Open Thread: Sleeping Dog

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

56 Responses to “Open Thread: Sleeping Dog”

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Fair and balanced.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 1:05 am

Thought Provoker Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Fair and balanced take 2

Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 7:30 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:41 am
This is interesting:

Fortunately, we have Keith Olbermann to point out that Rush Limbaugh did not accurately quote the preamble to the Constitution in his CPAC speech last weekend. I'm not sure what scam Olbermann imagined Rush was trying to put over on the American people by saying conservatives believed in the "preamble to the Constitution" and then quoting words from the Declaration of Independence — but Olbermann put an end to that cruel deception!

These small-time opportunities to show off by correcting someone else's teeny-tiny mistakes are the lifeblood of Olbermann's MSNBC show, "Countdown." Olbermann is no more capable of not correcting Rep. Charlie Rangel when he said "inferred," but meant "implied," than an obsessive compulsive could pass a sink without washing his hands.

There is utterly no purpose to these lame "gotchas," except that Olbermann is so desperately insecure that he is willing to waste valuable airtime in order to convince other status-conscious idiots that he is, like, scary-smart.

Olbermann relentlessly attacked low-level Bush administration employee Monica Goodling for not going to a name-dropping college, saying — approximately 1 million times — that she got her law degree "by sending 100 box tops to Religious Lunatic University."

I would venture to say that the students at Goodling's law school at Regent University are far more impressive than those at the Cornell agriculture school — the land-grant, non-Ivy League school Keith attended.

I wouldn't mention it, except that Olbermann savages anyone who didn't go to an impressive college. As it happens, he didn't go to an impressive college, either.

If you've ever watched any three nights of his show, you know that Olbermann went to Cornell. But he always forgets to mention that he went to the school that offers classes in milking and bovine management.

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent "Ivy League" education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: "My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class."

Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1 applicants).

Olbermann's incessant lying about having an "Ivy League education" when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a "Yale man."

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 7:41 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Take three TP.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 7:51 am

Thought Provoker Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Here is Keith's response to Ann Coulter.

Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 7:53 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:14 am
TP, what's your answer to this?

Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority.

Will you sign the card or not John Doe?

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:14 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Quoting from TP's link:

During his report, correspondent Brian Wilson asserted of the Employee Free Choice Act: "Well, basically, it will radically change the way that unions can be formed. Instead of secret ballots, union organizers can walk up with a card and get the employee's answer in person," echoing the falsehood that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union.

Not a requirement but an option. Secret ballots should be the law though.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:29 am

Thought Provoker Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Hi Bradford,

I am rather neutral on the EFCA.

I find it a little amusing the typically conservative side is arguing for continued Big Government regulation with the typically liberal side arguing for less regulation.

It is rather obvious this is a desperation move on the part of the unions. I just hope it doesn't distract from more important issues facing us today.

Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 8:35 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 am
TP: I find it a little amusing the typically conservative side is arguing for continued Big Government regulation with the typically liberal side arguing for less regulation.

This is not ideological. It's a power grab. The regulatory body is already in place. Ballots should be secret because that protects voters.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:44 am

Zachriel Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Bradford: The regulatory body is already in place. Ballots should be secret because that protects voters.

The problem with a typical ballot election is that management can take employees singly or in groups into meetings to express management's point of view. They certainly have a right to their view, but it can be intimidating to employees to go against the strongly stated position of their employer, especially with regards to then expressing their own opinions openly, an important component of any campaign. This is not hypothetical, but based on the history of labor organizing.

Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2009 @ 8:56 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Zachriel, the federal government oversight of union elections is tight. The mere perception of pressure applied to sway the outcome of an election is enough to spring an investigation that could trigger legal sanctions against an employer. Intimidation of workers can potentially come from two sources- unions and management. Fellow workers can apply pressure which is why elections should be via secret ballots. That way neither pressure source can know how one voted.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 9:07 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Bradford: The mere perception of pressure applied to sway the outcome of an election is enough to spring an investigation that could trigger legal sanctions against an employer.

And the EFCA will not change those laws, they would still apply to workers voting publicly.

Still, I hate to say it but I agree with Bradford on this one. I think it's important that both sides be able to make their case to the workers, but the final vote should be via a secret ballot with a receipt system.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 11, 2009 @ 9:47 am

Zachriel Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Bradford: The mere perception of pressure applied to sway the outcome of an election is enough to spring an investigation that could trigger legal sanctions against an employer.

The Bush Administration was very lax on enforcement, and even under the best of circumstances, employees feel intimidated when management pulls them aside and "predicts" that their jobs are imperiled if they vote for a union. Businesses often fire union organizers in direct violation of the law, tie it up in court, then eventually pay a fine as a cost of doing business. The system appears broken.

Signing a petition is not anti-democratic, and is an important part of the electoral process.

Bradford: Intimidation of workers can potentially come from two sources- unions and management.

Sometimes. Management generally has much more power than unorganized labor. In any case, pretending one source of intimidation doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem.

Bradford: Fellow workers can apply pressure which is why elections should be via secret ballots. That way neither pressure source can know how one voted.

It takes more than a secret ballot to have a fair election. Workers have to be able to organize and campaign openly. By the way, card check has been legal since the 1930's, but requires the agreement of management.

Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2009 @ 10:02 am

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Zachriel:

The Bush Administration was very lax on enforcement,

I dunno where you're getting that from. I dealt with a labor issue early during the Bush term and can tell you the Labor Dept. officials were not a bit intimidated by anyone inside or out of the government.

and even under the best of circumstances, employees feel intimidated when management pulls them aside and "predicts" that their jobs are imperiled if they vote for a union.

A company offical would be foolish to do that.

Businesses often fire union organizers in direct violation of the law, tie it up in court, then eventually pay a fine as a cost of doing business. The system appears broken.

Do you have evidence to support this?

Signing a petition is not anti-democratic, and is an important part of the electoral process.

Petitions are signed during the initial stage. The Labor Dept. gets involved after getting a petition which then brings about a supervised election. Unions are intimidating too Zach. They are also very big and powerful. Workers need the assurance they won't get caught in the middle.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 10:41 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
During his report, correspondent Brian Wilson asserted of the Employee Free Choice Act: "Well, basically, it will radically change the way that unions can be formed. Instead of secret ballots, union organizers can walk up with a card and get the employee's answer in person," echoing the falsehood that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union.

Organized Labor sent GM down the toilet. Unions could destroy more companies. Bad for shareholders. Bad for being competititve in a global environment.

Silicon Valley is not unionized.

This bill will allow the Government to bring in arbitrators settle wage disputes. Bad idea.

Let the bill pass and the unions will do for America what they did for GM.

This bill will allow intimidation by both the unions and management. The employees get screwed in the end.

On a related note, the TARP bill provisions to "fire foreign workers before firing American workers" is the height of stupidity. So is a business required to fire a foreign worker (say an MBA finaanceer with experience and a track record of making millions for a company) or a scientist (like a Bio-tech PhD) before firing a mail clerk whose had a track record of under performing and insubordinaiton? How the heck can businesses interpret and implement such a stupid law? The Government strong arms some companies to accept TARP and then meddles in their buisiness. Not cool.

The government should butt out, and let the business be the best judge of who will be best to keep. American companies can't hope to be globally competitive working under this kind of Government mandated stupidity.

American graduate schools and business are competitive because we recruit the best in world (as in Americans and foreigners).

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 11, 2009 @ 11:53 am

chunkdz Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Todd,

Still, I hate to say it but I agree with Bradford on this one.

Why do you "hate to say it"?

I agreed with you recently on another thread. I didn't "hate to say it".

Is it a difficult thing for you to admit that Bradford is right about something? I'm not trying to be inflammatory – this is a very genuine area of interest for me.

Comment by chunkdz — March 11, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
chunkdz: Why do you "hate to say it"?

Because as bad as the Republician party managed the country while they controlled the White House and the Senate I feel dirty agreeing with them on anything.

Is it a difficult thing for you to admit that Bradford is right about something?

Oh please, get off your high horse. If I had an issue agreeing with Bradford I would have simply not done it.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 11, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

chunkdz Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Todd: Because as bad as the Republician party managed the country while they controlled the White House and the Senate I feel dirty agreeing with them on anything.

Honest partisanship. Thanks.

Oh please, get off your high horse.

I don't have a high horse. I used to feel much the way you do.

If I had an issue agreeing with Bradford I would have simply not done it.

I was just curious about the need to qualify our beliefs. I think that if someone truly doesn't have an issue then there should be no reason to qualify a statement of agreement with "I hate to say this".

It's interesting but since I began my exploration of ID I've never experienced this emotion of feeling "dirty" or "hating" to agree with ID critics. I've welcomed convincing arguments from critics because they help me dial in my critical thinking skills, and my views have definitely changed over the last 15 years or so – directly as a result of critics.

This "hate to say it" phenomenon, or the partisan feeling of "dirtiness" is something I generally experienced during the liberal atheist portion of my life.

Not drawing any conclusions here. Just thinking out loud.

Comment by chunkdz — March 11, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

Bradford Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
chunkdz: It's interesting but since I began my exploration of ID I've never experienced this emotion of feeling "dirty" or "hating" to agree with ID critics.

It's the politics of personal destruction, chunkdz and it extends to ID. Mention names like Dembski, Behe, Egnor, Rush Limbaugh and others to critics and note the savage attacks that result from discussions of these individuals. At TT critics are restrained but remind yourself of the depth of their hatred by frequenting unmonitored forums. It's appalling. I've mentioned the incident before and will do so again because the experience is instructive. I submitted a comment on a fairly well known science blog defending a university math professor and friend of mine. During the exchanges, which involved mostly hostile critics, Dembski's name surfaced and a commentator ridiculed Dembski's autistic child. I know there are knuckleheads of every POV but what bothered me most was that I was the only commenter who pointed out that this was way over the top. IOW, Dembski's persona was so villified it was as if anything goes. Anything said about him or Egnor or Limbaugh is OK because you know what those people are like. It's the Bull Conner attitude diverted from racist motivated targets to ideological ones. Behind it all is an immense degree of arrogance that takes no prisoners.

Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

JAllen Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
From Redundancy – A Mark of Design? by JJS P.Eng.:

JJS P.Eng. Says: I would expect an engineer to have redundancy in mind and to actualise it in his/her design.

From Irreducible Complexity Posted by JJS P.Eng.

JJS P.Eng. Says: The concept IC as defined by Michael Behe is simple, brilliant and stands as a potential marker of design. To provide backup, Behe eloquently presented several cases of IC systems (cilia, flagellum, blood clotting, etc.).

Irreducible complexity = no redundancy.

Comment by JAllen — March 12, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Good day JAllen. I agree that IC and redundancy are polar opposites, but both can be design objectives.

BTW, I really hope GM and/or Chrysler go into bankruptcy protection. Sure it'll hurt for a while, but both can come out stronger and more competitive (short term pain for long term gain).

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 12, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

JAllen Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Good day JAllen. I agree that IC and redundancy are polar opposites, but both can be design objectives.

BTW, I really hope GM and/or Chrysler go into bankruptcy protection. Sure it'll hurt for a while, but both can come out stronger and more competitive (short term pain for long term gain).

Yeah, I guess both could be design objectives – or, as you pointed out, they could be the result of unintended happenstance; or maybe the designer is constrained or limited in some way. If only we had some context like what was/is the Designer trying to do? What challenges did/does the Designer encounter – self imposed and/or beyond Its control? What kind of tolerance – how much deviation from the ideal (as defined by the Designer) – is acceptable and/or unavoidable?

As for GM and/or Chrysler – maybe they can take a page from the ID play book. It's been bankrupt for centuries and yet still going strong.

Comment by JAllen — March 13, 2009 @ 10:35 am

JJS P.Eng. Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Good day JAllen.

Yeah, I guess both could be design objectives – or, as you pointed out, they could be the result of unintended happenstance; or maybe the designer is constrained or limited in some way. If only we had some context like what was/is the Designer trying to do? What challenges did/does the Designer encounter – self imposed and/or beyond Its control? What kind of tolerance – how much deviation from the ideal (as defined by the Designer) – is acceptable and/or unavoidable?

Excuse me while I (mildly) vent for a moment…

I've seen this argument in different forms before, usually as "We need to know the Designer first before ID can be a valid theory". To counter, I would ask "Do you need to know everything about evolution before forming a theory? Or even a hypothesis?" That takes all the fun and work out of the investigation process. Making assumptions and testing them is part of the investigation process. For instance, Mike assumed the Designer intervened once and is human-like. Can this be tested? Sure it can, but it won't be confirmed/falsified by one experiment alone. The same goes for evolution. It is the amount of evidence that tilts the scales in one direction or the other.

As for GM and/or Chrysler – maybe they can take a page from the ID play book. It's been bankrupt for centuries and yet still going strong.

But ID gets no government money. ID needs no stinking government money.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 13, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Irreducible complexity = no redundancy.

Not exactly.

A single navigation system on a space shuttle might be irreducibly complex (there are clearly essential parts). The space shuttle may have up to 5 of these irreducibly complex systems.

Thus redundancy can be composed of IC components. The system is redundant, but the underlying components are IC. A complex machine (or organism) can have both.

Redundancy poses serious problems for Darwinian evolution from a population genetics stand point: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 14, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Here is a great video on the current credit crisis:

http://www.crisisofcredit.com/

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 14, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
JSS: Good day JAllen. I agree that IC and redundancy are polar opposites, but both can be design objectives.

This nicely illustrates what a useless concept 'design' is. Two polar opposites yet both could be seen as indicators of design. Design is so meaningless that you can choose to see absolutely anything as design. It's the very definition of a vacuous extraneous factor.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 14, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:50 am
JSS: Good day JAllen. I agree that IC and redundancy are polar opposites, but both can be design objectives.

Todd: This nicely illustrates what a useless concept 'design' is. Two polar opposites yet both could be seen as indicators of design. Design is so meaningless that you can choose to see absolutely anything as design.

It has been claimed that both IC and redundancy are to be expected from MET. Does that mean that MET is a useless concept?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 8:50 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:56 am
fifth monarchy man: It has been claimed that both IC and redundancy are to be expected from MET. Does that mean that MET is a useless concept?

No. Because, unlike ID, the Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that IC is a signature test for the presence of natural evolutionary processes. The Theory of Evolution depends on multiple lines of evidence, including the nested hierarchy and observed mechanisms of evolution.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 8:56 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:01 am
No. Because, unlike ID, the Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that IC is a signature test for the presence of natural evolutionary processes.

Is there any signature test for the presence of natural evolutionary processes or can MET simply explain everything?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 9:01 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:06 am
The Theory of Evolution depends on multiple lines of evidence, including the nested hierarchy and observed mechanisms of evolution.

So does FLE and with FLE you get the added bonus of explaining things like early unexpected complexity and the origin of life .

Your point is?

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 9:06 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:09 am
fifth monarchy man: Is there any signature test for the presence of natural evolutionary processes or can MET explain everything?

No, there is no single test that can *prove* the Theory of Evolution. Darwin considered Origin of Species to be just an abstract. And science has advanced significantly since then.

The Theory of Evolution depends on multiple lines of evidence. We start with the nested hierarchy.

fifth monarchy man: So does FLE and with FLE you get the added bonus of explaining things like early unexpected complexity and the origin of life .

FLE is vacuous speculation and doesn't provide a scientific explanation.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 9:09 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:23 am
FLE is vacuous speculation and doesn't provide a scientific explanation.

You use that term a lot. Are you sure you know what it means? A vacuous speculation would not explain more of what we observe than a valid theory would it?

No, there is no single test that can *prove* the Theory of Evolution.

Does that mean that it can not be proven false as well?

No single test can prove FLE either does that mean it’s on par scientifically with MET? or does that mean it is vacuous?

I have a hard time keeping up with your inconsistency. can you explain the difference between the two.

The Theory of Evolution depends on multiple lines of evidence. We start with the nested hierarchy.

So does FLE and it explains more of what we see. Your point is?

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 9:23 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:42 am
fifth monarchy man: A vacuous speculation would not explain more of what we observe than a valid theory would it?

A vacuous speculation is one that has no empirical implications, a Celestial Teapot.

Zachriel: No, there is no single test that can *prove* the Theory of Evolution.

fifth monarchy man: Does that mean that it can not be proven false as well?

Leaving aside the problem of naïve falsification, there are many ways to falsify the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution has been modified many times in the light of new discoveries—and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 9:42 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Leaving aside the problem of naïve falsification, there are many ways to falsify the Theory of Evolution.

Name three that are not of the “naïve falsification” variety please

Indeed, the Theory of Evolution has been modified many times in the light of new discoveries—and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future.

So when MET is proven to be incorrect empirically it is modified but never abandoned that’s what makes it a robust theory.

When FLE does the same thing it’s vacuous. I think I'm starting to get the picture

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 10:00 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
A vacuous speculation is one that has no empirical implications, a Celestial Teapot.

The origin of life and unexpected early complexity are not empirical implications? What about the existence of a hibernation mechanism to protect certain noncoding DNA from selection that has been postulated?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am
fifth monarchy man: The origin of life and unexpected early complexity are not empirical implications?

"The origin of life is due to the Celestial Teapot. Isn't the origin of life an empirical implication?"

The origin of life is not properly empirical, nor is it entailed in the claim, and it doesn't distinguish it from the infinity of other such claims. The Celestial Teapot is scientifically vacuous, even if it could conceivably be true.

At least the Celestial Teapot of reasonably specific. It's not a coffee pot.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 10:13 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:18 am
A vacuous speculation is one that has no empirical implications, a Celestial Teapot.

for example FLE would predict something like this

Would MET, why?

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 10:18 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
"The origin of life is due to the Celestial Teapot. Isn't the origin of life an empirical implication?"

No because a Celestial Teapot could exist with out creating life. A Frontloader on the other hand is not a frontloader unless he frontloads

The origin of life is not properly empirical, nor is it entailed in the claim, and it doesn't distinguish it from the infinity of other such claims

Why not? Please explain and not just posture.

It seems to me that it is empirical and is entailed by definition and does distinguish FLE from MET at least because MET does not explain The OOL it only assumes it

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 10:28 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:40 am
fifth monarchy man: What about the existence of a hibernation mechanism to protect certain noncoding DNA from selection that has been postulated?

If it could be shown that complex structures with no function were maintained over geologically significant periods of time, that would call into question our current understanding of the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't necessarily help FLE because they may not be conserved for reasons to do with future utility.

fifth monarchy man: for example FLE would predict something like this

Would MET, why?

Did you happen to read the paper? Genes evolve and mammals have huge libraries of genetic components. There are some questions as to the exact history involved, but there are reasonable hypotheses such as that critical genes are involved in an arms race with parasites.

In order to support such a broad rewriting of evolutionary theory requires much more than the occasional anomaly. There's always anomalies! Especially when trying to unravel historical events that left little evidence. Especially when the process involved has properties akin to intelligence.

FLE could be considered as a hypothesis, but there just isn't any supporting evidence. Just as we could investigate the existence of a Celestial Teapot. There's no evidence of that either.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 10:40 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Zachriel: The origin of life is not properly empirical, nor is it entailed in the claim, and it doesn't distinguish it from the infinity of other such claims

fifth monarchy man: Why not? It seems to me that it is empirical and is entailed by definition and does distinguish FLE from MET at least because MET does not explain The OOL it only assumes it

Empirical means observation. We don't observe the origin of life. We infer it from scientific observations.

Just waving around the term "Front-loading" is not specific enough to derive any particulars. You may as well say "Front-loading Teapot". At least that has some specifics. Your semantic argument is vacuous, but perhaps you could state an actual hypothesis.

For instance, from the Theory of Common Descent, we can predict that whales and land mammals share a common ancestor. From the pattern of evidence, we can predict the geological period in which such transitional organisms lived. Actually looking and finding such a fossil organism is what we mean by an empirical observation.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 10:56 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am
In order to support such a broad rewriting of evolutionary theory requires much more than the occasional anomaly. There's always anomalies!

Isn’t that what the Ptolemaic astronomers said?

That doesn't necessarily help FLE because they may not be conserved for reasons to do with future utility.

What? “fighting against new or newly resistant infectious agents” seems to have a lot to do with future utility

FLE could be considered as a hypothesis, but there just isn't any supporting evidence.

I thought you said it was vacuous please make up your mind?

Why is a conserved but not unexpressed gene that is turned back on after millions of years to serve an important function not supporting evidence?

Empirical means observation. We don't observe the origin of life.

This will change as soon as we see life created in a lab will FLE be a theory then?

We infer it from scientific observations.

We don’t observe unguided evolution on the scale that ID is disputing does this mean that that part of MET is also vacuous?

Just waving around the term "Front-loading" is not specific enough to derive any particulars. You may as well say "Front-loading Teapot".

I’ve given specifics in this very thread Perhaps you missed them

Your semantic argument is vacuous, but perhaps you could state an actual hypothesis

Please list the ways that my argument is different than yours I don’t see any.

For instance, from the Theory of Common Descent blabla bla

Come on Zach you know better than that. This is not a YEC site you need to do better than Common Descent if you want your argument to be taken seriously here.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 11:36 am

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Zachriel: If it could be shown that complex structures with no function were maintained over geologically significant periods of time, that would call into question our current understanding of the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't necessarily help FLE because they may not be conserved for reasons to do with future utility.

fifth monarchy man: What? “fighting against new or newly resistant infectious agents” seems to have a lot to do with future utility

The paper you cited does not support Front-Loading, but evolutionary processes, including long-term balancing selection and recurrent mutations. "Our data suggest remarkable functional plasticity where alleles experience diverse evolutionary pressures over time."

Zachriel: FLE could be considered as a hypothesis, but there just isn't any supporting evidence.

fifth monarchy man: I thought you said it was vacuous please make up your mind?

I'll rephrase for clarity. Celestial Teapots have the advantage of being specific enough for testing. Everything you've mentioned about FLE is mere handwaving and untestable, and you haven't shown how any specifics are entailed in FLE. But someone could conceivably state FLE in a non-vacuous form, but just like Celestial Teapots, there's just no supporting evidence.

Zachriel: The origin of life is not properly empirical… Empirical means observation. We don't observe the origin of life.

fifth monarchy man: This will change as soon as we see life created in a lab will FLE be a theory then?

The answer is no, unless by FLE you mean a theory about human-created life, which you don't.

Zachriel: We infer {the origin of life} from scientific observations.

fifth monarchy man: We don’t observe unguided evolution on the scale that ID is disputing

That's right. We don't directly observe evolution over geological time-scales. We infer it from the evidence; starting with the nested hierarchy.

fifth monarchy man: does this mean that that part of MET is also vacuous?

No, because it has empirical implications that we can observe. I gave an example above. From the Theory of Common Descent, we can predict that whales and land mammals share a common ancestor. From the overall pattern of evidence, we can predict the geological period in which such transitional organisms lived. Actually looking and finding such a fossil organism in specific strata is what we mean by an empirical observation.

—
At first glance, you seem to be trolling. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, it seems you just don't understand the very basics of science. Do you understand what we mean by entailing? By an observation?

Try this exercise. State a clear hypothesis in any field of inquiry, state an entailed prediction, and say how it might be tested. Then try it with FLE. Here's an example.

Hypothesis: The Earth rotates.
Entailed Implication: The Earth will bulge at its equator.
Prediction: Being farther from the Earth's center of gravity, pendulums should move more slowly (retardation) in equatorial regions.
Confirmation: November 7, 1677, on St. Helena, by Edmond Halley.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Zachriel: For instance, from the Theory of Common Descent …

fifth monarchy man: Come on Zach you know better than that. This is not a YEC site you need to do better than Common Descent if you want your argument to be taken seriously here.

The example is to show how we take a theory and determine an entailed prediction, meaning a prediction that is a necessary consequent of the claim.

Zachriel: Your semantic argument is vacuous, but perhaps you could state an actual hypothesis

fifth monarchy man: Please list the ways that my argument is different than yours I don’t see any.

Excellent question, which you just answered for yourself. When I ask for an actual hypothesis, you neglect to provide one.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The paper you cited does not support Front-Loading, but evolutionary processes, including long-term balancing selection and recurrent mutations.

FLE is an evolutionary process just not a undirected one and the long term balancing we are talking about is over millions of years.

Underected evolition can only deal with the present not the future.

The answer is no, unless by FLE you mean a theory about human-created life, which you don't.

How about a designer created life?
In all probability the actual creation of life will be done by robots that were only built and programmed by humans.

No, because it has empirical implications that we can observe.I gave an example above. From the Theory of Common Descent, bla bla bla

Do you think this is Answers in Genesis?

Try this exercise. State a clear hypothesis in any field of inquiry, state an entailed prediction, and say how it might be tested. Then try it with FLE.

Life was frontloaded

Prediction
A robust platform to facilitate directed changes and minimize unwanted mutations

Confirmation (the cell)

Prediction
A medium that enables long term information storage

Confirmation(DNA)

Prediction

Instances of information lying dormant for long periods only to be expressed at a later time

Confirmation (well you know)

Prediction

Unexpected early complexities in the history of life that are unnecessary from a purely evolutionary standpoint

Confirmation (well you know)

I could go on but I you get the point

now you try it With MET (not common decent or "micro" evolition.)

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
fifth monarchy man: FLE is an evolutionary process just not a undirected one and the long term balancing we are talking about is over millions of years.

You cited a paper, which you don't seem to have bothered to read. Then when I do read it, it supports "diverse evolutionary pressures over time."

fifth monarchy man: Underected evolition can only deal with the present not the future.

Not quite correct. Evolution includes the memory of its past. And that past can sometimes be a guide to the future.

fifth monarchy man: Life was frontloaded

Prediction A robust platform to facilitate directed changes and minimize unwanted mutations

Confirmation (the cell)

Prediction A medium that enables long term information storage

Confirmation(DNA)

All you're doing here is assuming your conclusion and pointing to known facts.

fifth monarchy man: Prediction Instances of information lying dormant for long periods only to be expressed at a later time

But we already know that evolution leaves stuff laying around. We call them vestigial. And sometimes they can acquire new functions, or even reacquire old functions.

fifth monarchy man: Prediction Unexpected early complexities in the history of life that are unnecessary from a purely evolutionary standpoint

There were billions of years of evolution preceding the Cambrian, so it is quite expected that a lot of things happened during those vast stretches of time. Such things as the evolution of complex cells and intercellular communication.

I think I understand what you're trying to claim, but it seems to exist in the Gaps.

fifth monarchy man: now you try it With MET (not common decent or "micro" evolition.)

The Theory of Evolution depends on the Theory of Common Descent and direct observations of evolution (e.g. microevolution). You can't just strip them away. But given these, we see evolution as a radiative process with most branches going extinct. This is what we expect from an evolutionary process that explores the space surrounding existing nodes.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
You cited a paper, which you don't seem to have bothered to read. Then when I do read it, it supports "diverse evolutionary pressures over time."

That is a statement void of scientific content if I ever saw one. Did any one actually believe that evolutionary pressures were uniform over time?

All you're doing here is assuming your conclusion and pointing to known facts

Is that not what Darwin did? Keep in mind the facts I mention are not predicted by Met. In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo rather than robust platform for the preservation of information.

But we already know that evolution leaves stuff laying around. We call them vestigial. And sometimes they can acquire new functions, or even reacquire old functions.

So once again you are saying that MET explains everything both the removal of unnecessary information and the conservation of at present unnecessary information for future use.

we see evolution as a radiative process with most branches going extinct.

So your only prediction is that most species will be extinct at the present.

Why is this not assuming your conclusion and pointing to known facts?

I could just as easily say that frontloaded evolution requires extinctions in order to free up space for the unfolding information.

If we saw few extinctions in the fossil record you could simply say that evolution predicts that species will adapt and change with the environment rather than go extinct.

You don’t have much do you?

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Zachriel: You cited a paper, which you don't seem to have bothered to read. Then when I do read it, it supports "diverse evolutionary pressures over time."

fifth monarchy man: That is a statement void of scientific content if I ever saw one. Did any one actually believe that evolutionary pressures were uniform over time?

You cited the paper.

Zachriel: All you're doing here is assuming your conclusion and pointing to known facts

fifth monarchy man: Is that not what Darwin did?

I think you've got the wrong guy. Darwin sailed around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species in one of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.

Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms established his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his age without even mentioning Origin of Species.

Here is a list of Darwin's primary scientific output:

* The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
* Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
* The Breeding of Animals
* The structure and distribution of coral reefs.
* Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency
* On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planaria; Lizard's eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc.

Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest scientist of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today.

fifth monarchy man: In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo rather than robust platform for the preservation of information.

Assuming by Darwinist, you mean to include Darwin, he wrote "As, however, a cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts."

Considering this knowledge is easily available, it is astounding that it keeps being propagated in the ID Community.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
JJS: Good day JAllen. I agree that IC and redundancy are polar opposites, but both can be design objectives.

Todd B.: This nicely illustrates what a useless concept 'design' is. Two polar opposites yet both could be seen as indicators of design. Design is so meaningless that you can choose to see absolutely anything as design. It's the very definition of a vacuous extraneous factor.

Tood, if design was meaningless, then engineering is meaningless, and since engineers are responsible for almost everything you do in a day, that means your life is meaningless.

Thank you for openly demonstrating your inability to grasp a concept. It provides myself with remarkable clarity of how you are inable to seriously and objectively approach this debate.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 15, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
You cited the paper.

The Scientific part of the paper said this in English……..

The IGRM Gene was nonfunctional but not deleted for 20 million years only to be switched on again perhaps by a retrovirus.

The researcher’s conclusion was, again in English………

All this suggests that the Genome is remarkably flexible in it’s functionality.

Well duh

Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest scientist of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today.

I know you love the guy but that does not change the fact that he took known facts and explained them in a new way to support his conclution. That's what great thinkers do.

Darwin Quote:
a cell……must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts."

End quote

This proves my point nicely. There is nothing here about a robust platform for the preservation of information over the long term.

He only thought a cell should be complex enough to "reproduce all the parts".

The difference between this and what would be predicted by FLE could not be more clear.

it is astounding that it keeps being propagated in the ID Community.

It is even more astounding that you post something that supports my position while believing it helps your own. it's almost laughable

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
fifth monarchy man: All this suggests that the Genome is remarkably flexible in it’s functionality.

That's correct. The researchers point out that the flexibility is the result of diverse evolutionary pressures over time. And nothing about Front-loading from Precambrian times.

fifth monarchy man: does not change the fact that he took known facts and explained them in a new way to support his conclution. That's what great thinkers do.

Again, no. I'm not sure what's wrong with your reading abilities, but Darwin discovered volumes of new facts and made substantive predictions.

fifth monarchy man: This proves my point nicely.

You had said, "In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo". That is simply false.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
The researchers point out that the flexibility is the result of diverse evolutionary pressures over time. And nothing about Front-loading from Precambrian times.

You forget my prediction was only………..

Instances of information lying dormant for long periods only to be expressed at a later time
The paper confirms my prediction nicely and therfore supports FLE

Darwin discovered volumes of new facts and made substantive predictions.

I’m sure he loved his momma as well but that has little to do with the fact that when he presented his theory he for the most part just took known facts and explained them in a new way to support his conclusion.

Perhaps you mistook my limited statement to mean that that’s all he did if so I apologize I’m sure he did lots of other things as well but those are beside the point I was trying to make. which is that when you present a theory you for the most part simply cast known information in a new light.

You had said, "In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo". That is simply false.

No I actually said………..

In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo rather than robust platform for the preservation of information.

This point has been made by your own quote.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 15, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
fifth monarchy man: Instances of information lying dormant for long periods only to be expressed at a later time
The paper confirms my prediction nicely and therfore supports FLE

As Darwin discusses vestigial structures acquiring new functions in Origin of Species, your 'prediction' is non-distinguishing. And from this you think you can support a poorly described and non-detectable Front-loading process.

fifth monarchy man: but that has little to do with the fact that when he presented his theory he for the most part just took known facts and explained them in a new way to support his conclusion.

Darwin amassed a huge amount of new data, as well as integrated existing data, and then made substantial predictions that have been confirmed through numerous methodologies.

fifth monarchy man: In fact Darwinists expected the cell to be a glob of goo rather than robust platform for the preservation of information.

In other words, you leave a misleading statement stand, even when you were provided resources so that you could verify that Darwin was quite aware that cells were complex structures, and not just a "glob of goo".

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

JT Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Zachriel-

If you don't mind answering a question about mutagenation, how many mutations on average does it take to get any valid 7 letter (or N letter) word (starting from 0 letters).

Comment by JT — March 15, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
JT: If you don't mind answering a question about mutagenation, how many mutations on average does it take to get any valid 7 letter (or N letter) word (starting from 0 letters).

About one in a 700K seven-letter sequences form a valid word. In a Pond with enough niches for 100 species of words, it takes about 7K (+/- ~3K) mutants (the vast majority of which are still-born, of course). That's about 100x faster than random trial. These numbers are representative from a small sample (but results vary widely).

Pond = 100
Letters, Mutants, Faster
7, 7K, 100x
8, 20K, 800x
9, 35K, 13000x
10, 75K, 192000x
11, 250K, 2 million x
12, 1000K, 20 millions x

Larger words take a larger Pond Size to maintain sufficient diversity. You can't grow elephants in a Petri dish. These are a few samples runs with varying Pond Size.

Length = 10
Pond, Mutants, Per
100, 75K, 750
250, 125K, 500
1000, 200K, 200

Large Ponds take fewer generations (offspring per member of the population), though more computational time. A trillion bacteria can replicate just as quickly as a single bacterium. Not so for a computer simulation.

If you remove the restriction on Pond Size, Word Mutagenation will explore nearly a third of the Dictionary in a few hours.

Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

JT Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Thanks

I guess I could have asked for similar statistics on Phrasenator as well.

Also, was wondering where the most extensive documentation on the algorithms and software features for mutageneator and phrasenator would be. For example, on the your mutagenator page, it doesn't discuss "Ponds" (and other mutagenator functions like "Sterilize". )

On Phrasenator, was assuming that it generated all the words first and then formed phrases by randomly selecting words, but evidently that's not correct.

Comment by JT — March 15, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

Zachriel Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am
The VBasic software is open source and is accessible from Excel.

The concept is that each word is a species. The Pond Size represents the number of available niches (or population of species). Sterilize just starts over and resets.

JT: On Phrasenator, was assuming that it generated all the words first and then formed phrases by randomly selecting words, but evidently that's not correct.

Phrasenator works just like Mutagenator, letter mutation and arbitrary recombination. Mutagenator was limited by the length of words in the Dictionary, and maxes out around 16-18 letters. The words (phrases) in the 'Dictionary' (Phrase Book) for Phrasenator are much longer allowing us to test evolution for longer sequences. That's the only significant difference. It takes many hours, but with very large Book Sizes (population), I've seen phrases as long as 90-letters.

JT: Also, was wondering where the most extensive documentation on the algorithms and software features for mutageneator and phrasenator would be.

These programs were designed to answer specific questions. Documentation is either found on the website, or on the talk.origins newgroup. Unfortunately, that means much of the information is scattered about. It starts with a poem, Beware a War of Words, showing that islands of meaning are not isolated, but connected even for very long sequences. Mutagenator demonstrates word evolution. Phrasenator extends the concept to hundreds of bits.

It's a toy-program, so don't expect much. But it was sufficient to its purpose. Load it up, click the Mutagenate button, and you should see 10-12 letter words in just moments.

Comment by Zachriel — March 16, 2009 @ 8:16 am

Open Thread: Sleeping Dog

56 Responses to “Open Thread: Sleeping Dog”

Featured Books