Angry Doctor

Thursday, July 10, 2008

It's just a THEORY, stupid 2

Reader zhanzhao made the comment in the previous post that evolution "cannot be observed under lab conditions, vaildated [sic] nor replicated".

He is partly correct.

Evolution has been observed and validated in a lab condition, but curiously, it could not be replicated*.

Leng Hiong covered this interesting experiment briefly earlier. If you want a more detailed account but do not want to read the original paper, Bad Science has a post on an exchange between the investigator and a critic which covers some of the details of the experiment.

Both are well-worth a read.


* - Edit: On closer reading of the posts I realise that the citrate+ trait does "re-evolve" in the 'ancestors' of the populations of E. coli that evolved the trait, but not in the other 11 populations in the study, so in a sense evolution has been observed to be replicated. I apologise for the error.

Labels: ,

posted by angry doc at 9:45 am

53 Comments:

  • Just to clarify Creationism and Intelligent Design are two very different beasts. Creationist take the Adam and Eve stuff for granted. The ID crowd believe that evolution is guided by an Intelligent Designer usually assumed to be the Abrahamic God.

    For Creationism, well except for the Book, there is no empirical evidence at all. ID on the other hand is a little more difficult to sweep aside. ID does not deny that evolution through natural selection takes place, especially at small time scales (a few generations) but that the entire process is guided on a much large one, like a farmer breeding pigeons from dinosaurs. The phenotypes we see didn't arrive by mere accident.

    Basically, falsifying ID through lab experiments can be rules out. The time scales are just way to huge. The fossil records may say something but the gaps in them are quit large.

    btw don't quite get how knowledge about gene regulatory networks are suppose to support the theory of evolution through natural selection. Gene regulatory networks connect genes to cell biology but don't explain the distribution of genes.

    On the other hand more knowledge of gene regulatory networks will support Intelligent Design as it would allow us (intelligent designers) to better engineering phenotypes from a genetic foundations.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 6:36 am  

  • "Basically, falsifying ID through lab experiments can be rules out. The time scales are just way to huge. The fossil records may say something but the gaps in them are quit large."

    Doesn't that mean that intelligent design belongs to the category of unfalsifiable "theories" which include cosmic teapots, fairies and sphagetti monsters?

    Or did you mean to say that ID can be falsified via non-lab experiments/data?

    By Blogger I must be stupid, At July 11, 2008 8:12 am  

  • Like I said, this is not my field, but I think some basic principles still apply, so here's myy take:

    "On the other hand more knowledge of gene regulatory networks will support Intelligent Design..."

    That's not true.

    Whether it is through gene regulatory network or some other mechanism, evolution must operate through some sort of mechanism.

    The existence of a mechanism only tells us that there is a mechanism, it does not tell us that the mechanism is there because it has been designed, or that it is there so that design can work.

    In other word, the existence of a mechanism says nothing about intent. The mechanics of evolution is not there so we, or anyone, can design organisms, anymore than the laws of physics are there so we can design a rocket - we designed a rocket around the laws of physics, not the other way round.

    By Blogger angry doc, At July 11, 2008 8:24 am  

  • You might be surprise, people have been trying to craft master races through selective breeding..... and I'm not talking about the Nazis, its more recent and at home ;)

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 9:20 am  

  • Anonymous Sprachen Sie Singlish? wrote in part:

    Just to clarify Creationism and Intelligent Design are two very different beasts.

    ID *is* Creationism in a new guise. Religious nutjobs tried to sneak religion into the classroom by disguising Creationism in scientific garb.

    Interested readers can read more in Pharyngula's Blog Sewage by any other name would smell just as putrid and What the Dover Case Says.

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 10:39 am  

  • The transitional species says it all - cdesign proponentsists.

    By Blogger Lab Rat, At July 11, 2008 10:45 am  

  • Lab Rat:

    And you're believing this just because of the contents of this one book? Hmmm, another best selling book comes to mind here ;)

    PZ:

    Creationists believe everything was created and over and done with, fullstop. Intelligent design proposes that the past, present and future of a species was "designed" that way.... note the "future" clause. In fact ID proponents acknowledge that the ability and "margin of error" to evolve is "precoded" into the DNA of a species. It has even been commented that ID seeks to be a logical middle ground between the absolutes of creationism and evolution theory.

    Hardcore creationists would be insulted to be mistaken with hardcore ID Proponents, and vice versa.

    Charles Townes (Nobel Prize Winner for work on masers) summarized this nicely:

    ===========
    Science and religion have had a long interaction: some of it has been good and some of it hasn't. As Western science grew, Newtonian mechanics had scientists thinking that everything is predictable, meaning there's no room for God - so-called determinism. Religious people didn't want to agree with that. Then Darwin came along, and they really didn't want to agree with what he was saying, because it seemed to negate the idea of a creator. So there was a real clash for a while between science and religions.

    But science has been digging deeper and deeper, and as it has done so, particularly in the basic sciences like physics and astronomy, we have begun to understand more. We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. For example, we don't know what some 95 percent of the matter in the universe is: we can't see it - it's neither atom nor molecule, apparently. We think we can prove it's there, we see its effect on gravity, but we don't know what and where it is, other than broadly scattered around the universe. And that's very strange.

    So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.
    ============

    Its alway been with an open mind that the human race as a species has "evolved". Have we really reached the pinnacle of our understanding of the universe that we put a cap on what we can learn and confine ourselves with absolutes? Then that would make us no different from the fundies in terms of our logic.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 12:04 pm  

  • Sprachen sie singlish? says:

    "btw don't quite get how knowledge about gene regulatory networks are suppose to support the theory of evolution through natural selection. Gene regulatory networks connect genes to cell biology but don't explain the distribution of genes."

    Studying gene regulatory networks, especially those involved in embryo development, gives us a better picture of how DNA-level mutations translate into organism-level phenotypic changes. As Angry Doc observes correctly, this is to learn more about the mechanism of evolution.

    English poet William Wordsworth once wrote "The Child is the Father of the Man". Even Darwin recognized that incremental evolutionary changes to adult animal forms must be mediated through the developmental process.

    Organisms can be shaped by external factors such as natural selection, or internal factors such as mutational changes to their developmental networks.

    Current evidence indicates that both mechanisms are real, but their relative importance to the overall evolutionary process is still debatable.

    Not surprisingly, zoologists and population geneticists tend to focus more on natural selection, whereas molecular and developmental biologists tend to focus on mutations.

    The classic example of a developmental gene network playing a major role in the evolution of body shape is the HOX family of genes.

    If you are interested, you can read more about this:

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

    By Blogger The Key Question, At July 11, 2008 12:20 pm  

  • zhanzhao said...

    Hardcore creationists would be insulted to be mistaken with hardcore ID Proponents, and vice versa.

    This could well be if they were ignorant of the facts. If you want fact over fiction read "What the Dover Case says" - link provided earlier. The findings of the presiding judge might help enlighten you.

    Its always been with an open mind that the human race as a species has "evolved". Have we really reached the pinnacle of our understanding of the universe that we put a cap on what we can learn and confine ourselves with absolutes? Then that would make us no different from the fundies in terms of our logic.

    This is a regular, trumped-up charge by religious nutjobs and their apologists - that atheists and/or scientists are arrogant and not unlike "fundies". Who claims absolutes? Religion or science?

    Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion.

    One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse - which this is turning out to be - can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows.

    When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 12:29 pm  

  • Zhanzhao says:

    "Its alway been with an open mind that the human race as a species has "evolved". Have we really reached the pinnacle of our understanding of the universe that we put a cap on what we can learn and confine ourselves with absolutes? Then that would make us no different from the fundies in terms of our logic."

    Sounds like you are a pretty open minded person.

    Since you quoted Charles Townes on his views about God, would you be open to the possibility that God is a girl? (...do you believe it, can you receive it? - it's a song)

    Would you be open to the possibility that God loves dairy products and will subject the lactose-intolerant to eternal punishment?

    Or maybe God is a HR-Giger styled superalien with acidic blood, sharp teeth and a sadistic disdain for human beings. Maybe the divine plan is to breed lots of people and make them accuse each other of intolerance and absolutism so that they will destroy themselves in a blaze of glory.

    Is it even meaningful to speculate on all this?

    And if you don't even want to consider such possibilities can I accuse you of being a close-minded absolutist?

    By Blogger The Key Question, At July 11, 2008 1:01 pm  

  • "This is a regular, trumped-up charge by religious nutjobs and their apologists - that atheists and/or scientists are arrogant and not unlike "fundies". Who claims absolutes? Religion or science?"

    Lets look at the views of those who have posted here so far in this and the past 3 threads regarding this issue.

    Why don't you tell me who's been stating absolutes (belief or disbelief in one theory or another). Or else I could, and I shall quote the relevant posters/posts to boot.

    Shall we continue? I stand correct.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:05 pm  

  • Lim Leng Hiong:

    Anything is possible. Its just the degrees of possibility. Unless there's concrete proof, no point shutting the door. Your ball.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:07 pm  

  • Blogger zhanzhao said...

    Why don't you tell me who's been stating absolutes (belief or disbelief in one theory or another)Or else I could, and I shall quote the relevant posters/posts to boot..

    Who has been stating absolutes? What? Where?

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 1:18 pm  

  • off the top:

    "I suppose that you think that creationism is dead wrong (which it is) then."

    This is getting fun.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:21 pm  

  • Wait, lets make it more interesting.

    "Who claims absolutes? Religion or science?""

    I already posted one, you guys try to post one by the "religious nutjobs (hmmm is that term even unbiased?), and we'll do a count. Keeping track of the trail is getting boring anyway

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:26 pm  

  • Blogger zhanzhao said...

    Lim Leng Hiong:

    Anything is possible. Its just the degrees of possibility. Unless there's concrete proof, no point shutting the door. Your ball.

    How does one offer "concrete proof" of the non-existence of thirteen headed hydras and other mythical creatures in Greek mythology?

    So you are open to the possibility that these creatures *might* exist?

    "I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

    PZ

    P.S Sorry Heng Liong, I know it isn't my ball but I just couldn't resist.:-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 1:35 pm  

  • Zhanzhao says:

    "Anything is possible. Its just the degrees of possibility. Unless there's concrete proof, no point shutting the door. Your ball."

    Yup yup I definitely agree. Though I think we should pay more attention to high probability things and we can safely ignore low probability things.

    "off the top:

    "I suppose that you think that creationism is dead wrong (which it is) then."

    This is getting fun."

    I meant to say that creationism very very unlikely to be correct. I am open to the possibility that it could be correct, but I think it's so low that we can safely ignore it.

    Perhaps you can highlight some reasons why creationism is more compelling for you?

    By Blogger The Key Question, At July 11, 2008 1:44 pm  

  • "How does one offer "concrete proof" of the non-existence of thirteen headed hydras and other mythical creatures in Greek mythology?"


    PS: The hyrda had 7 heads I thought? Or was it another one...

    Anyways. I wouldn't jump to such concusions. Even now, we see the occasional 2 headed snake and 8-limbed humans. We call it a mutation. The ancients just wondered at them. The legends might have been questionable, but the possibility of such a creature existing is not.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:45 pm  

  • "Perhaps you can highlight some reasons why creationism is more compelling for you?"

    Actually its not entirely. There're good and bad points for all theories mentioned thus far (hence th ereason why there are proponents still around for all). As mentioned, I've argued from different angles in such debates. But with so many being pro-evolutionist, it would get boring if I merely harped along ;)

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 1:48 pm  

  • zhanzhao said...

    Wait, lets make it more interesting.

    I already posted one, you guys try to post one by the "religious nutjobs (hmmm is that term even unbiased?), and we'll do a count. Keeping track of the trail is getting boring anyway

    You brought this up. You can't offer the proof I asked for so it's suddenly boring and now want to change the rules of *your* game.

    And I thought only children played infantile games.

    "religious nutjobs (hmmm is that term even unbiased?)

    Denial, cognitive gymnastics and detachment from reality are irrational and typical symptoms of religious nutjobs. This observation is borne of fact and evidence and therefore cannot be be termed "biased".

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 1:50 pm  

  • zhanzhao said...

    The legends might have been questionable, but the possibility of such a creature existing is not.

    Want to investigate the existence of garden gnomes who inhabit English country gardens recounted in childrens' fables?

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 1:59 pm  

  • "You brought this up. You can't offer the proof I asked for so it's suddenly boring and now want to change the rules of *your* game."

    Ah but I provided the proof. Go ahead, ask any English teacher what "dead wrong" means and do get back to me with your findings.

    "Want to investigate the existence of garden gnomes who inhabit English country gardens recounted in childrens' fables?"

    Sure, but whats in it for me? Fund me a few billion dollars and I'll bring back the findings in 10 years time ;)

    PS: Mutations are stranger than you think and may account many of our "myths": real life "unicorn" herehttp://www.italylogue.com/italian-news/unicorn-found-in-italian-nature-park-near-florence.html

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 2:08 pm  

  • Zhanzhao says:

    "Actually its not entirely. There're good and bad points for all theories mentioned thus far (hence th ereason why there are proponents still around for all). As mentioned, I've argued from different angles in such debates. But with so many being pro-evolutionist, it would get boring if I merely harped along ;)"

    You seem to insist that just because some ideas exist, they are somehow equally likely to be true.

    This is demonstrably false.

    I've already brought up the example of the Titius-Bode Law vs Theory of Relativity in the other thread. You can safely ignore the Titius-Bode Law, but you can't do that for Relativity, certainly not for GPS applications.

    So what are the reasons why creationism is more compelling for you? Why can't we just ignore it?

    By Blogger The Key Question, At July 11, 2008 2:15 pm  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 2:23 pm  

  • "You seem to insist that just because some ideas exist, they are somehow equally likely to be true. So what are the reasons why creationism is more compelling for you? Why can't we just ignore it?"

    To which I repeat my answer: Anything is possible. Its just the degrees of possibility. Unless there's concrete proof, no point shutting the door. Whatever gave you the idea that I believe in creationism that much. Truth be told, I never bothered much about whether its true or not. Its the arguements and reasonings of the different camps that interest me;)

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 2:24 pm  

  • "Truth be told, I never bothered much about whether its true or not."

    Thank you Zhanzhao. Have a pleasant weekend.

    By Blogger The Key Question, At July 11, 2008 2:27 pm  

  • You too. This has been one of the most civil of such debates I've participated in. Die-harders (from which ever camp) can be a pain :P

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 3:25 pm  

  • Or did you mean to say that ID can be falsified via non-lab experiments/data?

    My original argument was that whatever evolutionary process created, lets say, the eye would be too long to recreate in the lab. Better yet would be as you suggested a nonlab study which keeps track of phenotypic changes in the eye over many, many generations.

    I don't think such experiments are feasible at the moment, just too long, but they are possible.

    In other word, the existence of a mechanism says nothing about intent. The mechanics of evolution is not there so we, or anyone, can design organisms, anymore than the laws of physics are there so we can design a rocket - we designed a rocket around the laws of physics, not the other way round.

    True. But knowing the laws of physics certainly makes it hell of a lot easier to design rockets. In the same vain, knowing about gene regulatory networks may make it hell of a lot easier to design organisms. We as human beings become the intelligent designers because our intent may be translated into a biological creation.

    Studying gene regulatory networks, especially those involved in embryo development, gives us a better picture of how DNA-level mutations translate into organism-level phenotypic changes.
    A basic evolution model requires
    1) genes
    2) phenotypes population
    3) selection process

    Developmental models describe genes to phenotype. There is no feedback via a selection process.

    btw the nomenclature tends to interpret the intelligent designer as some kind of God. I tends to interpret the intelligent designer as just human.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 3:59 pm  

  • Or just someone intelligent enough to have a vision, know what was required to realize it, know what he/she/it needed to create to accomplish it, and actually be able to do it.

    Now that doesn't sound so "magical" after all, now that we broke it down to the different components.

    By Blogger zhanzhao, At July 11, 2008 4:05 pm  

  • addendum

    Here is thought experiment in the light of my previous remarks on human intelligent designers.

    Given a new virus X that ravaged large chunks of human population, can we determine if X was a 'natural' virus or an 'intelligently designed' one. The response of course would be different based on the answer.

    This would be a special case of the more general Intelligent Design question which includes the non-human cases.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 11, 2008 6:43 pm  

  • In this thread, we see another classic claim that scientific minded people are not as open-minded as "religious nutjobs". :)

    reader zhanzhao likes to be open-minded and accepts all things as possible. That may be a nice personal philosphy but is of no help when one is trying to develop a model with predictive power.

    Science is not about being "open-minded" to endless lists of possibilities. It is about building self-consistent models that have predictive power.

    If you wish to wax lyrical, then you may sit around and come up with endless lists of things that are possible. But if you want to know how things work, then you better start doing some testing and cut down on that list.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but creationism/ID just doesnt have the predictive power that evolutionary theory has. And that's all that counts.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 12, 2008 8:11 am  

  • anonymous wrote in part:

    reader zhanzhao likes to be open-minded and accepts all things as possible. That may be a nice personal philosphy

    The pristine embrace of possibilities without requiring evidence espoused by ZZ is really a device to producing a factory assembly line of the gullible and stupid to line the pocket of fraudsters and cheats. It is a sneaky argument used by the faithful and woo-woo believers to avoid having to produce evidence while they continue to preach their faith-based beliefs.

    Why do you think you are asked to leave your critical faculties at the door of worship? Just have *faith*. The most important faculty to humankind that we use in every area of our lives is suddenly a liability in religion.

    The faithful have been brainwashed to believe that belief without evidence is really good and it evidently works. They call it "religious indoctrination". "Brainwashing" to everybody else.

    Think!

    Oh wait, I forgot. The faithful are not supposed to.

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 12, 2008 11:07 am  

  • Blogger zhanzhao said...

    "Whatever gave you the idea that I believe in creationism that much."

    You placed Darwinism and Creationism in the same category didn't you?

    "Truth be told, I never bothered much about whether its true or not. Its the arguements and reasonings of the different camps that interest me;)

    What you are admitting is that TRUTH, fact or fiction is unimportant to you. You just like arguing.

    Ok, now i get it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 12, 2008 2:00 pm  

  • Blogger zhanzhao said...
    "Truth be told, I never bothered much about whether its true or not. Its the arguements and reasonings of the different camps that interest me;)"

    Anonymous replied: "What you are admitting is that TRUTH, fact or fiction is unimportant to you. You just like arguing."

    Wow!

    An argumentative moron admitting to being an argumentative moron.

    This has to be a first in any discussion forum.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 13, 2008 4:38 am  

  • "Developmental models describe genes to phenotype. There is no feedback via a selection process."

    I don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

    Developmental models are a molecular update to the more rudimentary population genetics based models of evolution, which is what you have just described. They are NOT mutually exclusive - instead they compliment each other.

    And please do take note, the very fact that the same developmental programs are highly conserved between distant species IMPLIES A STRONG PURIFYING SELECTION ON THE GENE REGULATORY NETWORK.

    I don't understand, nor have I heard any kind of feedback mechanism vis-a-vis selection in that time frame. If you screw up that developmental program, you get hauled out of the gene pool. Period.

    How the heck you can put ID into the same theoretical framework in something that is so empirical is beyond me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 14, 2008 1:34 pm  

  • "Given a new virus X that ravaged large chunks of human population, can we determine if X was a 'natural' virus or an 'intelligently designed' one. The response of course would be different based on the answer"

    Thats a very cute "thought experiment" and I can give you the answer straight away:

    JUST SEQUENCE THE DAMN VIRUS! Any half-assed monkey can switch genes between viruses or anything if you so desire, and you can tell from looking at the sequence.

    Just so you know, viruses are so cut out for their function because of the evolutionary race between host defences and themselves that you don't need an intelligent design to make a better virus! They are already at an optimal state- to manipulate their DNA would be unintelligent

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 14, 2008 1:42 pm  

  • Rational Retard said...

    "How the heck you can put ID into the same theoretical framework in something that is so empirical is beyond me."

    It's called cognitive dissonance. The resultant effect is denial and self-deception. The method is cognitive gymnastics when squaring circles.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 14, 2008 4:14 pm  

  • Dear Rational Retard,
    Lets be clear as to what kind of Intelligent Design we are talking about.

    1) Human Intelligent Design (HID)
    2) Alien Intelligent Design (AID)
    3) Transcendental Intelligent Design (TID)

    1) and 2) are interesting even to scientists.3) is metaphysics where we lump questions like the existence of God with.

    I always speak about ID in the sense of 1) and 2) here. ID in the sense of 3 is boring.

    And please do take note, the very fact that the same developmental programs are highly conserved between distant species IMPLIES A STRONG PURIFYING SELECTION ON THE GENE REGULATORY NETWORK.
    DNA sequences or regulatory networks?

    For the first, thats just BLAST and co which has nothing to do with gene regulation.

    For the second, you would have to talk about comparing network motifs across species. But first, you would need to standardize network representation which I think has not been done yet. There would also be the computational cost involved.

    Most of the gene regulatory stuff is to take network of genes for a single organism and see how the network evolves. ODEs, binary networks, etc. No populations no selection mechanism involved.

    I don't understand, nor have I heard any kind of feedback mechanism vis-a-vis selection in that time frame.

    This is what I mean by feedback.
    1) Genes -> Phenotypes
    2) Phenotypes get selected
    3) Phenotypes mate -> New Genes
    4) Goto step 1) (feedback loop)

    What time frame are you talking about?

    If you screw up that developmental program, you get hauled out of the gene pool. Period.
    So much for the neutral theory of molecular evolution.On congenital front, disorders like Fetal alcohol syndrome should not exist either.

    JUST SEQUENCE THE DAMN VIRUS! Any half-assed monkey can switch genes between viruses or anything if you so desire, and you can tell from looking at the sequence.
    Good to know. Got statistics on false positives for your decision procedure?

    Next question, can you classify animal into domesticated or wild type base on sequence data?

    Just so you know, viruses are so cut out for their function because of the evolutionary race between host defences and themselves that you don't need an intelligent design to make a better virus! They are already at an optimal state- to manipulate their DNA would be unintelligent
    Optimal? In what sense? Local minima or global minima in the fitness landscape? Keep in mind that the fitness landscape is time dependent and the genetics algorithms convergence very slowly.

    Also, what is optimal for a rouge state may not be optimal for the virus vector.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 14, 2008 9:32 pm  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? wrote in part:

    Dear Rational Retard,
    Lets be clear as to what kind of Intelligent Design we are talking about.

    1) Human Intelligent Design (HID)
    2) Alien Intelligent Design (AID)
    3) Transcendental Intelligent Design (TID)

    I always speak about ID in the sense of 1) and 2) here. ID in the sense of 3 is boring.

    The ID/Creationism debate in the US that religious wackos are trying to sneak into the classrooms takes Intelligent Design to mean - the invisible magic man in the sky did it.

    If you don't believe in 3) then there's nothing more to say.

    Scientists are not going around claiming themselves to be *Intelligent Designers*. To carry on discussing ID in this direction is vacuous and meaningless.

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 15, 2008 10:28 am  

  • Anonymous Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    Dear Rational Retard,
    Lets be clear as to what kind of Intelligent Design we are talking about.

    1) Human Intelligent Design (HID)
    2) Alien Intelligent Design (AID)
    3) Transcendental Intelligent Design (TID)

    1) and 2) are interesting even to scientists.3) is metaphysics where we lump questions like the existence of God with.

    I always speak about ID in the sense of 1) and 2) here. ID in the sense of 3 is boring.

    You ALWAYS speak about Intelligent Design in the sense of Alien Intelligence? Where? Which Forum? For UFOlogists?

    Cool. Can you give me the link?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 15, 2008 11:11 am  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    "Lets be clear as to what kind of Intelligent Design we are talking about.

    1) Human Intelligent Design (HID)
    2) Alien Intelligent Design (AID)
    3) Transcendental Intelligent Design (TID)

    I always speak about ID in the sense of 1) and 2) here. ID in the sense of 3 is boring."

    Huh? Wha?

    An excellent display of cognitive gymnastics at work. Thanks.

    You do know that CG is a polite euphemism for BULLSHIT doncha?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 15, 2008 2:50 pm  

  • You ALWAYS speak about Intelligent Design in the sense of Alien Intelligence? Where? Which Forum? For UFOlogists?

    Cool. Can you give me the link?

    here is the link.

    http://www.seti.org/news/features/seti-and-id.php

    In in context of astrobiology, you would be looking for artificiality in an organism. For example, apply Rational Retard's "just sequence the damn thing" technique(if it works) to an organism new to mankind that was found on another planet. If it looks like a "half-assed monkey" switched genes than it would be a fair assumption that this "half-assed monkey" wasn't human(technically ape not monkey).

    btw the magic man argument, would be Transcendental ID(not Alien ID) which I am not very pro for myself.

    An excellent display of cognitive gymnastics at work. Thanks.

    You do know that CG is a polite euphemism for BULLSHIT doncha?
    I know. But smearing is not an argument hence I can't make argument against it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 15, 2008 5:01 pm  

  • Anonymous Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    You do know that CG is a polite euphemism for BULLSHIT doncha?

    "I know. But smearing is not an argument hence I can't make argument against it."

    You confuse fact from fiction when you claim Creationism is different from ID. Also, the ID debate presupposes a God/Transcendental being as the Intelligent designer.

    Instead of admitting your ignorance and mistake you now pretend that you ALWAYS discuss ID/Creationism with human and alien intelligence in mind. This is denial and self-deception. I call this BULLSHIT.

    It's not smearing but fact.

    Please, do go on and discuss ID as YOU pretend it is .... Don't mind the facts or me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 16, 2008 11:42 am  

  • Instead of admitting your ignorance and mistake you now pretend that you ALWAYS discuss ID/Creationism with human and alien intelligence in mind. This is denial and self-deception. I call this BULLSHIT.

    It's not smearing but fact.

    If you can't accept my definition, then there is nothing discuss since I can only argue from definitions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 16, 2008 3:06 pm  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    If you can't accept my definition, then there is nothing discuss since I can only argue from definitions.

    You could argue with facts for a start. A little logic and reason thrown in wouldn't hurt.

    OK, I'll bite.

    How about we debate the causes of WW2 and you can start by defining it as a little skirmish between Genghiz Khan and Alexander the Great...Because the real facts bore you...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 16, 2008 4:46 pm  

  • How about we debate the causes of WW2 and you can start by defining it as a little skirmish between Genghiz Khan and Alexander the Great...Because the real facts bore you...

    I'm open to a definitional challenge.

    I would like to hear your arguments as to why human intelligent design as well as alien intelligent design should not be grouped under the general category of intelligent design. Why do we have to assume that intelligent design only refers to God like (transcendental) designer?

    I am just assuming that humans are intelligent and can design things. Similarly, if an alien civilization can send a signal that SETI can pick up, why can't we assume that they are intelligent and can design things?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 16, 2008 8:56 pm  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    I'm open to a definitional challenge.

    That wasn't a challenge but a throwaway remark laced with heavy sarcasm.

    I would like to hear your arguments as to why human intelligent design as well as alien intelligent design should not be grouped under the general category of intelligent design.

    Because the ID controversy in the US is about sneaking RELIGION into the classroom in the cloak of scientific theory.

    The term Intelligent Design therefore presupposes an imaginary el supremo who created this universe.

    Why do we have to assume that intelligent design only refers to God like (transcendental) designer?

    Religion. Religion. Religion. Get it?

    Why don't you ask and debate the religious loonies who started this nonsense, you know, those who call themselves Creationists or IDiots at their forums.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 12:19 am  

  • Why don't you ask and debate the religious loonies who started this nonsense, you know, those who call themselves Creationists or IDiots at their forums.

    Yes, that would be the general idea. I would say that much of the ID debate revolves around definition. Is (transcendental) ID science, or more like a bunch of theists try to sneak God into science?

    On the other hand I see no problem with trying to sneak materialism(science) into the ID camp. Basically inverting the Wedge.

    What I am trying to figure out is how to avoid as much "friendly fire" as possible if I try to define ID from a materialist perspective, i.e. replacing the supernatural designer with a human or at most alien one.

    That is if buy the fact that my definitions and argumentation are in general materialist.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 7:30 am  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? said...

    Is (transcendental) ID science, or more like a bunch of theists try to sneak God into science?

    Still here and in doubt? Get the facts. ID = Creationism in disguise = religion. If you want the truth follow the links provided by lab rat and JB. Wikipedia gives a good, succinct summary here.

    On the other hand I see no problem with trying to sneak materialism(science)into the ID camp. Basically inverting the Wedge.

    They are already using science by hijacking evolutionary theory and calling it ID. An exercise in futility - you think?

    What I am trying to figure out is how to avoid as much "friendly fire" as possible if I try to define ID from a materialist perspective, i.e. replacing the supernatural designer with a human or at most alien one.

    For starters how could humans and aliens design the cosmos and themselves even before life began?

    If religious loonies want to bring religion into the classrooms wouldn't it be a worthwhile and better effort if you pushed for evolutionary science to be taught in Catechism or religious class?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 10:29 am  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? wrote in part:

    I would say that much of the ID debate revolves around definition. Is (transcendental) ID science, or more like a bunch of theists try to sneak God into science?

    On the other hand I see no problem with trying to sneak materialism(science) into the ID camp. Basically inverting the Wedge.

    WEDGE?

    Sprachen Sie Singlish, are you a Creationist/ID troll?

    Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine.

    "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes".[203] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism" - Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education"

    Or are you in denial, daft or stubborn?

    Or ALL of the above?

    PZ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 2:38 pm  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish, are you a Creationist/ID troll?
    Sort of I guess but I prefer the term reviewer. Just getting a couple of arguments reviewed and of course review some of the arguments here myself.

    Or are you in denial, daft or stubborn?
    Hopefully not. Unless you consider denying (transcendental) ID as being in denial.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 3:59 pm  

  • Sprachen Sie Singlish? wrote in part:

    Hopefully not. Unless you consider denying (transcendental) ID as being in denial.

    I mean the facts* have revealed the lies and deception these religious nutjobs go through to get Religion into the classrooms. Yet you claim that you are still reviewing? I consider that a clear case of denial. Of course you can call it "reviewing" or whatever. Not denial. Suurre.

    I guess honesty sort of got lost in the shuffle of your God's agenda. Nice moral code you guys have.

    PZ

    *Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At July 17, 2008 4:18 pm  

  • Hey, there's a lot of effective info here!
    good 7 | superb 9 | you may 7 check 4 | this link | nice check check 3 | look link

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At January 04, 2013 4:32 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home