Arrival of the Fittest – keiths style

I tire of keiths and his revisionist history. In a recent thread…

Glen: The real question is if Mung has read and comprehended Losos’ book.

keiths: Yes, which brings to mind what happened with Andreas Wagner’s book, Arrival of the Fittest. Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.

keiths:

I challenged him:

Mung,

Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.

How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.

Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.

And:

Think of it as being similar to an ideological Turing test. I’d like to see if you even bothered, or were able, to understand the book before dismissing it as no threat to ID.

keiths: To no one’s surprise, Mung squirmed, stalled, and then skedaddled.

Here’s what actually happened:

Mung: Thanks Alan. Nice summary. Didn’t petrushla claim the book is some sort of magical “ID killer” or some such?

I’m hoping someone will raise things from the book relevant to ID, since it seems to come up as a book that ID’ists really ought to read. My questions is why?

No one ever did, not even keiths, God bless his soul.

keiths: I think Mung v. Wagner is going to be as embarrassing for you as Mung v. Weasel was.

Mung: keiths, there’s an open invitation to anyone to take an argument from the book they find compelling and defend it. You could start with his discussion of intelligent design, if you can find it.

keiths: Instead of this inane running commentary, why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.

Mung: Promises. Promises. keiths. And we know how good you are at keeping those. This thread is your chance to shine. You and Petrushka. Have at it.

And shine they did. As in shined on. So what really happened is that keiths claimed that he would be “happy to explain.” He never did, of course. The main point here being that keiths made a claim and failed to support it and then he blamed me for his failure to support his claims. Typical keiths. So here’s his chance to step up to the plate and make the case that Wagner’s book is “bad news for ID” [keiths] and even “death to ID” [petrushka].

Prediction: He won’t. And this thread will die, like Alan’s. And then keiths will point to this thread as evidence that I “skedaddled” yet again.

75 thoughts on “Arrival of the Fittest – keiths style

  1. Well, I’ve squirmed and stalled enough. Time for me to skedaddle. keiths has nothing. Neither does petrushka. keiths said he’d explain it. He hasn’t. Bluff called.

    keiths, if this comes up again [assuming I ever create an OP on it again] don’t expect me to respond to anything you say except to point you to this thread and remind you that you had your chances. Last chance keiths.

  2. Allan Miller: And this is supposed to be a problem for evolution? LoL.

    No. And I never said it was. What I said was that the nature and construction of the space itself could not be explained by appealing to evolutionary mechanisms.

    Mung: A search space in which it just happens to be possible for a process like evolution to successfully navigate it containing inter-connected elements that all just happen to be useful to living organisms. Sounds utterly miraculous. And you can’t explain the nature of that space by appealing to random mutation and selection.

    Wagner’s ideas are highly friendly to ID. He’s given us something that cannot be explained by evolution. Are you able to comprehend that?

    That’s not an anti-evolutionary argument. It accepts that evolution takes place within this particular search-space structure. That’s an argument about what makes evolution possible. What the search space must be like.

    petrushka: Baby steps. At least he is easing up on understanding Wagner.

    I’ve understood Wagner all along. I’ve never been afraid to discuss his book. Yet in spite of repeated appeals for you to take it up you never did. And keiths is only just now making an attempt. Feeble as it was.

  3. Mung: I don’t understand the implications for ID.

    That’s only because you don’t have any pro-ID views or arguments. To you, ID is just this entirely nebulous quasi-idea without any content or specifics. So it’s true, for an idea with the rigidity of jello, there can be no nails.

    To someone like Douglas Axe, or Ann Gauger, and plenty of other pro-ID people (And people like Bill Cole who are enamored with their shitty work), it has some pretty troubling implications, becausse in the views of Axe, Gauger et al, ID very much hinges on the idea that evolution can’t work because functions in sequence space are either so rare as to be unimaginable, or simply isolated by valleys of lethality that cannot be crossed by any incremental mutational process.

    Wagner totally undermines their case as his work demonstrates high levels of interconnectedness and adaptability is inherent to the space of sequences and phenotypes.

    Now you and your ID-so-Jello-it-isn’t-even-a-thing, I have to concede, Wagner’s work has no implications for it. Nothing has and nothing ever could, because you have no actual ID-ideas at all. Your pro-ID position amounts merely to that: You’re pro-ID-whatever-it-is-as-long-as-it’s-never-shown-false.

    You are so utterly transparent.

  4. Looks like the Wagner supporters are finally starting to come out of the woodwork.

    Says Mung, who was afraid even to summarize the key ideas of the book.

  5. keiths: Says Mung, who was afraid even to summarize the key ideas of the book.

    Terrified.

    keiths: I wonder if Mung is able to comprehend that a well-connected space blows ID’s “islands of function” arguments out of the water.

    That’s it? That’s the sole challenge to ID presented by the book?

    Sheesh, no wonder I’ve been avoiding it.

  6. keiths has no explanation for the design of the “paths to every island of function” space that he so desperately was hoping would be the death knell of ID.

    How odd.

  7. Mung:
    keiths has no explanation for the design of the “paths to every island of function” space that he so desperately was hoping would be the death knell of ID.

    How odd.

    He vents his frustration here… content has nothing to do with it…

  8. J-Mac: He vents his frustration here… content has nothing to do with it…

    Any knowitall is bound to be frustrated. God must be the most frustrated of them all. keiths is closer to godhood than he ever imagined possible. 🙂

  9. Mung:

    keiths has no explanation for the design of the “paths to every island of function” space that he so desperately was hoping would be the death knell of ID.

    First of all, what “design”?

    Second, are you really too dim to recognize how badly Wagner’s book undercuts the hypothesis of guided evolution, which you’ve been pushing?

    It is nice to see your God retreating to another gap, however.

  10. Mung: Any knowitall is bound to be frustrated. God must be the most frustrated of them all. keiths is closer to godhood than he ever imagined possible.

    It is sooo much more relaxing to feed the birdies in the park… The frustration just melts away… 😉

  11. keiths: Second, are you really too dim to recognize how badly Wagner’s book undercuts the hypothesis of guided evolution, which you’ve been pushing?

    Yes, I really am too dim to recognize how badly Wagner’s book undercuts the hypothesis of guided evolution.

    That should have been evident from the moment that you first discovered that I really was too dim to recognize how badly your Weasel program undercut the hypothesis of guided evolution.

  12. Mung,

    Yes, I really am too dim to recognize how badly Wagner’s book undercuts the hypothesis of guided evolution.

    As I suspected. Still, it’s shocking to see that kind of dimness in action, especially in someone who’s been trying to battle evolution for 15-odd years.

  13. keiths: Still, it’s shocking to see that kind of dimness in action.

    Probably due to a low electrical current. Stick your tongue in the socket and see.

  14. We’re fast approaching 71 comments in this thread, and still none of the critics can explain why Wagner poses an insurmountable problem for ID.

  15. It doesn’t occur to keiths that his failure to defend his claims is worthy of note.

    So painful. Unable to defend his claims.

Leave a Reply