768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID”

  1. Alan Fox,

    Whet my appetite. can you, in you own words, summarize what you think is worth my watching?

    Its a discussion about getting your information from authority and how that can mislead. Also he has an interesting argument about the difficulty of explaining consciousness from a materialistic stand point. I would be interested in your view of that argument.

  2. colewd: Also he has an interesting argument about the difficulty of explaining consciousness from a materialistic stand point.

    This is unresolvable and I’ve spent a fair bit of time on the issue already. There is no explaining human consciousness by humans. It is impossible.

  3. colewd: Why do you feel this way?

    Even your own religion teaches lying is a sin and enough sin will get you sent to Hell. You’ve told enough blatant lies about evolutionary theory to earn a few hundred eternities in the Fiery Pit.

  4. here’s another, related, interesting take:

    The central structural feature of natural proteins is a tightly packed and highly ordered hydrophobic core. If some measure of exquisite, native-like core packing is necessary for enzymatic function, this would constitute a significant obstacle to the development of novel enzymes, either by design or by natural or experimental evolution. To test the minimum requirements for a core to provide sufficient structural integrity for enzymatic activity, we have produced mutants of the [redacted] in which 12 of the 13 core residues have together been randomly replaced by hydrophobic alternatives. Using a sensitive biological screen, we find that a strikingly high proportion of these mutants (23%) retain enzymatic activity in vivo. Further substitution at the 13th core position shows that a similar proportion of completely random hydrophobic cores supports enzyme function. Of the active mutants produced, several have no wild-type core residues. These results imply that hydrophobicity is nearly a sufficient criterion for the construction of a functional core and, in conjunction with previous studies, that refinement of a crudely functional core entails more stringent sequence constraints than does the initial attainment of crude core function. Since attainment of crude function is the critical initial step in evolutionary innovation, the relatively scant requirements contributed by the hydrophobic core would greatly reduce the initial hurdle on the evolutionary pathway to novel enzymes. Similarly, experimental development of novel functional proteins might be simplified by limiting core design to mere specification of hydrophobicity and using iterative mutation-selection to optimize core structure.

    Has anyone told gpuccio?
    Pop quiz: who might be the evolutionist who wrote this?

  5. colewd: I think both Behe’s work and Szostak’s work are reasonable scientific arguments that should be taught as we do not have another theory for complex adaptions.

    I’m unaware of such a paper from Behe. Could you link?

    colewd: Why do you feel this way? This is a pretty hateful statement?

    You represent the anti intellectualism noted by KF. You personify it. As such I hate you and people like you. KF asked why I bother a few pages back. It’s one of the few ways I can reach out and touch the other side, people like you. It’s something of a morbid fascination I guess.

    colewd: I think both Behe’s work and Szostak’s work are reasonable scientific arguments that should be taught as we do not have another theory for complex adaptions.

    Another lie. What about evolution as an explanation for complex adaptations?

    This is why people like you should never be let in front of students. You’ll lie and lie and lie.

    Oh, no, there’s nothing to explain the origin of complex adaptations apart from ID! Nothing even proposed!

    You’ll say….

  8. DNA_Jock,

    There goes Jock, just lying, lying, lying, again.

    You are such a blatant liar, do you think evolution shaped you to be such a flagrant liar-is it some evolutionary advantage? Lie to your wife, lie to your kids..maybe it helps spread your genes?

    Wait, don’t answer that, you will just lie.

  9. phoodoo:
    DNA_Jock,

    There goes Jock, just lying, lying, lying, again.

    You are such a blatant liar, do you think evolution shaped you to be such a flagrant liar-is it some evolutionary advantage?Lie to your wife, lie to your kids..maybe it helps spread your genes?

    Wait, don’t answer that, you will just lie.

    You think anybody cares what your opinion is?

  10. phoodoo: There goes Jock, just lying, lying, lying, again.

    Gee, tough to know where the lie is in my comment phoodoo: the only declarative in it is “here’s another, related, interesting take:”
    Are you claiming that the text I quoted does not represent “another interesting take”?
    Or are you claiming that the ‘evolutionist’ who wrote the quoted paragraph is wrong?
    I could see why your typical IDist might disagree with the conclusion that “would greatly reduce the initial hurdle on the evolutionary pathway to novel enzymes”.
    You should take it up with the original author, perhaps…

  11. DNA_Jock: Gee, tough to know where the lie is in my comment phoodoo:

    You must be lying about not knowing where the lies are. 😉

  12. DNA_Jock,

    Look, just ask your kids if they think you are a liar. They know. Now obviously they won’t be able to answer you honestly, because you are spawning a whole race of liars, but whatever they tell you, just believe the opposite. You could ask your wife, but that’s no use, she likes liars. They decrease her chances of passing on her none lying genes.

    Do you think you got your lying from your mother or your father? Or perhaps it was a new mutation?

    Anyway, do you promise you won’t answer, liar?

  13. phoodoo:
    DNA_Jock,

    Look, just ask your kids if they think you are a liar.They know.Now obviously they won’t be able to answer you honestly, because you are spawning a whole race of liars, but whatever they tell you, just believe the opposite.You could ask your wife, but that’s no use, she likes liars.They decrease her chances of passing on her none lying genes.

    Do you think you got your lying from your mother or your father?Or perhaps it was a new mutation?

    Anyway, do you promise you won’t answer, liar?

    This is great. I come here for the informative, well-reasoned and stimulating discussions. Keep up the good work.

  15. phoodoo:
    Flint,

    Liar.

    Bitter much you’ve dedicated your life to something that’s just not working out as you expected?
    There is a lot of this from you and others like you e.g. Joe G, nonlin. You all just seem so angry all the time, bitter as fuck.

    It’s vastly enjoyable.

  16. phoodoo: Liar.

    Everyone reached their limit with colewd. His egregious lies became too much for even antagonistic discussion to bear.

    However the fact is that his lies were obvious and easily understood to be lies. But now that dam has burst it’s ‘liar’ free for all.

    Except, phoodoo, everyone else is capable of pointing out why colwed was lying.

    Whereas all you have done is write ‘liar’.

    That you do not notice this is the reason you are an IDer.

  17. phoodoo: Liar.

    When you said that the FBI uses PSI powers were you lying? When you insist that Uri Geller has PSI powers were you lying? When you insist that James Randi is a fraud preventing genuine PSI powers from coming to light, were you lying?

    In this case I would prefer to be a liar rather than an imbecile.

Leave a Reply