Failure to Respond: open thread!

As Tom English’s post critiquing Dembski, Ewert, Marks, (eg Ewert) is being swamped with OT stuff, I offer this as a place to discuss the lack of substantive responses to Tom English and Joe Felsenstein so that any substantive response to Tom’s points will be more visible.

163 Replies to “Failure to Respond: open thread!”

  1. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Open Thread. YAY!

    http://www.food.com/recipe/honey-and-whiskey-ice-cream-108636

    Whip the cream until it is thick adding the whisky gradually.
    Put the honey in a small pan and heat it.
    At the same time beat the yolks in a bowl.
    Pour the hot honey into the bowl containing the yolks and carry on beating the mixture until it’s pale and thick.
    Gently fold in the cream and whisky mixture.
    Put the mixture in a freezerproof container and freeze for three hours minimum.

  2. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Maybe you all should set up a donation scheme like I did for the failure to respond in the latest Upright BiPed thread. 🙂

  3. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Responding to Elizabeth’s question:

    This strikes me as very odd, Sal. Aside from the fact that it wouldn’t take most six year olds 2 hours to learn to say “law of large numbers” – and presuming that the six year old understood it (and I’ve done the same) – what has it got to do with ID?

    They understood. I start with one coin. I ask the kids, “guess if it’s heads?”

    I add another coin to the cup, shake it, “guess if both are heads?”

    Get up to twenty, none will guess if it’s heads. The larger number of coins, the less likely it will be 100% heads. At least that aspect is easily understood — the larger the number of coins, the less likely they will all turn up heads from a random process like shaking.

    If you don’t believe that kids can comprehend this, you can carry out the experiment. “Kids do you think all these 40 coins will be heads when I pour them out on the table. Maybe you can put Dr. Nick Matzke to shame since he has problems comprehending.”

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-statistics-question-for-nick-matzke/

    This strikes me as very odd, Sal. Aside from the fact that it wouldn’t take most six year olds 2 hours to learn to say “law of large numbers” – and presuming that the six year old understood it (and I’ve done the same) – what has it got to do with ID?

    For starters, with a physical example, it relates quite well to the problem of homochirality. Even on the generous assumption that a prebiotic soup can start with homochiral molecules, there is an associated half life for how long the homochirality can be sustained (half lives on the order of hundreds of years, and hours if trying to polymerize the monomers through heat). It follows the same principles with the coin flips and law of large numbers.

    One of the most elementary features of the design of life is at variance with the law of large numbers. Homochirality emerges when there is machinery to enforce it, but that machinery needs homochirality to make it workable (I’ve cited many NASA sources that say this). This leads to a chicken and egg paradox.

    The Law of Large numbers proceeds from the multiplicity of states.
    100% heads is a low multiplicity state or (alternatively) a high specificity state. 50% heads is a high multiplicity state or (alternatively) a low specificity state.

    Some objects are unlikely to be in high specificity states.

    i.e. a set of fair coins 100% heads, a set of dominos on their side, man-made Rube Goldberg machines, God-made Rube Goldberg machines.

    Life is exceptional because it occupies a low multiplicity state or (alternatively) high specificity state. By high specificity, I mean “not vary tolerant to variation in certain components”, like say, life critical genes such as insulin or the aaRS or helicase or topoisomerase or who knows what else.

    FWIW, inhibiting topoisomerase is a real killer, topoisomerase inhibition is one of the avenues of anti cancer chemo therapy. Works well also for killing some parasites in the human body too.

  4. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Maybe you all should set up a donation scheme like I did for the failure to respond in the latest Upright BiPed thread.

    Maybe you should re-think your life choices?

  5. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    EPTRANSCRIPTOME and the Epigenome.

    That’s the reason I think Graur and Moran will lose the junk DNA debate.

    The epgigenome and epistranscriptome host on the order of Sextillion bits of information that is nicely networked in the 150 trillion cells of a adult human.

    A toy illustration, coinsider the DNA strand of Adenines

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    It will transcribe to the RNA strand of Adenosines (Adenines):

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Looks rather uninformative right? But as we have learned recently, that is not the whole story. Adenosines can by methylated, and not only that there are specific Proteins designed (yes, designed) to methylate and demethylate and READ the methylations. If conceptually we see the methalation marks ( let 1 = methylated, 0 = unmethylated) the above RNA transcript conveys information that may look like this:

    11011100101….

    This is a simplification, but it illustrates the point the supposed Junk DNA and supposed Junk RNA can be part of a huge information processing complex.

    The information processing importance is borne out by the GWAS studies on heritable disease carried out by the ENCODE and ROADMAP sympathizers.

    Dan Graur and Larry Moran are setting themselves up to be the butt of jokes.

  6. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    I always thought T was transcribed to U.

  7. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    One thing I’ll say is that if the Conservation of Information is false, then it would be hypothetically possible we could construct self-replicating robots that will be able to keep self improving and hence surpass the human race in technology. We would then have possibly this scenario:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK3y7UMDrtI

  8. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan,

    Hope you and yours are alright over there across the pond. Heard of all the bad things happing in your neck of the woods. Radio check.

    Sal

  9. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    I wrote this at Larry Moran’s blog:
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/cornelius-hunter-predicts-that-theres.html

    The mistake is presuming the issues all surround transcription, and they most certainly do not. Recently it was discovered there are substantial mechanisms for reversible writing of Adenosine (Adenine) methylation marks on RNA transcripts as well reading them. This means figuratively speaking, and DNA section that transcribes to an RNA transcript might look superficially like:

    A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..

    but in reality this repetitive sequence hosts an information layer implemented on the Adenosines through mechanisms like methyl transferases, etc.

    Rendering the methylation marks = 1, and non-methylations as 0, and stripping away the non-methylatable bases, we can depict (figuratively speaking) a picture that looks like this:

    0110 1110 0101 1101 1110 ….

    Hence the viewpoint promoted on this blog is embarrassingly simplistic and growing obsolete every day.

  10. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: If you don’t believe that kids can comprehend this, you can carry out the experiment. “Kids do you think all these 40 coins will be heads when I pour them out on the table. Maybe you can put Dr. Nick Matzke to shame since he has problems comprehending.”

    Oh, I believe it – as I’ve said, I’ve done the same with a bunch of young elementary school kids.

    But you seem to have misunderstood Nick’s position.

    stcordova: For starters, with a physical example, it relates quite well to the problem of homochirality. Even on the generous assumption that a prebiotic soup can start with homochiral molecules, there is an associated half life for how long the homochirality can be sustained (half lives on the order of hundreds of years, and hours if trying to polymerize the monomers through heat). It follows the same principles with the coin flips and law of large numbers.

    One of the most elementary features of the design of life is at variance with the law of large numbers. Homochirality emerges when there is machinery to enforce it, but that machinery needs homochirality to make it workable (I’ve cited many NASA sources that say this). This leads to a chicken and egg paradox.

    No, it doesn’t. You can demonstrate that this is false just as easily as you demonstrated the law of large numbers.

    Toss a coin 100 times, and write the results in a row. You start with a “heterochiral;” row.

    Now, start another row.

    This time, when you toss the coin, don’t put down how the coin lands but instead use the following rule:

    If it’s heads, copy the cell above; if it’s tails, copy the cell to the right of the one above. (When you get to the end, tails will mean you copy cell 1 of the first row.

    Repeat for a large number of rows.

    The process is completely stochastic, but it with high probability produces a homochiral row, which is then “locked in” forever.

    That is drift in action – not even selection is needed to produce the homochirality.

  11. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Toss a coin 100 times…..

    Unfortnately the chemistry of pre-biotic life doesn’t work that way. The only place that works is in Dawkins world of Weasels.

    How does it work in pre-biotic (aka dead chemical) chemistry.

    Generously start with a homochiral soup.

    Time and chance gives a racemic (heterochiral) mixture. The half life is on the order of a few thousand to few hundred years if there is no attempt at polyerization via heat, if there is a heat based polymerization attempt, they’ll become heterochiral almost instantly. The way Weasel works is not how chemicals like that evolve.

    The problem with this selectionist viewpoint is that it assumes nature (without a goal directing agency) works to select toward a goal that is exceptional.

    That’s one of the small reasons life has at least looks designed. Whether it is or is not is matter of faith, but I just don’t find it believable that chemicals behave the way you describe it — chemical theory and experiment bear this out.

  12. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: The problem with this selectionist viewpoint is that it assumes nature (without a goal directing agency) works to select toward a goal that is exceptional.

    That’s one of the small reasons life has at least looks designed.

    Hey Sal

    This is pure gold.
    Evey lifeless planet and every theoretical dead world in the multiverse reiterates this point as does every evolutionary cul-de-sac .

    peace

  13. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Elizabeth:
    No, it doesn’t.You can demonstrate that this is false just as easily as you demonstrated the law of large numbers.

    Toss a coin 100 times, and write the results in a row. You start with a “heterochiral;” row.

    Now, start another row.

    This time, when you toss the coin, don’t put down how the coin lands but instead use the following rule:

    If it’s heads, copy the cell above; if it’s tails, copy the cell to the right of the one above. (When you get to the end, tails will mean you copy cell 1 of the first row.

    Repeat for a large number of rows.

    The process is completely stochastic, but it with high probability produces a homochiral row, which is then “locked in” forever.

    That is drift in action – not even selection is needed to produce the homochirality.

    Lizzie,

    This is a neat little demonstration but I’m missing how it ties to homochirality. Could you take the analogy to the next level of detail, please?

  14. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:That’s one of the small reasons life has at least looks designed. Whether it is or is not is matter of faith . . . .

    No, it’s a matter of evidence. Scientists are looking for it, intelligent design creationists are scared of it.

  15. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: Could you take the analogy to the next level of detail, please?

    Well, my assumption is that evolution precedes homochirality – that homochirality is a result of evolution, not that evolution depends on homochirality. In other words I’m assuming that the first self-replicating (and chiral) polymers would have to be able to form in an racemic environment. And we don’t know if that’s possible, but it’s a chemistry question rather than a probability (coin-tossing) question. But if it is true, then my little coin-toss experiment explains to the six year olds that once you’ve got replication going, any one of two possibilities that randomly gets in front will rapidly dominate.

    But here’s an actual bit of science:

    Suppose, however, that evolution preceded homochirality, that is, that the original informational self-replicator (assumed to be chiral) was able to perform without non-racemic starting materials. As pointed out by Eschenmoser31, 49 and Siegel50, the homochirality ‘problem’ disappears. A chiral informational polymer is not generally a racemate, because it comes in too many variants. Assuming two components, a strand containing 100 units represents 2^100 = 1.26 × 10^30 possibilities. If just one molecule of each is present, the sample contains >10^6 moles. Thus, even if both enantiomers of a particular molecule are possible, and equally likely to occur, the chances that the two will be present in a reasonably sized sample are miniscule. Any variant that confers survival advantage will occur initially as a single molecule. Through replication it will donate its configuration to its daughter molecules. Its enantiomer may never come into existence, and if it does, will probably be born into different circumstances. Even if this process happened just once, it would be sufficient to break symmetry and establish homochirality. In fact, it will happen continually, so biological homochirality is assured.

    That’s why I said that ID should focus on chemistry rather than coins.

  16. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:

    Toss a coin 100 times…..

    Unfortnately the chemistry of pre-biotic life doesn’t work that way. The only place that works is in Dawkins world of Weasels.

    Or in Dembski’s world of CSI.

    I agree – the issue is chemistry, not coin tosses.

  17. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Elizabeth,

    Well, my assumption is that evolution precedes homochirality – that homochirality is a result of evolution, not that evolution depends on homochirality. In other words I’m assuming that the first self-replicating (and chiral) polymers would have to be able to form in an racemic environment. And we don’t know if that’s possible, but it’s a chemistry question rather than a probability (coin-tossing) question. But if it is true, then my little coin-toss experiment explains to the six year olds that once you’ve got replication going, any one of two possibilities that randomly gets in front will rapidly dominate.

    Got it, thanks. That makes sense.

  18. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Elizabeth,

    That’s why I said that ID should focus on chemistry rather than coins.

    And rather than particular words. *gazes innocently at Mung*

  19. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: The problem with this selectionist viewpoint is that it assumes nature (without a goal directing agency) works to select toward a goal that is exceptional.

    Nature then also seems to select toward the goal of rendering living lifeless as well. Contradictory goals, go figure. It is almost like life is not a goal.

  20. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Nature then also seems to select toward the goal of rendering living lifeless as well.

    EXACTLY! And when lifeless its stays lifeless. Humpty Dumpty won’t get reassembled by nature that has no interest in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

  21. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Even if this process happened just once, it would be sufficient to break symmetry and establish homochirality. In fact, it will happen continually, so biological homochirality is assured.

    We have experimental evidence against this claim!

    We know this to be the case because molecules already 100% homochiral become non-homochiral outside of living systems that maintain this state. There is an associated half life, and it is really compromised by the presence of water.

    The aspartic acid in human tooth enamel shows increasing racemization with age. This increase is not seen in the metabolically active protein hemoglobin. The rate constant for the racemization reaction of aspartic acid in human tooth enamel was found to be 8.29 X 10(-4) yr-1. This rate constant suggests that in any protein with a long in vivo lifetime, D-aspartic acid will accumulate with age (about 8% of total aspartic acid in enamel will be the D-enantiomer after 60 years). Thus, racemization may play some role in the aging process affecting metabolically stable tissues in long-lived homeotherms. Aspartic acid racemization in toogh enamel also provides a biochronological tool for assessing the age of living mammals.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/72/8/2891.abstract

    All the amino acids have an associated half life (except one that is not chiral).

  22. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: No, it’s a matter of evidence. Scientists are looking for it, intelligent design creationists are scared of it.

    WoW! I must not be an intelligent design creationist! I owe you a beer sir!

  23. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Elizabeth: That’s why I said that ID should focus on chemistry rather than coins.

    Oh, because coins are made of metal, not chemicals?

    Douglas Axe. Not focusing on chemicals? How so?

  24. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: And rather than particular words. *gazes innocently at Mung*

    Gah. I was freaked out there for a moment. I thought it was Elizabeth that was gazing innocently at Mung. But if it’s you, well…

    I would have been more than happy to discuss the chemistry of codes.

    Did Elizabeth ever offer up that definition of code according to which the genetic code is a code? One she didn’t make up herself after the fact? Looking for objectivity, not subjectivity.

    By the way, the Lamarckism thread is a tangential way of discussing some of the same issues, at a chemical level.

  25. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Additional thoughts on this:

    Even if this process happened just once, it would be sufficient to break symmetry and establish homochirality. In fact, it will happen continually, so biological homochirality is assured.

    “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

    Good gravy this claim is so easy to refute! Take some proteins out of an organism. Put them in a soup or paste of heterochiral amino acids. You think that will turn that mixture spontaneously into homochiral molecules?

    This situation happens all the time and all that happens is that the final mix evolves to something heterochiral! Doubt it? Just try it. But no need to do this. This is what happens when homochiral amino acids spontaneously racemize — as in what happens when things die.

  26. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Did Elizabeth ever offer up that definition of code according to which the genetic code is a code? One she didn’t make up herself after the fact?

    No. Instead, I explained to you why your request was not, in my view, reasonable.

    We appear to have a fundamental disagreement on the function of a definition.

  27. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Oh, because coins are made of metal, not chemicals?

    Douglas Axe. Not focusing on chemicals? How so?

    And that’s the right way to go, in my view, rather than the coin-tossing arguments of Dembski et al.

    Or, indeed, the semiotic arguments of Upright Biped.

  28. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: We have experimental evidence against this claim!

    Lack of experimental evidence for is not experimental evidence against.
    You are absolutely correct that we do not have a model for the origin of life, which includes the origin of self-replicating molecules. And one of the problems in arriving at such a model, is, as you say, the problem that informational polymers tend to be chiral, and it’s not clear how a chiral polymer could self-replicate in a racemic mixture of constituents.

    Showing that no chiral polymer yet discovered can do this, is not the same as showing that no such chiral polymer could exist.

    Which may be because life had to be started by a miracle!!!! But that would be very much an argument-of-the-gaps.

    (And, btw, would not support YEC.)

  29. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Oh, because coins are made of metal, not chemicals?

    Brilliant and insightful.

  30. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: EXACTLY!And when lifeless its stays lifeless.Humpty Dumpty won’t get reassembled by nature that has no interest in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    Except every time you eat or drink something.

  31. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,

    I would have been more than happy to discuss the chemistry of codes.

    I’d still like to hear where you’re going with your whole discussion of codes. Pick a definition and make your argument without equivocation. Whatcha got?

  32. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova,

    Take some proteins out of an organism. Put them in a soup or paste of heterochiral amino acids. You think that will turn that mixture spontaneously into homochiral molecules?

    Gah, we’ve been through this I don’t know how many times. What makes you think that

    a) Proteins are essential for life
    b) Homochiral proteins are the only kind that can do anything

    ?

    Observing that this is the situation in modern life?

  33. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,

    Douglas Axe. Not focusing on chemicals? How so?

    Axe is not looking at the OoL or chirality. Why bring him up?

  34. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova,

    A toy illustration, coinsider the DNA strand of Adenines

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    It will transcribe to the RNA strand of Adenosines (Adenines):

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    A nitpick, it will transcribe to the complementary RNA strand of Uracil UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

    Mung,

    I always thought T was transcribed to U.

    As above. A transcribes to U. U is indeed the RNA version of T, though I think it can be useful to not give too much weight to the distinction nonetheless. T is simply methyl-U. A fact that can get lost when one deals only in symbols.

  35. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Good gravy this claim is so easy to refute! Take some proteins out of an organism. Put them in a soup or paste of heterochiral amino acids. You think that will turn that mixture spontaneously into homochiral molecules?

    While Allan’s objections to this “line of argument” are entirely correct, there is another way in which Sal is entirely wrong. The proteins I choose are a little racemase (to speed things along) and a lot of, say, an amino acid esterase ( A. turbidans) — or another enzyme that acts on amino acids in a stereospecific manner. Include a butt-load of alcohol, and lo and behold! You will end up with a pile of homochiral amino acid esters.
    That was easy.
    The point being, once you have a single chiral agent, stereoisomers are no longer equivalent. Thus the statement

    Even if this process happened just once, it would be sufficient to break symmetry and establish homochirality. In fact, it will happen continually, so biological homochirality is assured.

    is accurate.

  36. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan,

    Thank you for the correction. Much, much appreciated. I was preparing an essay for some friends.

    I’m indebted to you.

    Sal

  37. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Chrisitianity, Judaism, and atheism have adapted well to a modern world. Islam? Pretty bad:

    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/why-muslim-world-decline/

    On Jan. 7, Islamist gunmen ran through the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo screaming “The Prophet is avenged!” By coincidence, at the very moment they were killing the journalists, the International Space Station passed silently over Paris.

    Consider that for a moment.

    As terrorists committed a primitive act of tribal savagery in the name of a prophet who lived 1,400 years ago, right above them, orbiting through space, was the most sophisticated expression of mankind’s ability to transcend ignorance and fear with hope and reason.

    Twenty-five nations from around the world have come together to build the space station. They include old enemies who fought each other for centuries over God and gold, Cold War rivals, small countries and large. But none are Islamic nations.


    Internecine conflict in the Islamic world is endemic. The unrelenting Shia and Sunni schism dominates it, but it also includes tribal and ethnic divides. In 2013, there were 12 Western victims of terror attacks compared to 22,000 non-Western fatalities. These do not include those killed by the barrel bombs that Syrian President Assad dropped on his own people, or civilians killed by warfare in Afghanistan or Iraq. From the jungles of Sulawesi to the deserts of Libya, Muslims are killing Muslims at a rate that dwarfs the more highly publicized conflict with the West. In that light, it is hard to subscribe to the theory this is a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is one culture turning on itself.

  38. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    Sal you seem unable to let go of the assumption that for a biopolymer of some kind to have a useful function, it must be homochiral. You also seem to neglect the question of chemical kinetics. It is true that all biopolymers spontaneously degrade and become heterochiral over time. But this process is usually quite slow, even at biologically relevant temperatures. You’ll notice how you don’t instantly dissove if you take a hot shower, and fish seem to get by rather easily despite being submerged in that terrible agent of hydrolysis: Water. That’s because the rate of degradation is so unimaginably much slower than the rate of synthesis with even weak catalysts.

  39. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Chrisitianity, Judaism, and atheism have adapted well to a modern world. Islam? Pretty bad

    Is this a random mutation, or an example of horizontal transfer?

  40. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Fmm,

    You mentioned Christian piety on another thread, could you elaborate on a real work example how Christian piety would deal with a real world dilemma? For instance the Syrian refugee issue. Thanks

  41. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie:

    Your side has no hypothesis, Joe. I can assume for the sake argument evolutionary theory is incomplete and incorrect in aspects but that doesn’t help you at all. ID still has no hypothesis.

    Ask KF. Every tub must stand on its own bottom.

  42. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: I’d still like to hear where you’re going with your whole discussion of codes. Pick a definition and make your argument without equivocation. Whatcha got?

    I have yet to see any allegation of equivocation in the many instances where I have discussed the genetic code supported by any actual evidence.

    And I have given a definition of a code, and you know I have. And it wasn’t one I had to make up (lie Elizabeth).

  43. Adapa
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I have yet to see any allegation of equivocation in the many instances where I have discussed the genetic code supported by any actual evidence.

    “Actual evidence”. Is that like “real code” you kept equivocating over but were too cowardly to ever define?

  44. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,

    I’d still like to hear where you’re going with your whole discussion of codes. Pick a definition and make your argument without equivocation. Whatcha got?

    I have yet to see any allegation of equivocation in the many instances where I have discussed the genetic code supported by any actual evidence.

    Sure, but you haven’t presented any argument yet, either.

    And I have given a definition of a code, and you know I have.

    You quoted a couple, as I remember. Then you stopped. Where are you going with this?

    And it wasn’t one I had to make up (lie Elizabeth).

    There’s nothing wrong with creating a definition for the context of your argument, so long as you stick to it in that context.

    Again, whatcha got?

  45. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom,

    I don’t know if you saw this pronouncement that Rich Hughes linked to in another thread.

    Dembski reports:

    I’m happy for the years I was able to spend working on ID, but it’s time to move on.

  46. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan,

    I wasn’t aware that word had gotten around. It was on my mind when I wrote above, “I’m trying to refrain from Dembski-bashing for a while.” Let’s give the man a chance to show us that it truly is a new day. I’d much prefer to say that Bill Dembski is someone with whom I have an honest disagreement than to say what I’ve come to know about Dembski the Culture Warrior.

  47. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    I would add that Marks and Ewert continue to be active pushing their arguments, and Dembski has not disavowed those arguments.

  48. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:
    I would add that Marks and Ewert continue to be active pushing their arguments, and Dembski has not disavowed those arguments

    I see Robert Marks is 65 and has had an impressive career quite separate from his association with Dembski. I can’t say I have noticed him being very active in defending his ID papers. Maybe the mantle will fall solely on Ewert now.

  49. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature.

  50. Reality
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English,

    For anything written by IDiots, “paper” seems like the wrong label unless the word toilet precedes it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.