Nick Matzke semi-reviews The Design Matrix
by MikeGeneIt looks like The Design Matrix 
I've read it. It's basically a case study in what smoking ruins were left of ID after the ARN forum debates of 2000-2003, which is where PCP degradation, cytosine deamination, and most of the other inconvenient-to-ID examples that Mike Gene discusses in his book were brought to his attention for the first time. Basically unparsimonious wishful thinking is all that's left once you've admitted, as Mike Gene does, that ID isn't science, that IC systems can evolve, and that natural selection is an effective design mimic. Basically all he can do is hide his IDer way back in the origin of life, ignore all the evidence that even the Last Common Ancestor was the product of a lot of evolution, and then try a few cheap tricks like asserting that cooption is a "pure chance" thing (wrong) and therefore taking the massive evidence of cooption as evidence for his emergency-backup completely-baffling-how-it-could-possibly-work ID option, front-loading, instead. I may get up the gumption to slay the slain one more time sometime this break, but no promises.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Nick, not being the author and not having been party to the ARN debates I have no dog in this fight. Most of the topics raised by you have been previously discussed and I have no interest in resurrecting same olds unless you want to go there. I have only one question relating to cytosine deamination. What is it about cytosine deamination that you find inconvenient to ID?
Comment by Bradford — December 22, 2007 @ 9:13 am
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
That's what Michael Vick said.
Comment by valerie — December 22, 2007 @ 10:28 am
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Shouldn't the title be "The Family Guy semi-reviews The Design Matrix"
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
No. Vick said:
Comment by Bradford — December 22, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Who cares what Nick thinks? A guy whose philosophy is ultimately incoherent regarding notions of intention, agency, mind, and thought… so much so that it underdcuts his own position, isn't really one to be too concerned about.
Think a guy like that has the ability to get an accurate read on something like this?
Comment by Doug — December 22, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
"IC systems can evolve?" Which one(s)? How?
Comment by David — December 22, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Don't you know, David? One example of IC, the bacterial flagellum, obviously evolved from a TTSS. However, in order to trust that claim of ancestral status for the TTSS please ignore the fact that the TTSS is pretty much expressed in gram-negative bacteria. While the BF is in gram negative and positive bacteria…. as well as thermo & mesophilic bacteria.
So, it's certainly plausible that the BF evolved via cooption and mutation from a TTSS…. just make certain to ignore large chucks of data - they tend to get in the way.
Comment by Doug — December 22, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Doug wrote:
Doug,
Even supposing that Nick's philosophy of mind were incoherent, how would that undercut the criticisms he alludes to in his comment?
Comment by valerie — December 22, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
I think the smartest thing Mike did with his book was to *not* shape his thesis around the vested critics like Nick.
Mike makes it clear throughout the book that he is not offering a proof or a decisive argument. He's simply offering clues and new ways of perceiving data that could shape one's future investigations of biotic reality.
What Nick sees as "unparsimonious wishful thinking" others will see as "fresh and potentially useful ways of looking at data."
Nick's use of "wishful thinking" reveals the rigidly simplistic attitude and framework from which he engages this topic. His revolutionary mind is one that's been rewarded and reinforced time and again for being stubbornly ritualistic.
As for being unparsimonious…Mike deals with this objection in ways that will satisfy all but the most hard-nosed lovers of an ideal simplicity.
Comment by bipod — December 23, 2007 @ 7:27 am
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
valerie:
I'd suspect it's because the best Matzke can do is refer to 7-year old ARN discussions hardly anyone but he himself read or cares to read. Which he doesn't waste space reiterating when he thinks he can toss a few buzzwords in between his personal insults to Mike and that'll make everyone think he's some kind of brilliant sci-guy. Then, with a sigh and a wave of his virtual hand, Matzke simply dismisses "the dragon" he hasn't the energy to slay "one more time." Since when do dragons come in undead varieties? Is that an evolution thing?
That's kind of pitiful as a criticism, but no one who is familiar with Matzke could be surprised by it. I think his nose is a little bit disjointed because Mike didn't choose Matzke to be his Doctor Evil nemesis.
Comment by Joy — December 23, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
If a person's philosophy/worldview was internally inconsistent, why exactly should I trust their insight on this topic? Acknowledging his inability to even consider Mike's points besides the fact that similar topics were addressed on ARN years back.
I'm assuming you've read the same portion of Nick's review; please explain, what in that review leads you to believe that Nick is able to provide insight into Mike's book. Well Valerie?
Comment by Doug — December 23, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
You ask: "What is it about cytosine deamination that you find inconvenient to ID?"
Nick found a paper where the authors argued that no engineer would have used cytosine as part of the genetic material because of its predisposition for deamination.
Comment by MikeGene — December 23, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I'm dissappointed. As Yogi Berra would say: "Sounds like deja vu all over again." Nick, tell me if my reconstruction is on target. Anti-IDists reason:
"No engineer would have used cytosine as part of the genetic material because of its predisposition for deamination."
We all know that when IDists talk about evidence for ID they are really talking about God.:wink::wink:
If engineers are smart enough not to use cytosine then surely God would not have used it either. After all God is a lot smarter than any engineer.
Take that IDists. See how clever I am. You can't argue about the God thing without exposing your ulterior motives and if you argue sub-optimal design then I'll respond by saying "what else would you expect from a selection process? Yup. Perfectly consistent with a materialistic evolutionary approach. Inconsistent with attributes Christians attribute to God. Just another wrong ID turn.
Bradford (returning): Nick, I thought I was going to get a science argument from you. The engineer example is theology in a cheap tuxedo.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Bradford
Excellent straw man Bradford. But the reasoning is still good, even if we assume the engineer is not God. No engineer would have used cytosine as part of the genetic material because of its predisposition for deamination. If human engineers are smart enough not to use cytosine then surely engineers capable of creating life and front-loading into it goodness knows what would not have used it either. Afterall such an engineer would have to be a lot more knowledgeable about these things any contempory human engineer.
Is it really necessary to add commens like this in your make-believe arguments with ID opponents?
I disagree. I think it is science. We start with a hypothesis, life was designed, and draw a logical prediction from that hypothesis. Such a designer must necessarily be capable of designing life, and therefore must necessarily be better at that than human engineers currently are, given that he did something we currently cannot. Therefore we can say that this supposed engineer would know that cytosine has a predisposition for deamination. And so from the hypothesis we predict that cytosine would not be used as part of the genetic material.
Comment by The Pixie — December 24, 2007 @ 5:27 am
December 24th, 2007 at 9:49 am
The Pixie:
Note the title of this blog entry. It concerns Matzke's review of The Design Matrix. I direct my students to open the book and turn to page 173. Read (or reread) until getting past the first three sentences of page 179. You may then stop and answer the following questions.
1. What is the main theme of this section of the book?
2. A C to T mutation is called a ________.
(a) mistake
(b) design flaw
(c) transition
(d) mini load
3. Explain in your own words (without quoting from the book) why a front-loading designer may have chosen the cytosine base.
4. How many codons contain at least one C?
5. How many substitutions would result in amino acid changes?
(Note: You may disregard substitutions that do not alter the identity of an amino acid or those resulting in stop codons)
6. Following the amino acid changes describe how the altered property of the resulting pool of amino acids could impact proteins containing the substituted amino acid.
7. Describe the effect of cytosine deamination in RNA.
After completing the test click the post button. Do not throw spitballs or nasty comments at classmates who disagree with you but rather patiently await your grade.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 9:49 am
December 24th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Doug asks:
Doug,
Nobody's asking you to trust Nick's insight. His arguments, like everyone else's, should be judged on their merits.
My point is that it is illogical to dismiss all of Nick's arguments simply because you think he's mistaken regarding mind and thought. I think you're using this as an excuse to avoid engaging the substance of his positions.
You asked:
The answer, of course, is yes.
Again, suppose you're right that Nick's philosophy of mind is internally incoherent. How does that negate his arguments regarding cytosine deamination, for example?
Comment by valerie — December 24, 2007 @ 10:16 am
December 24th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Valerie:
Here is what Nick wrote:
What is the argument related to cytosine deamination? How does one negate a poorly delineated objection?
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 10:58 am
December 24th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Pixie: "No engineer would have used cytosine as part of the genetic material because of its predisposition for deamination"
What if the engineer wanted to use cytosine precisely because of it's disposition for deamination?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 24, 2007 @ 11:13 am
December 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Bradford asks:
Doug did it by impugning the competence of its proponent:
Comment by valerie — December 24, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
A critic once suggested that no worthy designer would design a jet fighter that was intrinsically aerodynamically unstable.
Yet the F-16 was the dominant design of it's age. Subsequent designs became even more inherently unstable and even more dominant in the skies.
Why would a designer make a jet that couldn't even glide? Because of integrated control systems that not only make up for the instability, but enhance many other performance features.
In other words, if there was a designer of life, He really doesn't need Matzke's layman advice about cytosine deamination. As Mike pointed out in his book, there may be some very good reasons to choose cytosine. Go make your own living organism from scratch and MAYBE you'll have room to criticize.
And that goes for Mike Gene too. I thought it was pretty lame of Mike to concede that wiring of the human eye reflects flawed design. Much like the F-16, the "flaws" in the wiring of the eye are more than made up for by the control systems within the visual cortex, and in the end they actually improve performance and durability.
Comment by chunkdz — December 24, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Bradford
Thank you for the insight, oh-learned teacher. However, I direct the learned teacher to his own post. You see, learned teacher, there are broadly two counters to Nick's argument. The first is that it does not matter if the design is poor. The second is that perhaps the design is not poor anyway. From your post, learned teacher, I do get the impression you were using the first counter: "If engineers are smart enough not to use cytosine then surely God would not have used it either. After all God is a lot smarter than any engineer."
Now that your argument has been trouced, learned teacher, I see you have flipped from the first counter to the second. What a wonderful example you are to us all learned teacher.
And Bradford, if you can cut back on the patronising, I will try to hold back on the sarcasm.
kornbelt888
Can you offer a reason why that might be the case?
That is not offered as evidence for the original claim (which was not made by me, by the way), but as a serious enquiry. The problem the IDist has is that either he is stuck in a designer-of-the-gaps argument, which essentially says we do not know enough, so it is alway possible that the designer might preferentially do it is such a way, whatever way we happen to find in nature (i.e., the unspecified designer works in mysterious ways, his wonder to perform). Alternatively, the IDist has to try to actually predict what we might reasonably find.
If you can build a case for why we should suppose that a designer would choose cytosine for that reason, then you have made a small but not insignificant step for ID. Mike has some more information available on-line:
http://www.idthink.net/biot/de...
The problem for front-loading, I would guess, is that cytosine deamination will cause too much of the front-loaded information to get lost in random mutations. I could well be wrong. What do you think? If you think life was originallyt created, then left to evolve without any front-loading, perhaps it makes sense as an aid to rapid evolution.
Comment by The Pixie — December 24, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Mike Gene may clarify: But isn't the hypothesis that deamination of cytosine may reveal hidden ("front-loaded") information?
Comment by Rock — December 24, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think we are confounding and confusing two very good questions.
1) Was life designed?
2) Is life's design optimal?
However you can't begin to answer the second until you answer the first.
Imagine an archeologist claiming that a perfectly shaped arrow head could not have been designed because the rock it was hafted from was softer than it should have been and you get an idea of the silliness of this kind of argument
Peace.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 24, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
chunckdz:
You are just making that up, aren't you?
Comment by Raevmo — December 24, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
fmm:
Let's suppose that God (aka the Designer) designed life. Isn't it reasonable to assume then that the design is optimal?
Comment by Raevmo — December 24, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
fifth monarchy man
Creationism requires the design to be optimal; design by a perfect desin should be perfect. ID merely requires it to be very good. And that means that if life is not well designed, you can answer the first question pretty quickly.
Sure, for stone age weaponry. I would suggest that twenty-first century man knows rather more about geology and arrow making, and has access to far better resources. But I thought we were talking about a supposed designer who created life. That is really quite a bit more complicated than fashioning an arrowhead from a lump of flint, don't you think? A design capable of creating life must know more about biochemistry than the human race currently does, because we cannot do that yet. The question is how could someone with that much knowledge not know about the deamination problem with cytosine? Either there was no such designer, or he had good reason to use cytosine anyway.
Comment by The Pixie — December 24, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Raevmo: "Let's suppose that God (aka the Designer) designed life. Isn't it reasonable to assume then that the design is optimal?"
No, it isn't. It's conceivable that life here indended to be somewhat defective, i.e., "cursed".
At any rate, if we *knew* beyond any reasonable doubt (like finding a universally compelling signature in the DNA) that designers were responsible for life on this planet, any question about optimal design vs sub-optimal, or any other question about intent, becomes something akin to a "theological" question, and guessing intent has to be reverse engineered from the hard evidence. Until, of course, the designers showed up in person and cleared up all the questions. (Some claim they have at various times in the past. The world at large will have to wait and see, or perhaps wait forever.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 24, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Pixie, "Creationism requires the design to be optimal; design by a perfect desin should be perfect. "
Not according to the Hebrew/Christian tradition, which explicitly asserts that all biological life on this planet is "cursed", and is therefore not optimal, but subject to degradation, corruption, suffering, and premature death.
Your statement is not a scientific one. It is essentially theology in a cheap suit.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Pixie
In order to determine if an objects design is optimal we must have a good idea of the intentions of the designer.
Let's take that soft arrowhead for example. The reason we assume it is too is soft only because we assume its purpose is for killing game on impact. I can think of several occasions in which a soft arrowhead is optimal however.
1. It's for ceremonial purposes and the soft rock in question is sacred
2. It' intended to break off in the animal after impact
3. It's an training arrow designed to be less lethal
4. Soft rock is all that is readily available for our designer
5. Our designer is a show off and wanted to demonstrate his ability to design an adequate arrow using less than optimal materials
I could go on but you get the point. We can't even begin to discuss optimal design until we have determined the presence of design in the first place.
Once we have done that we should give the designer the benefit of the doubt and assume his artifact is designed optimally for what he intended it for at least untill we know more about him.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 24, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Pixie, if you have not read the book then acknowledge that your criticisms are not based on what you know about MG's stated views. If you have read it then do something Matzke did not do, namely address the actual points made in the book.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
The point of cytosine deamination is an argument in favor of facilitated evolution. The evolutionary process was the "creation" in question.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Rock:
Excellent Rock.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
The first post was a parody of the mindset of critics. The engineer cited was not smart. His assumptions were grounded in his ignorance and shallow thinking. Cytosine deamination could be a brilliant means of facilitating a process of change over time. The reasons are laid out in the passage I cited.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Raevmo:
Ah, but what is the design? The actual book reference (as opposed to the engineer argument) cites a process. A chemical means of facilitating the process of biological change would signify optimization.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
December 24th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Critics are caught in a self-created trap. Having assumed an ID argument based on a scriptural misinterpetation, they then persist in sticking with criticisms built on their own misconceptions rather than adapting to the actual idea which is written for all to see.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Raevmo,
Not really, or at least not the way you may expect. I've never understood the suggestion that if God (specifically the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God) designed the world, then it would be utter perfection-in-state and anything less than perfect would be rejected as unworthy. I'd see it far more likely that sub-optimal life would be designed/expected, with mechanisms for that life to improve or be improved, during (and even after) life.
I remember having someone ask me, if God designed humans, how come eagles see further than us, cheetahs run faster than us, etc. My reply was, does the fact that we've invented binoculars and motorcycles mitigate those failings? In other words, it's very hard to make arguments about suboptimal design when we're in the position of being able to improve ourselves to the extent we have, and certainly to what we expect to eventually.
If we're talking theologically, then really, I don't believe in a state of perfection at all. I believe in infinite opportunities for improvement.
Comment by nullasalus — December 25, 2007 @ 12:03 am
December 25th, 2007 at 12:09 am
nullasalus:
Nullasalus, it is worth noting attempts to transform MG's explanation, which is grounded in science, into a theological matter. I expected better critiques than have so far surfaced.
Comment by Bradford — December 25, 2007 @ 12:09 am
December 25th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Valerie… you sound like a sockpuppet.
Have you read his 'review'? Where is the 'substance' of his position in his review on Mike's book? That precisely the reason why I don't take his review seriously.
I think you're using your affiliation with a particular philosophical bias to read more into Nick's review than is actually there. Because without that assumption this quote of your is incoherent.
Comment by Doug — December 25, 2007 @ 1:05 am
December 25th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Valerie did it by glazing over my comment about the fact that Nick thinks these arguments are irrelevant because they surfaced on ARN a few years ago. She's not impressed with my reasoning…. yet she's impressed with Nick's? Wow. That's…….odd.
Considering again that she thinks I'm avoiding the substance of a review that didn't have much substance to begin with. That's…….laughable.
Comment by Doug — December 25, 2007 @ 1:10 am
December 25th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Bradford,
I've come to expect it, really. I think in the end, for all the huffing and puffing of ID-critics, that's where the fight has to end up - arguments about whether what we see is good design, and whether an intelligent being would purposefully bring about what we see in the world, is the last resort. We already know the concepts of evolution can be employed in a telic manner (Programmers have used it to interesting success). We know how to front load, and we've just scratched the surface of knowledge. Evolution was more useful as a design-denying tool back when it was a story about undescribed primordial ooze having eternity to change from muck to Ed Asner. Now that we know how the time frames, conditions, how complicated the simplest single cell can be (among other things) etc, it's more difficult. Assertions about the illusion of design are important. Spin. "Hey, I know that it looks brilliant and unbelievably complicated, even if you accept every mechanism we propose, but remember: There's no design. It just really, really looks like it. But that was absolutely accidental."
Anyway, maybe I'll get to read Mike's book over the holiday. It's riled the hell out of both Nick Matzke and DaveScot, and I consider that quite an endorsement.
Comment by nullasalus — December 25, 2007 @ 4:36 am
December 25th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Bradford:
So what is the optimal level of facilitation? How can we calculate it so we can make some testable predictions?
Comment by Raevmo — December 25, 2007 @ 7:46 am
December 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
There are many predictions relating to ID already and the critics choose to ignore them.
For me the question is
Are there any testable predictions at all that you would accept as confirmation of ID?
I tried to get Zach to commit on another thread and he would not even accept a prediction as outlandish as" there will be no unguided evolution period from this point on" as a testable ID prediction.
He simply dodged the question.
I've come believe that this is just another debating tactic on the critic's part and they have no interest in predictions really.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2007 @ 9:54 am
December 25th, 2007 at 10:13 am
A chemical means of facilitating the process of biological change would signify optimization.
Accurate predictions of protein function are linked to accurate predictions about protein folding. What has been referred to as the hydrophobic effect occupies center stage in assessing protein structure within solutions. There is more work to be accomplished before hydrophobic effects can be explained on a molecular basis. Possible effects are enormous in number and we are facing probability distributions related to predictions about them. New models are being constructed that can be compared to the existing Pratt-Chandler theory of hydrophobic effects.
If cytosine deamination indicates a clear bias toward hydophobicity and hydrophobic effects yield to accurate probability distributions then an answer to the question of how cytosine deamination impacts genomic change over time becomes a realistic expectation. Calculations and testable predictions would be suggested by probability distributions. So then are all answers neatly laid out to examine? Not in my view. However, our view is becoming increasingly clearer as our understanding becomes better. IMO that signifies that productive testing lies on the road ahead which can provide the data answering questions like the ones you raise.
Comment by Bradford — December 25, 2007 @ 10:13 am
December 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
kornbelt888
Well there you go. Another two ways to interprete the presence of cytosine. Perhaps when the perfect God designed life, it did not have cytosine; He swapped it over for something better when he cursed all life after two people ate the wrong fruit. OR Perhaps He changed the laws of the universe so cytosine had this propensity only after the fall. Personally, I have problems with a theology that has has the world (perhaps the universe) "subject to degradation, corruption, suffering, and premature death" just because of what two people and a snake did, but that is not my faith.
fifth monarch man
Great. So find reasons why cytosine was a good choice. But be aware that I am not making a strong argument against that position. I am arguing against the position that the designer was not necessarily perfect, so could well have been incompetent, as Bradford originally presented. My position is that the supposed designer must have had a better knowledge of chemistry than mankind currently does.
I have no idea why not.
I have always had the impression that IDists want to stear clear of knowing more about him. My view is that it would be easier to prove the existence of a more specific designer (as in the FLE hypothesis or the YEC hypothesis) than of a designer in general.
Bradford
My original criticisms had nothing to do with Mike Gene's position, but was in response to what you posted in this thread. Please be assured that I read your post completely, and what I posted was indeed based on what I read in this thread. Your first response to me flipped to an entirely different argument. Your second seems to be saying if I have not read Mike's book, I have no business responding to what you posted. I find neither convincing, and I hope others can see through your misdirections as easily as I can.
Comment by The Pixie — December 25, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Pixie:
My first response to you (your initial comment was a reaction to my comment about Matzke's so called point) directed you and others to a relevant section of Mike's book. It was not an argument although you are free to interpret the book passage that way.
You have a remarkable ability to miss the point. My comments have been about a passage of Mike's book and Matzke's response to the book. You are obviously free to post comments even if they are devoid of content as you have posting privilages. But if you intend to post comments that others take seriously on a thread about Nick's reaction to Mike's book why would you ignore the book? Only by referencing it and noting what it says can anyone post intelligible comments about a "review."
Do you find the suggestion that one become familiar with a book, which is the subject of a review, unconvincing when your comments appear in a thread about both the book and the review?
Comment by Bradford — December 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Pixie:
That comment is dishonest. Cite the quote I presented indicating that "the designer was not necessarily perfect, so could well have been incompetent."
Comment by Bradford — December 25, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
The reasons are in the book. Did you read it?
Comment by Bradford — December 25, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. [My emphasis.]
Perfection
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprin...
Comment by Rock — December 25, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Pixie:
I could simply rephrase my soft arrowhead speculations If I wanted to.
1. Cytosine is sacred to the designer
2. It's intended to deaminate
3. Life on earth is a training exercise and therefore designed to be less robust
4. Cytosine is all that is readily available for our designer on his planet
5. Our designer is a show off and wanted to demonstrate his ability to design an adequate lifeform using less than optimal materials
The possible reasons for using cytosine are numerous depending on the intentions of the designer. Don't you see its all speculation until we have determined that life is indeed designed?
It's not that we want to steer clear of knowing about him it's just that we don't think such knowledge is a prerequisite for inferring design.
Fine if you have scientific evidence of a more specific designer feel free to present it no one is stopping you. I believe that's what MG is doing. Just don't restrict the rest of us to such a hypothesis before the fact.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Pixie: "Personally, I have problems with a theology that has has the world (perhaps the universe) "subject to degradation, corruption, suffering, and premature death" just because of what two people and a snake did, but that is not my faith."
Yeah, taking the two naked people and the snake thing literally sounds a bit far fetched to me too. But in the end, it is quite irrelevant what you and I think. Reality is what it is. And if someone(s) set it up to be the way it is, it is their business and we have to deal with it.
Reality is mostly inflexible to our whims.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 25, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
fifth monarchy man: "Don't you see its all speculation until we have determined that life is indeed designed?"
Even if "we" have determined that life is designed, it is still speculation.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 25, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Bradford
Let me explain where I am coming from, here. My first post on this thread was responding to this by yourself:
It seems to me you were attempting to refute Nick by saying that ID does not require perfect design, that is, ID is consistent with anything from perfect to bloody awful design. As far as I am aware, Nick never said perfect design by God, and I strongly suspect you are putting words in his mouth. Perhaps you have a stereotype of ID opponents, and assume that if they are arguing about poor design, then they are thinking about creationism.
Whatever. In my response I pointed out that Nick's argument does not rely on perfect design, but does require better-than-human design. And I saw why.
Now at this point you could agree with me, or suggest reasons why I am wrong. Either course would be honest. But instead, you chose to make a very patronising argument about something else. Now your argument is that maybe cytosine is not bad design afterall. An issue I did not address at all. And in your next respose to me, you seem to be suggesting that if I have not read Mike's book I should not be commenting on what you wrote.
Comment by The Pixie — December 25, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
fifth monarchy man
Sure it is speculation. But it is vital to the scientific process of ID. If you can come up with some detailed ideas (yes, speculations) about the nature of the designer and the creation process, and can draw logical predictions from that (say predicting that the designer would preferentially use cytosine), then before you know it, you have a scientific research project. And that speculation may just end up getting ID accepted as mainstream science ultimately.
Comment by The Pixie — December 25, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
December 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
The Pixie,
I'd like to see Nick respond himself - but if it's not 'perfect design by God', what's left as a way to criticize based on the deamination? 'No engineer would use that because I don't think it's a good idea'? Really, because no engineers ever make decisions that are open to criticism? Even smart ones?
I agree that Nick didn't roll out and say 'No God would have done this!', but it's pretty hard to see what else he could have meant based on what's related here. Merely pointing out the deamination would be one thing, but extending that to agency either gets you at God specifically (No God would make designs I and others feel are shabby!) or generally (No engineer would make designs I and others feel are shabby, and that includes God.)
Comment by nullasalus — December 25, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Let me help you guys out. It is Mike Gene who argued/argues that the mutation-minimizing (or accuracy-enhancing) features of DNA replication are evidence for intelligent design. He's the one who has set that up as a criterion. So he's on that hook already and you can't blame any anti-IDists and their theological arguments for taking that as a valid indicator of ID.
But as many IDists have found, the problem with saying anything solid about the IDer's intentions is that someone might turn up evidence that contradicts the model. What I did back in 2002 or so was point out this article:
Anthony Poole, David Penny & Britt-Marie Sjöberg (2002). "Confounded cytosine! Tinkering and the evolution of DNA." Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2, 147-151 (February 2001).
…which shows that cytosine's instability causes a bunch more mutations for that nucleotide than for the others. Furthermore, it gives a detailed evolutionary explanation for how this peculiar and likely avoidable situation came about during the evolution of the DNA from the RNA world, as a result of the short-sightedness of natural selection.
This must have really bugged Mike Gene, because he then dreamed up and gerrymandered an elaborate epicycle onto his original ID proposal, basically saying that somehow in some incredibly vague fashion the IDer somehow used this minor mutational bias (it is minor in the grand scheme of things that can change DNA, although significant compared to the mutation rate of other nucleotides) to guide evolution, or something. He gave no examples or even hypotheticals about how this might actually have worked (still hasn't in his book IIRC although I don't have it handy).
So back in 2002, I made some of the obvious counterpoints:
* A generalized mutation bias is an incredibly poor way to front-load any information or desired changes, being just a nonspecific statistical pattern in mutations.
* Any features whose evolution would have been "helped along" by this mutational bias would have happened just same without the bias at all, since all the same mutations would happen almost as quickly in an unbiased situation, and anyway the dominant force controlling adaptive change is natural selection not mutation anyway: if NS is against a particular change, a mutational bias won't overcome it, and if NS is for a particular change, it will happen pretty rapidly (same order of magnitude) whether there is a slight bias for, neutral, or against that mutation.
What Mike Gene is proposing is a little bit like trying to "guide" a tennis ball thrown off the edge of the Grand Canyon to the bottom of the canyon, by putting a weight inside the ball to make it off-center and bounce a little bit oddly when it hits something. It's basically a useless proposal in several ways at once.
* If someone were serious about doing the kinds of design that Mike Gene thinks have happened, it would be vastly simpler, vastly more likely to produce the desired product, and much less haphazard, to just send an agent (alien, angel, robot, whatever) to intervene whenever the (still completely unnamed, unsuggested) "locked up" protein designs were needed.
* Oh, and this epicycle Mike Gene added also caused a bunch of new mutational problems once we get to multicellular eukaryotes that use methylation as a form of regulation.
These sorts of obvious points were made back then, we didn't get coherant answers then, and they were not answered in Mike Gene's book. All in all Mike gave a poor, implausible ghost of an idea in order to save his original design claim from an inconvenient bit of science. The only useful thing that came out of the episode was that it showed that Mike Gene will contort like any other IDist to avoid admitting contradictory evidence when someone has actually managed to find a point where the ID crypto-model actually contacts empirical facts, gets tested, and gets contradicted.
Most of the discussion here in this thread is fairly pointless because people haven't bothered to reconstruct the basics of the issues — people have barely discussed the "confounded cytosine" article, Mike Gene's web essay, and the obvious problems that arise when you think about it critically. Instead we just have the usual dogmatic rah-rahing, and claims that:
* ooh-the-anti-IDists-are-biased
* the anti-IDists are arguing against straw-man models of the IDer, while of course us pro-IDists are totaly virtuous model-free design theorists, which means we can slip in all of the premises about the IDer and his designs we want when desired, but deny these premises indignantly and accuse the anti-IDists of theologizing and arbitrariness if they ever dare to point out data inconsistent with these premises, which of course we don't have except when we say something is evidence for ID, at which point we slip it in.
* Nick didn't explain every last thing in his brief comment.
…etc…
Last point: What you guys don't get is that you either (1) propose a model of the IDer, in which case you've got to take your hits when the data comes in, or (2) you make the decision to argue for ID while denying that you have a model, or freely inserting postulates about the IDer's desires, methods, etc. to conveniently "explain" any possible data, in which case you've got nothing at all except word games that never even reach the level of "not even wrong." The latter option is apparently the one preferred in this thread. Good luck getting anywhere with that.
#1 is the better option but is risky and also is sloppily dismissed by the local Telic Thoughts dogma that it consitutes "designer-centrism" (this is like accusing evolutionary theory of being "evolution-centric", BTW) and "requiring knowledge of the designer." (No, you just need to be brave enough to offer up a specific model — an explanation of the available data — for assessment & criticism. The problem here is that any detailed look at the data, shorn of arbitrary imposition of vagueness that is instituted to avoid critical scrutiny, leads to very silly/self-contradictory/unworkable ID models. Like Gene's front-loading-through-mutational-bias idea.)
Merry Christmas,
Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 26, 2007 @ 2:14 am
December 26th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Nick Matzke,
What some of us have been kicking around here re: theological arguments is criticisms of assertions like..
No, a claim like this doesn't magically go beyond criticism just because you strongly insist that it should be. Hell, if you were just giving your view - stating that you don't think what we see in biological development is indicative of design, that you disagree with people who see plenty of reason for life to have developed along the path that it did, that would be one thing. You'd be settled in the neat little theological niche, and the argument would go back and forth. Trying to pawn off 'there's no way evolution could have unfolded by design, because sending robots and angels out to build things is obviously easier' as decisively persuasive is ridiculous. It's on par with the 'banana as undeniable evidence of creationism' routine. Hey, has anyone been able to design a better banana yet? No? Well, then ID vindicated.
Saying "having angels show up and do the work would be easier" is critical thinking?
I appreciate you coming in to clear things up - I was hoping you would, since frankly I never spent much time over at the Arn boards, so I never had a hands-on view of this fight. But all you've done is give an exhaustive account of what others here have already put together - when all is said and done, it amounts to a theological fight. "The Intelligent Designer wouldn't have done it this way. He'd have done it THAT way. And since he didn't, the Designer did nothing."
And for the record - I've said repeatedly how I'm skeptical of how much success anyone can have in testing for intention and design in nature. The flipside of that has always been I'm just as skeptical of people being able to rule it out - and your post serves as a great example of what I'm talking about. To Mike's credit, he argues that ID is, at best, nascent protoscience - he thinks it has potential, and with a lot of work, maybe some progress can be made down the line. The problem is, your claim - that a designer absolutely wouldn't go that route - is at best in the same boat that ID claims are.
Really, I'm just one guy, and my position is probably a minority one in the ID debate. But for all the praise you've gained from your peers (congratulations on that, by the way, sounds like you're a rising star), I've got to have a helluva lot more sympathy for Mike's position. He (I strongly suspect from reading) knows that what he's offering are detailed explanations of why a Designer may have chosen the mechanisms we see, and admits he's not yet proved anything. He's honestly bracketing his claim. I wish I saw more of that from - here comes that stereotyping - many ID critics.
Comment by nullasalus — December 26, 2007 @ 4:51 am
December 26th, 2007 at 9:36 am
#1 is the better option but is risky and also is sloppily dismissed by the local Telic Thoughts dogma that it consitutes "designer-centrism" (this is like accusing evolutionary theory of being "evolution-centric", BTW)
Actually, it's more like accusing evolutionary theory of being "random-centric" and this is very much a live criticism amongst your peeps, Nick.
Comment by bipod — December 26, 2007 @ 9:36 am
December 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Principle #132: There are many ways to evolve.
Principle #275: There are many ways to design.
Principle #343: There are multiple non-necessary but sufficient causal factors that can produce evolution
Principle #352: There are multiple non-necessary but sufficient causal factors that can produce design
It follows from principles 132 and 275 that one can reasonably say of a thing that it was evolved and/or designed, without knowing the precise mechanism of evolution or design.
It follows from principles 343 and 352 that one can know something about the *set* of causal factors involved in evolution and/or design without having the epistemic resources to narrow down the set into a smaller subset.
Comment by bipod — December 26, 2007 @ 9:48 am
December 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Nick:
Let me see if I understand you correctly
Frontloading is harder than direct intervention therefore there is no God.
Is that all you got?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2007 @ 10:31 am
December 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I'll save a more substantive, detailed reply to Nick's upcoming devastating, final word-type, smack-down review. Right now, I can't help but noticing Nick's predisposition to psychologize others.
Originally, Nick offered the following conclusion:
First there is the word "˜admit.' Since I have maintained that ID isn't science, that IC systems can evolve, and that natural selection is an effective designer mimic before Nick joined the ARN forum, why does Nick choose a word that conveys the impression that I am conceding or confessing something?
Second, the characterization of "˜wishful thinking' is a clear example of psychologizing. "˜Wishful' means "having or showing a wish; desirous; longing." Yet how does Nick Matzke know the workings of my inner mind? I do not long for the design of life. I do not wish or desire that design would shape evolution.
Matzke is simply playing with words to make his opponent look like someone who longs for something even though the person is forced to confess or concede their longing is in trouble. In other words, the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education is engaging in psychological warfare.
The same attitude shows itself in Nick's latest reply. Here he spins things as follows:
Suffice it to say that this is not how I remember things. But then comes the key element of spin that includes the psychological attack:
So Nick makes a "must have" claim about my mental state based on nothing more than his own subjective impressions. Yet Nick is completely mistaken in attributing this mental state to me. So what is the true source of his "must have" claim about me? I submit Matzke may be projecting, as he might be the one who is fundamentally bugged by"¦..The Design Matrix. But why suspect he is bugged by the DM?
When the playful Bilbo taunted, "BTW, have any ID critics read Mike's book, yet? Or are they too afraid?," a mere three hours later Nick showed up to thump his chest. And then there is the lengthy comment above, which, from where I sit, exudes a mixture of exasperation and anger. Maybe he thinks that anyone who thinks ID isn't science, that IC systems can evolve, and that natural selection is an effective designer mimic, should also go the rest of the way and think like Nick Matzke.
Nevertheless, don't take your eye off the big picture. The former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education seems to be overly anxious to smack-down an obscure, lil' book full of "wishful thinking" that acknowledges ID isn't science, that IC systems can evolve, and that natural selection is an effective design mimic. If this book can so thoroughly and deeply trouble someone like Nick Matzke, don't ya think that you yourself might want to take a look at it?
Comment by MikeGene — December 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Note that Mike didn't answer my points and didn't explain why the designer would use the biochemical equivalent of a deflated tire to guide a car in a certain direction.
I have not said I will write an "upcoming devastating, final word-type, smack-down review." It looks like if I did, I won't get anything in reply except the same old hairsplitting about psychologizing (a pattern of Mike's is that he will elevate trivial short comments such as "it must have bugged him" into major issues about psychologizing that he spends paragraphs discussing, and do this instead of discussing the substantive points). And as usual no answers to basic problems with MG's frontloading-through-cytosine-deamination-somehow proposal, except things on the level of "Oh yeah? Maybe the designer wanted to do it that way! No further details allowed. So there!"
Plus Mike Gene will apparently take any critique as evidence that I am obsessed by & deeply troubled by the book, despite the fact that I have written but two comments about The Design Matrix (well, 3 including this one), out of dozens of threads on the book that I have ignored, a month or two after I got the book in the mail. So I think I just won't bother. Have fun complimenting each other on how great the book is,
Cheers, Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 26, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Nick Matzke:
Last I checked there is no such thing as the "RNA world" for you to appeal to as if it actually offers empirical support for your just-so story. That appeal is every bit as speculative, imaginative and hypothetical as any ID speculations. Thus Mike's speculations are simply not trumped by your speculations.
Perhaps you ought to consider couching your unsupported assertions with the same care for actual evidence as Mike did in his book. If you want to be taken seriously as anything other than a grumpy turf warrior, that is.
Comment by Joy — December 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Hello all,
I hope everyone had a good Christmas.
Let me put forth my two cents on the chance earnest commenting starts.
I can truthfully say that Mike Gene's The Design Matrix is the best overtly pro-ID book I have seen. In fact, I would be tempted to add "by far".
Mike's presentation is understandable and consistent with itself. While there are things to disagree with, at least it is clear where the disagreements are.
I would be interested in hearing if Nick Matzke could point to any other overtly Pro-ID effort that he thinks is better?
Now, if we can try to refrain from too much psychoanalyzing and shield bashing in either direction, I would be interested in having a rational discussion over Mike's efforts.
It is unfortunate that the political motivations are getting in the way.
Mike, your "The former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education seems to be overly anxious to smack-down an obscure, lil' book…" all but forced Nick to respond with… "…I think I just won't bother".
From the about us…
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation."
Can we try again? I, for one, would be interested in having Nick participate.
I will be around for a few days and will try to comment further.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Merry Christmas TP. It's good to hear from you.
Nick Matzke:
Your analogy is off Nick. Rather than a deflated tire this looks more like a control divice that routes change in a potentially definable direction.
In another comment you wrote:
Joy has already pointed out the extremely speculative nature of RNA world concepts. Deamination is a phenomenon that increases the mutation rate for affected codons. At this point it is worthwhile to step back and contemplate what markers of design would look like. A mechanism that either increases or controls mutation rates, particularly in response to environmental stimulii, would fit the description. Biological candidates have been discussed in prior threads. But to point to Mike's book and attempt to reduce its references to cytosine deamination as fitting within that perspective is to distort the message in my view.
Another marker of a design mechanism would be one that induces changes favoring a flow in a particular direction. Mike's reference to cytosine deamination better fits this description. On page 175 Mike points out that the pool of amino acids resulting from the cytosine to thymine transition is biased in favor of hydrophobic residues. In other words there are more hydrophobic amino acids in the resulting pool than in the original.
But what is the significance of that? Protein function is determined by both the nature and sequence of constituent amino acids. Protein transformations biased toward increasing hydrophobic content also bias their folding and therefore potential function transitions. I tried to point this out in some previous comments, particularly one geared to answering questions posed by Raevmo. These observations suggest hypotheses around which research could be conducted which would either validate or falsify Mike's central concept related to cytosine deamination. As TP would say "let's do science."
Comment by Bradford — December 26, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Matzke,
When Mike Gene argues that he thinks using cytosine might be a useful design feature, why is it that you hear…
I ask because I was wondering why you neglected the obvious counter-argument:
"Nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo!"
If I had to argue against Mike's thesis using only the Kitzmiller tactic (equating ID with creationism), I would probably "not bother" either. Is the "No True Designer" fallacy the best you have to offer?
Comment by chunkdz — December 26, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
chunkdz:
Did you just make that up or do you have any evidence?
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Bradford:
Yes, I'm all for that. But could you be a bit more specific? Or do we first need to figure out how amino acid sequence determines protein folding before we can get to the hypotheses and predictions?
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
You guys aren't even getting the basics for having a coherent discussion.
1. I didn't even bring up creationism in this thread.
2. RNA World is a mainstream scientific model considered well-supported and empirically productive by thousands of experts, with a long list of supporting evidence that can be found compiled e.g. on this webpage. If you don't like it, fine, but just asserting on your own personal authority that it's "speculative" is a worthless argument.
3. No one has explained how MG's idea (including the increasing hydrophobicity effect) could actually work, or work noticably better than an unbiased mutation situation. I've already made my points, no one is addressing them, instead you're just doing the usual TT braying, so I'm gone. Happy Holidays,
Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 26, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Nick:
It may be mainstream but that does not make it correct. This sounds like an argument by show of hands. Not the best way to go about determining plausibility. There is no reference to personal authority unless you mean authority is determined by majority standing. But that would be a distinctly unscientific stance would it not? I'm more than willing to discuss the list of supporting evidence. That can be an enlightening discussion.
The condition is biased with respect to cytosine deamination. So if we are to engage in discussions focused on reality it is best to determine whether an unbiased condition best fits an ID perspective or a mainstream one. As to the details of how it works, that is best left awaiting further empirical data. Humanity has a long era of investigation ahead of it. Why rush to judgement?
Comment by Bradford — December 26, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Bradford:
It's funny you should say that. You yourself have brought up on multiple occasions in the past that OOL research has little or nothing to show for decades of research, and therefore time's up, it's a dead end. Now you turn it around and expect us to be patient?
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
OOL research and non-OOL research, which has provided us with the data by which we know how cells function, has convinced me that life does not arise as theorized. It's not simply a time issue. It's more a matter of the nature of causes needed to generate life.
Comment by Bradford — December 26, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Nick Matzke,
Here we have a post with 3 numbered points, addressed to an audience that isn't expected to listen or respond, by a supposed designer who doesn't intend to interact with his subjects? If he really intended to communicate this message, he could have done it simpler, with one short sentence.
Clearly this message was not designed. Must be a spambot gone buggy.
Comment by nullasalus — December 26, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Matzke
Right.
You merely made the assertion that a "serious" designer would have sent an "angel" to intervene in key mutation events.
How scientific of you.
Like I said, do you have anything other than the "No True Designer" fallacy?
Comment by chunkdz — December 26, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Bradford, thank you for the welcome.
To those interested in the F16 design…
Have any of you heard of forward swept wings? The planes are very unstable. Without constant active computer controls the planes would crash immediately. The lack of stability makes for a extreme maneuverability.
A forward swept wing is a stupid design if you are interested in stability.
Armor plating and tank treads are stupid design components for a race car.
It is difficult to argue good verses poor design while simultaneously refusing to discuss the motivations of a designer.
"The Designer works in mysterious ways" would be a telling argument for those wishing to employ it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
chunkdz:
Did you make that up? Or haz you teh evidence?
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Matzke:
I expected that the website you linked to would provide a meaningful bibliography of "thousands of experts". Rather, it presents one expert's presentation of some hypothosizing that has been done in the RNA world hypothesis. The hypothesis clearly exists for one reason alone — because it fits the worldview.
I am not in any way persuaded by the argument: "a 'natural' means must be found to explain life (hey, its an improvement on the 'who cares how impossible it is' argument) this 'natural means' dispite serious challenges, seems to fit some of the evidence, therefore it must be." Show an RNA world that works, that positively develops through evolution (I understand that RNA replicators actually migrate back to the most simplistic form) and then show a truly viable potential pathway from simple RNA replicators to DNA based life. Then I will begin to listen. De-evolve a DNA based life-form to a complex, stable, working RNA based lifeform by a string of functioning single mutational events, and I will respect the RNA hypothesis. Until then, please don't waste my time with links that don't validate the claims you make about them.
Comment by bFast — December 26, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Hi Nick,
Thank you for the RNA World link.
It is too bad you aren't sticking around.
Would it have hurt that bad to comment on where you ranked The Design Matrix relative to all the other Pro-ID books?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
bfast:
It's nice to know you don't respect the RNA hypothesis. Please give us your mechanistic model (other than magicmandunnit).
Comment by Raevmo — December 26, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Raevmo,
No.
Can you be more specific?
Comment by chunkdz — December 26, 2007 @ 9:44 pm