is a forum for skeptics, you might try applying a little critical thinking. Are you aware of the fact that Smolin is a proponent of an alternative theory (one that is probably indistinguishable from string theory to the layperson), which suffers from all the same ills (being difficult to test, for example) only to a much greater degree, and is a direct competitor for resources and funding? I might add that (very much unlike string theory) it hasn't produced a single useful insight into math, particle physics, cosmology, or anything else.

Smolin is a scientific failure, so rather than do science he writes books to try to convince people he's a "seer" and deserves more funding.
I read Shannon's 1947 paper long time ago. He put a lot of people out of their misery who couldn't figure out why they couldn't get more bandwidth out of whatever media they tried to. I also remember some people wrongly claiming in the 1970s that you'd never be able to make a modem (on 3KHz wide voice bands) go faster than 2400 baud due to the Nyquist rule (heheh, I guess they couldn't think past FSK). Anyway, that's another story.

Yes, I suppose you are correct about Smolin. And, being a skeptic's forum, and being a skeptic, I tend to be attracted to what some of the dissenters have to say. The point still stands about science -- seems it has reached a point of diminishing returns for the research money spent. So I guess we can all continue to argue about it all for a long time to come.

[articulett]

Yes, I suppose you are correct about Smolin. And, being a skeptic's forum, and being a skeptic, I tend to be attracted to what some of the dissenters have to say. The point still stands about science -- seems it has reached a point of diminishing returns for the research money spent. So I guess we can all continue to argue about it all for a long time to come.

Maybe in physics... definitely NOT the case in evolution... the more we know, the more tools we have for finding out more. And I can't imagine another field of study with more potential for benefiting humans (well, maybe neurology) (and technology)...

[Acleron]

The point still stands about science -- seems it has reached a point of diminishing returns for the research money spent. So I guess we can all continue to argue about it all for a long time to come.

What returns are you talking about?
In any adult society a certain amount of resources are invested in non-productive but appreciated results of endeavour. This has led to great art, music and science. If you think that science is a purely commercial endeavour I feel sorry for your lack appreciation and understanding.

[jjramsey]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=huEMVJb4Js8

Deceitful editing discussed 12 minutes in. Where is Dawkins being dishonest?

Simple. Dawkins was saying that when he appeared to be giving an evasive answer to the question asked earlier, he was actually giving an answer to a completely different question, rather than the one the video shows him being asked. To quote the Brayton article (quoting Glenn Morton):

The only alteration to the question posed by Gillian originally to Dawkins is the narrator's addition of the wods "Professor Dawkins," in front of the question. That is such a minor change that it does not alter the
substance of Gillian's claim....

I might add that I think Ms. Brown did Dawkins a favor. While Dawkins is shown staring at the ceiling for 11 seconds on the video, the actual time on the audio is 19 seconds. She spared Dawkins 8 seconds of embarrassment.

In short, the reason the video showed Dawkins pausing and then giving a bad answer is because that is exactly what happened. The editing itself was not misleading here. For whatever reasons, he really was stumped at that time.

This is dead obvious if you actually read Brayton's post (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php). All I am doing is repeating it V-E-R-Y S-L-O-O-O-W-L-Y so that you get the point. I think you are coming dangerously close to repeating a mistake similar to Barry Williams' :

What happened here was that he got a letter making an accusation against "the bad guys", the letter was from one of "the good guys", and a very famous and respected one at that, and Williams ran with it. No need to ask questions, no need to examine the evidence. The story fit what he expected and wanted to be true, it helped his side and made the other side look bad, so let's print it.

[articulett]

Simple. Dawkins was saying that when he appeared to be giving an evasive answer to the question asked earlier, he was actually giving an answer to a completely different question, rather than the one the video shows him being asked. To quote the Brayton article (quoting Glenn Morton):



In short, the reason the video showed Dawkins pausing and then giving a bad answer is because that is exactly what happened. The editing itself was not misleading here. For whatever reasons, he really was stumped at that time.

This is dead obvious if you actually read Brayton's post (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php). All I am doing is repeating it V-E-R-Y S-L-O-O-O-W-L-Y so that you get the point. I think you are coming dangerously close to repeating mistake similar to Barry Williams' :

Look... I'm not the only one not getting it. The claim is that in a letter when asked about the event, he denied it happened... perhaps not remembering or tying it together or whatever. But then when his memory was refreshed... he and others are in agreement with what happened... except that he says that they showed him answering a different question... and others said that was an answer to the original question? So his entire distortion amounts to his response to an email inquiry where he denied the event occurred? Or was it his claim they used the answer to a different question? I just don't understand where the notion that he was purposefully distorting information comes into play. And you don't need to speak slowly-- we are smart people here on this forum... we can understand facts just fine. I think it would be easy for you to cut and paste his statement of distortion and it's source as well as what it distorted and that source. How hard is that?

I would think that would be an easy enough thing to do since you have Ed's column... two "cut and pastes"-- the distortion by Dawkins and the actual facts distorted. (with links). That's easy enough isn't it?

[articulett]

More on information assembly from the bottom up for Von Neumann:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030105309.htm

Discussed in more detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834&page=35

[dakotajudo]

Articulett introduced the human body and its trillions of replicating cells all potentially contributing to evolution. In fact only four of my cells have done that - I have two sons and two daughters.

Not really.

True, only the germline cells contribute to descent with modification, but the selection part acts on the trillions of replicating cells in the body; something goes wrong with those (or even if they simply don't adapt well to your environment) and you don't get the chance to produce sons and daughters.


I was hoping you were going to clarify how you could say that evolution is not about progressive advancement. If life started out as something simpler than uni-cellular and progressed to self-aware organisms, in a mere span of ~10^9 years, then is that not "progressive advancement"? And if that is progressive advancement, why do you not attribute it to what we call "evolution"? I don't think it is typical that someone who takes stock in evolution, would emasculate it to the point it becomes merely about adaptation.


Emasculate? Merely? Perhaps you don't understand how powerful an idea adaptation is. And for "progressive advancement", there have been ratchet theories that explain the appearance of advancement.


And, as you correctly found from that infallible specialist source of reference, Wikipedia, Crick is responsible for the term "Central Dogma". That same wonderful source has actually screwed up somewhat, since Crick's C.D. was that DNA produced PROTEIN and not vice-versa (reference "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, Pelican edition, pp 64-5 for all this detail) but that doesn't matter. It's just the same if you talk about tRNA. If you look at the right organism you'll find that somatic cells may become reproductive cells, and that RNA can and does make DNA.

No, Crick's central dogma is 'once information has got into a protein it can't get out again'

Be careful how you state it - DNA does not "produce" protein, nor does RNA "make" DNA, both are template molecules (though, of course, RNA can have catalytic moeities). And I'm not sure what you meant by "talk about tRNA" - perhaps that's a typo.

The idea of molecular templates is what is central to molecular biology - that nucleic acids can act as templates for other nucleic acids or for proteins, but that proteins do not act as templates.

Of cource, this statement is wrong:

I take it, then, that you don't know that the existence of retroviruses proves that the "Central Dogma" is wrong?

The central dogma, as stated in http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf, has not been proven wrong, and still applies.


Going back a bit, now I get it, Dick; you don't understand information theory
I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples. I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other - but that if a player is dealt all 13 spades (especially on his birthday) purposeful intervention is all but certain.
See, you just contradicted yourself. The specific hand you mention can be stored much more simply (13*spades) than nearly all other hands, say, 6H +AD + 9D + JH + 10H + 10C + 10S + 2S + 2D + KS + 3H + 3S + 8C. (actually, I just dealt out 13 cards from my poker deck; I don't play bridge, so I don't know if that's a valid bridge hand. But you should see my point).

(13*S) is kinda how file compression (ZIP) works. And if you don't get that, then you obviously don't see the flaws in this line of reasoning:
To specify a crucial protein - Hoyle takes one of the histones as an example - around a hundred aminoacids must be coded for, from a choice of twenty, in the correct order. The amount of information involved is, in these terms, of the order of 20 raised to the power 100, which I roughly calculate is 2 to the power 400 (the actual number is irrelevant - it's BIG). Suppose (as is the case) that this universal protein - vital for cell division - must be specific, barring a handful of acceptable aminoacid variations. (Almost) any change is lethal. BUT THIS HISTONE MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME.

Not to mention the obvious flaws with respect to the molecular biology of histone proteins. For example, while histones H3 and H4 are highly conserved, histones H2A and H2B are less so, and H1 may not even be strictly necessary. Archaeal histones suggest a certain amount of modularity among the histones, which implies compression of information, along the lines of 13*S.

Now, the specific histone is not stated, so it's hard to say for sure, but given the published sequences of the various histones, I'd say Hoyle is greatly overstating the complexity required to code for histone proteins. If you look at the published alignments at http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/histones/web/alignments.shtml , it should be obvious that there's more than a handful of allowed substitutions.

Really, it's not a very good example; it's fairly new protein, as these things go.

Then there's the hugely inaccurate "MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME".


Sorry if that got to be a little of topic, but really, it's hard to read a debate about Dawkins' credibility, with so little pertinent knowledge in evidence. Personally, I find Dawkins a bit too reliant on gradualism, but otherwise explains evolution well.

Interestingly, there is an article in the recent Skeptical Inquirer that is critical the "Selfish Gene" hypothesis. I dunno, over the course of several semesters of molecular biology, selfish genes were never really discussed; nor does the concept appear much in the literature.


Smolin is a scientific failure, so rather than do science he writes books to try to convince people he's a "seer" and deserves more funding.
Well, let's compare Smolin with Dawkins, then. A quick PubMed lists 6 references for Dawkins, 4 for Smolin.

But I didn't expect any hits for Smolin on PubMed; on arXiv I find his name listed for some 82 papers (http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Smolin_Lee/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=50); compare this list to Dawkins bibliography at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/biblio.shtml. Dawkins' target audience is the lay population; Smolin's seems to be the specialists, but both seem to be out a lot of work in their bits of science.


Consider that Dawkins published "The Selfish Gene" in 1976, but I could find only two references in my edition (1989) that list Dawkins as an author, written on or prior to 1976 - so perhaps your complaint about Smolin applies to Dawkins as well? (or, more likely, you've been unfair to Smolin).

So, has Dawkins lost credibility? Of course not. Credibility, to my mind, isn't about being right all the time, it's about asking the right questions at the right time (and, in this case, ignoring the wrong questions). I certainly don't agree with everything Dawkin's has written, but it's still worth my time to read at a least part of his arguments - I've mostly skimmed "The Selfish Gene" and I started "The God Delusion", but didn't finish; on the other hand I read "The Ancestor's Tale" straight through; I'll probably read that again. Contrast that with, say, Dick Atkinson or VonNeumann; I might not be bothered to read their responses to this post.

[godless dave]

Hoyle was an astronomer. I suspect he knew no more about biology than I do, and I'm just a dude with a BA in linguistics.

[jjramsey]

But then when his memory was refreshed... he and others are in agreement with what happened... except that he says that they showed him answering a different question... and others said that was an answer to the original question?

Sigh, it's not just that "others said" Dawkins' response was to the original question. It's that the unedited tapes showed that his response was to the original question. Again, this is dead clear from Brayton's post (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/the_richard_dawkins_incident_1.php).

I think it would be easy for you to cut and paste his statement of distortion and it's source as well as what it distorted and that source. How hard is that?

One source of his statement of distortion was on the very YouTube clip that you mentioned above (http://youtube.com/watch?v=huEMVJb4Js8), where he says his apparently evasive answer was actually a response to, in Dawkins' own words from the clip, "a completely different question". I can't cut and paste that, since it's a video, but you already know where that statement is on the clip because you told me--about 12 minutes into the video. What it distorted was the actual turn of events during the interview with Dawkins, as indicated by the unedited tapes, which Brayton describes in the post to which I've linked multiple times. There is also an IIDB thread with more details. Here is a fairly good starting point:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1632789#post1632789

Note especially this part:

Actually, there is good reason to know that he was answering the question that was asked - the question was repeated when the taping resumed. That's not on the finished tape, but it was on the unedited tape.

(Interestingly enough, as is clear from the IIDB post from Brayton, at the time, Dawkins hadn't alleged what he now alleges in the YouTube video, that the tape had been edited in a misleading fashion, though he did earlier allege that he had never given the interview.)

[VonNeumann]

What returns are you talking about?
In any adult society a certain amount of resources are invested in non-productive but appreciated results of endeavour. This has led to great art, music and science. If you think that science is a purely commercial endeavour I feel sorry for your lack appreciation and understanding.
I'm all for research. A lot of what I've done in my life was on research money, directly or indirectly, mostly private but some guv. I guess I didn't state my point clearly.

I started to write a whole bunch of history about how research has been politicized and how the waves of money, and lack of, cause scientists to change industry and all that. It's all completely out of scope of this thread so I'll just let you think I lack appreciation and that I don't understand.

[VonNeumann]

More on information assembly from the bottom up for Von Neumann:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030105309.htm

Discussed in more detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834&page=35

You think you have made a point about non-teleological evolution by illustrating by means of a man-made endeavor: nanotechnology. This is a blunder. It is the same blunder that I've spent many times mentioning w.r.t. Dawkin's "Methinks.." program. It is like saying you believe in perpetual motion because you can demonstrate something like perpetual motion (all the way up until the battery is depleted). Nanotechnology is developed in a bottom-up process of human creativity (you know?). Your leap from that toward evolution requires that you first withdraw the human-creativity element (because otherwise you'd be making a case for teleology).

It would be fair to illustrate nanotechnology that evolves on it's own with no human deux-a-machina. But such as that does not exist. When it does, someday,THEN use it for illustration.

You (et al) need first to ask yourself if you can introspect into your own cognitive contradiction, that you'd use what would be evidence for the other side to attempt to supply evidence for your side. This so bizarre -- what are you thinking?

[VonNeumann]

Emasculate? Merely? Perhaps you don't understand how powerful an idea adaptation is. And for "progressive advancement", there have been ratchet theories that explain the appearance of advancement.
You must not have bothered to read what I was responding to. I understood the other party as having said that evolution is not about progressive advancement, it is only about adaptation. If that is all evolution is about (adaptation) then there would be very little controversy. The core of the controversy is about whether the huge increase in information in all the DNA on Earth today, vs the amount of information in DNA on Earth, say, 1BYA, is entirely explainable by the standard model of evolution. If he meant something by "progressive advancement" other than a huge increase in information, then I missed his point.

[VonNeumann]

Maybe in physics... definitely NOT the case in evolution... the more we know, the more tools we have for finding out more. And I can't imagine another field of study with more potential for benefiting humans (well, maybe neurology) (and technology)...
Again, I was musing about string theory. I'm with you on the other stuff.

[articulett]

No Von... what are you thinking. The article was clearly a model for how molecules self assemble in environments-- a clue for abiogenesis. But I'm not going to run around and re-explain to someone who thinks the nylonase mutation was a special design from a telelogical source. Nothing I quote comes from anyone who is thinks like you do. But you sure can twist anything to pretend it does.

[VonNeumann]

No Von... what are you thinking. The article was clearly a model for how molecules self assemble in environments-- a clue for abiogenesis. But I'm not going to run around and re-explain to someone who thinks the nylonase mutation was a special design from a telelogical source. Nothing I quote comes from anyone who is thinks like you do. But you sure can twist anything to pretend it does.
I wasn't being completely fair, being that I didn't read the link yet. So thanks for the link. I'd like to see what they say about self-assembling molecules.

[Father Dagon]

Obviously it's OK for creationist/ID'ers to mislead, lie and tell half truths. We should still respect them, and welcome them to the debate table.

After all, debating them wouldn't add any credibility to their stance would it?

And just because they have to mislead and take things out of context to be convincing, that doesn't mean their arguments can't stand on their own merit!
:rolleyes:

I know if I ran across a sales person that used the same tactics these folks use I'd not buy anything they were selling.

I guess some people have different standards for honesty and truthfulness.:con2:But hasn't Dawkins said that he won't debate with IDers anymore? I think his point was that while he has to educate his opponents in teh fakken basics, they can "resort" to asking "clever" questions about "murky contradictions" and therefore "win" the debate.

[VonNeumann]

Hoyle was an astronomer. I suspect he knew no more about biology than I do, and I'm just a dude with a BA in linguistics.
I think Francis Crick (as in Crick and Watson: DNA) might have known more about biology than you do, though. It seems to me that Crick agreed with Hoyle on at least one thing. Crick decided that biological life must not have evolved here on Earth (that's also what Hoyle the astronomer concluded) and each of them independently came up with conjecture that life therefore must have come from some other place in the universe. So that's an interesting fact for you to think about--biologist, linguist, astronomer or otherwise.

[cyborg]

And as I already covered Von that conclusion was based on what they knew at the time to be true: i.e. recent discoveries mean that their conclusion is no longer sound.

But why should I be surprised that those who will insist on telling us what reality "is" are the one's who fail to keep up-to-date?

[VonNeumann]

And as I already covered Von that conclusion was based on what they knew at the time to be true: i.e. recent discoveries mean that their conclusion is no longer sound.

But why should I be surprised that those who will insist on telling us what reality "is" are the one's who fail to keep up-to-date?
I wasted a while trying to find what you already covered.

If you want your comeback to be taken seriously, please specify what recent discovery(s) that indicate for you that Hoyle/Crick concluded unsoundly. Otherwise, your comment is vacant rhetoric.

[articulett]

Crick wondered if the basic building blocks of life might have come from other sources... at the time he died we hadn't discovered a lot of the extremeophiles... life is everywhere on this planet... and inside of it too. But Crick wasn't thinking of a "top down" plan where life is "seeded" on purpose--hi thoughts were more about whether DNA or RNA got a start elsewhere or if they started here...

increasing evidence shows that this planet appeared to have just what it takes for life to start here http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/primordial-soup.html ... that doesn't mean it did--but it seems increasingly possible...especially with the more recent recreation of miller-urey. Crick died over 10 years ago... a huge amount of information has been discovered since then, Von.

Karl Stetter has found archaea that live in boiling water and can thrive in conditions similar to our earth over 3.5 billion years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Stetter

And this is one of the top websites regarding the origins of life and it includes, Karl Stetter, one of the foremost microbiologists in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Stetter

To repeat, Crick's notion of panspermia was bottom up-- not intelligent design or planned as you propose... in just means the raw ingredients for life getting started may have come in on meteors after having gotten started elsewhere. But that isn't necessary given what we are learning about our own planet. That is still a possibility... but it comes pretty far down on the list... but it's much higher up than your suggested "pre-planned" seeding of our planet.

Since the discover that water once was on mars--there is increasing possibility that life and life-ish stuff may be abundant in our universe which means some could have fallen to earth as space dust or debris.

[VonNeumann]

Crick wondered where the basic building blocks of life came from... at the time he died we had discovered a lot of the extremeophiles... life is everywhere on this planet... and inside of it too. But his thoughts were more about whether DNA or RNA got a start or template elsewhere or if they started here... increasing evidence shows that this planet appeared to have just what it takes for life to start here http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/primordial-soup.html ... that doesn't mean it did--but it seems increasingly possible...especially with the more recent recreation of miller-urey. Crick died over 10 years ago... a huge amount of information has been discovered since then, Von.
That link has high noise content.

Even if you had amino acid primordial soup the size of the universe (10^80 atom's worth) (and forget that you have to also have the rest of the DNA, the sugar structure) there is the mathematical probability of some minimum number of base-pairs to produce metabolism. That approach is not a likely scenario, that DNA came first, but it is something that we can conjure some probabilities with regard to. You have to choose some very small number of minimum codes to have the lucky thing pop into existence. Since that is so unlikely to happen, some "ratcheting" method seems like what we should be looking for, to get us from amino acids to something that metabolizes and reproduces. That gap is wide right now. So what has been filled in (Kauffman's book on autocatalytic sets had already been written before Crick died) in the meantime that makes you or Cyborg so sure that Crick would have changed his mind?

BTW, the Standard Model of evolution does not address pre-DNA life.

[articulett]

True... but you were discussing abiogenesis... and you were suggesting that Crick supported a version of panspermia along the lines of what you propose... and that is not the case. You have a top down sort of theory regarding life on earth. Francis Crick definitely had a bottom up view-- not one involving any sort of "intelligence"...

I'm sure Crick would have been increasingly convinced like most biologists that life on this planet likely started here... there is not a need to invoke an outside source. It could have happened... but that's still an abyss away from it happening for a "reason" or part of a "plan" which is what you believe happened. You see "unfathomable odds" and it suggests a designer to you.

[VonNeumann]

True... but you were discussing abiogenesis... and you were suggesting that Crick supported a version of panspermia along the lines of what you propose... and that is not the case. You have a top down sort of theory regarding life on earth. Francis Crick definitely had a bottom up view-- not one involving any sort of "intelligence"...

I'm sure Crick would have been increasingly convinced like most biologists that life on this planet likely started here... there is not a need to invoke an outside source. It could have happened... but that's still an abyss away from it happening for a "reason" or part of a "plan" which is what you believe happened. You see "unfathomable odds" and it suggests a designer to you.

To me Art', the mystery is more encompassing than the cause of biological origins. I recall that in a past thread you would use the term "design" with regard to the process of evolution. So what does that word "design" mean? It need not be a word with bad connotation. You attribute the design of biological systems to something, you just don't think it is anything but "bottom up" (as I've seen you tirelessly express). You believe any appearance of "top down" or "planning" is mere illusion. Perhaps. I've been there before so it is not an alien world-view to me. My allowing myself to consider that "bottom up" is possibly false is due to my observation that we know so little about what mechanism lies at the "bottom". Below the molecular level the quantum world appears to be separate from our macroscopic world. The quantum world is a world of potentialities; the universe doesn't provide a solid "result" unless it has to. It is very strange "down there" in the world at the "bottom". So while you have faith that there is sufficient ingredients at work at the bottom to conjure up something so astonishing as DNA, RNA and the protein molecules that are necessary to machinate between them in order for them to have function (sans purpose), I do not have so much faith. I am a skeptic with regard to the idea that the bottom up mechanisms at work at the dawn of meta-life had enough time in a mere few billion years. You have faith, with no evidence. You are guessing just as I am guessing. But in this forum, there exists a prejudice against my skepticism. Skepticism here is not omnidirectional, it blows in one direction. It is not open. But true science is not like that...science is tentative and there is nothing in science that yet guarantees no teleology... science ignores the possibility of teleology by axiom.

The exciting thing I hope I live to see discovered, is how we design. How do we create? Do we have something like a selection landscape in our neural network? Do we have a random generator that passes random thoughts through the selection process? At the root of our neural selection process, is there no real purpose? No... I think all would admit we create via a top-down process. We plan. We have goals. Our mere 10^11 synapses are sufficiently complex to be able to do that, if you believe the neural network is all that is necessary to support our minds (and you are not some kind of dualist).

So the broader question to me is: what is "creation" and what is "design"? We know it exists. We do it. It is a self-revealing thing and we know we do it. We just don't know how we do it. So until we know how we do it, the jury is out on how complex the natural mechanism is that does it. I doubt it is as simple as anything yet put forward eg: RM/NS or autocatyltic sets.

[articulett]

I think design is a human term for pattern recognition... we have evolved to find certain patterns and interpret them as meaningful... we deduce meaning... but that doesn't mean the meaning was intended... I think it's backwards that humans see things as designed towards them... any creature that could think would think as much-- but the fact that humans find meaning and purpose in things doesn't mean that any entity meant for them to do so. There is a poster of butterfly wings with all the letters of the alphabet in butterfly wing patterns... http://www.butterflyalphabet.com/main/index.php
and my favorite sagan clip http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=Cosmos
and pareidolia examples galore... http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html
not to mention, Heather Firth's Earth Erotica: http://www.heatherfirth.com/gallery1.html

Humans see "design" and meaning and "signs" in certain patterns... whether they are there or not. When you have systems evolving together they seem to "fit" amazingly well from a human perspective. Understanding natural selection and why we'd find significance in certain patterns is all that is required to understand bottom up design. I am quite convinced that you and others superimpose assorted meanings upon certain aspects of evolution so that you can believe it is designed for some purpose or reason that you've come to believe. I don't think there is any reason to think that natural selection alone can't explain it all and lots of reason why a designer is unlikely and unnecessary--and contradicts what we know about entropy and the way matter comes to be organized in spite of it (energy plus information via physical forces or evolved DNA strands...or other information systems shaping matter over time.)

But convincing you would be like trying to convince a lottery winner it wasn't his lucky sucks and "creative visualization" that caused him to win or that it wasn't prayer that saved someone's grandma or that feminists are not the cause of 9-11. Some beliefs are subject to readily being affirmed by confirmation bias and not so readily negated no matter how much evidence is available. Most people would rather hang on to there beliefs rather than consider they might be wrong or (gasp) test the null hypothesis (see if the reverse could be true.)

There's a world of drama going on in a drop of water in a microscope and on this planet long before humans and in deep dark parts of the ocean--life and death and evolution that doesn't care about us or what we find meaningful or "designed". And it will be doing so long after we are gone too. The universe is not about us. Neither is this planet. We just happen to assume it is... but every creature that can think, would naturally assume the same. We think that because we exist, there must be a reason for our existence... we seem so well designed-- and there is a "reason"-- billions of years of evolution and your parents having sex and that sperm uniting with that egg at that moment-- but nothing more profound than that.

[VonNeumann]

I think design is a human term for pattern recognition... we have evolved to find certain patterns and interpret them as meaningful... we deduce meaning... but that doesn't mean the meaning was intended... I think it's backwards that humans see things as designed towards them... any creature that could think would think as much-- but the fact that humans find meaning and purpose in things doesn't mean that any entity meant for them to do so. There is a poster of butterfly wings with all the letters of the alphabet in butterfly wing patterns... http://www.butterflyalphabet.com/main/index.php
and my favorite sagan clip http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=Cosmos
and pareidolia examples galore... http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html
not to mention, Heather Firth's Earth Erotica: http://www.heatherfirth.com/gallery1.html

Humans see "design" and meaning and "signs" in certain patterns... whether they are there or not. When you have systems evolving together they seem to "fit" amazing well from a human perspective. Understanding natural selection and why we'd find significance in certain patterns is all that is required to understand bottom up design. I am quite convinced that you and others superimpose assorted meanings upon certain aspects of evolution so that you can believe it is designed for some purpose or reason that you've come to believe. I don't think there is any reason to think that natural selection alone can't explain it all and lots of reason why a designer is unlikely and unnecessary--and contradicts what we know about entropy and the way matter comes to be organized in spite of it (energy plus information via physical forces or evolved DNA strands...or other information systems.)

But convincing you would be like trying to convince a lottery winner it wasn't his lucky sucks and "creative visualization" that caused him to win or that it wasn't prayer that saved someone's grandma or that feminists are not the cause of 9-11. Some beliefs are subject to readily being affirmed by confirmation bias and not so readily negated no matter how much evidence is available. Most people would rather hang on to there beliefs rather than consider they might be wrong or (gasp) test the null hypothesis (see if the reverse could be true.)
Art', tsk tsk... You're doing it again. Flirting with me with that earth erotica.

Seriously...as usual you cast everything you think you know about me in terms you can understand: you think I am an icon of whatever you think is a "creationist" instead of seeing me as a skeptic of oversimplification when it comes to origins. Back eons ago when I was a graduate student my intended path was Artificial Intelligence. Back then, "pattern recognition" is about all my sponsor had to be worked on. MIT was working on things like worm paths, and I became soon disillusioned by the lack of progress being made at the time. Well....HAL was supposed to have reached consciousness in 1991 and we missed that benchmark :) .

No... it is naive to think that design/creation/intelligence is mere pattern recognition. Before we design, we have to first think of what it is that we want to design. Is your view that thinking about what we ought to design is also pattern recognition? How about the next meta-layer: how about talking to each other about thinking about deciding what we ought to design? There is something infinitely recursive about our self-awareness and our "will", and I believe whatever that mechanism is, it is prerequisite for "design".