Sandbox (1)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox (1)”

  2. Joe G: It’s called csience:

    No, that’s called paologetics.

    If you meant “irreducibly complex” by the definition in that article (“a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”) then what is the problem for naturalistic evolution in that? It has to build up such systems, not reverse engineer them, as Michael Behe now realises, and you must know that some early evolutionists like Muller considered the discovery of such things a prediction of the theory. They’re certainly not a problem for it.

    I assumed that you meant historically irreducible, which would be the only claim relevant to evolution, and which is a different thing. No-one has ever demonstrated a biological system to be historically irreducible, which is why I questioned you on your apparent claim.

    BTW, I looked up the doctrinal statement of the college where the theo-biologist who wrote the article you linked to teaches. I loved it! Especially the bit about the literal six day creation. It’s interesting to get an insight into where you get your “csience” from. 🙂

  3. LoL!

    For one there isn’t any evidence that naturalistic evolution can produce any self-replicator capable of evolution.

    What does historically irreducible even mean?

    And I don’t care about backgrounds, just evidence. Heck if I considered the backgrounds of all the scientists before I read or accepted their work, I would easily dismiss the bulk of them for their adherence to materialism.

  4. Joe G:
    Yes, I swim 3 miles a week.

    Those chins must be excellent for flotation. I’m guessing your primary food is plankton?

  5. Joe:

    Well then present that alleged positive evidence for evolutionism.

    Like I say – I think you would deny all known evidence as really being evidence. There is evidence accepted by experts in the many relevant fields, and there is evidence accepted by you – the kind that would involve you and me staring at a pond for a million or two years, watching every last step. You bring the sandwiches, I’ll bring the beers. And you’d STILL think a Designer had done it, ‘cos he’s fucking invisible!

    I don’t care about Casey nor Cornelius- what do YOU have? As Dr Behe put it- How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinain/ neo-darwinian processes?

    Well yes, thank fuck for the flagellum. I mean, where would we be without Helicobacter pylori, Shigellas, (dysentery), O157:H7 and so on… You may not care about Casey nor Cornelius, but your objection list seems almost identical to theirs … got anything original to say?

    But no, the answer is, we cannot test that claim to your satisfaction. You would object to absolutely any evidence I could lay before you, unless it discredited evolution, in which case you would lap it up and ask for seconds.

  6. Imagine the claim that walking can only produce a “microjourney”, followed by demands for “evidence” that over time it can produce “macrojourneys”. Imagine that a “macrojourney” is regarded as impossible as the default. Finally, imagine that the maximum permitted observation time is 3 seconds.

    Would there be any possible way to satisfy this demand?

  7. LoL! You can’t test the claims of your position, period. As I said I was an evolutionist, I WANTED to believe. There is nothing there. And if all you have is to throw father time around, then you have left science behind.

    As for the flagellum I SAID “As Dr Behe put it”.

    But anyway I see your position is one of cowardice- “It doesn’t matter what evidence you won’t accept it”- that’s pure pussy-shit.

    BTW your “experts” can’t test the claims of evolutionism either. They may be experts in their own specialized area, but even Lenski is demonstrating limits to evolution.

  8. I get it- all you have is to throw father time around. That ain’t science and really stop blaming me because your position is untestable.

  9. Joe G: LoL! For one there isn’t any evidence that naturalistic evolution can produce any self-replicator capable of evolution.

    Don’t you mean “naturalistic processes”? Actually, they’re the only thing we have evidence for. Would you like to present an established example of a supernatural process?

    What does historically irreducible even mean?

    A system that couldn’t have reduced versions in the past. IOW, it couldn’t evolve step by step. That’s different from a system from which no components could be removed without destroying function in its present form in a modern organism. Michael Behe now knows this. Other biologists had figured it out before he was born.

    And I don’t care about backgrounds, just evidence. Heck if I considered the backgrounds of all the scientists before I read or accepted their work, I would easily dismiss the bulk of them for their adherence to materialism.

    It’s not a question of backgrounds. “Academics” who have signed up to a religious belief that the world was literally created in six days are going to have a distorted view of many (probably most) areas of science, and certainly of evolutionary biology. Nothing in your article demonstrates that asexual reproduction is historically irreducible. Non living molecules have been discovered that are capable of it.

    BTW, putting LoL! at the beginning of comments doesn’t add any weight to them.

  10. But anyway I see your position is one of cowardice- “It doesn’t matter what evidence you won’t accept it”- that’s pure pussy-shit.

    Cowardice? The mark of a brave opponent is one who gives you a bunch of references he knows in advance you are unlikely to read? References you are more than capable of digging out yourself? Yeah, whatever, Joe. I don’t care enough. I have seen many people attempting to address your supposed concerns – which has to start by unpacking your misapprehensions, and I would not know how to achieve that in the face of that “LALALALALA” noise you make. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Still, I can’t resist this:

    even Lenski is demonstrating limits to evolution.

    Say it ain’t so! A highly purified lab strain of ONE prokaryotic (hence asexual and amitochondrial) organism, in a tightly constrained selective environment and 20 year time frame? How amazingly unexpected!

  11. Again throwing father time around is not scientific. And you don’t have any scientific references that accumulations of genetic accidents can produce more than two new protein-to-protein bindinf sites.

  12. Allan Miller2: Say it ain’t so! A highly purified lab strain of ONE prokaryotic (hence asexual and amitochondrial) organism, in a tightly constrained selective environment and 20 year time frame? How amazingly unexpected!

    Joe needs E-Coli to become pigeons in 3 weeks with all of the mutations catalogued, and even that would support baraminology.

  13. Allan Miller,

    … (flagellum). where would we be without Helicobacter pylori, Shigellas, (dysentery), O157:H7 and so on…

    Cocked up here, and our noted microbiologist friend missed it (similarly, in another thread I had the peptide bond as carbon-carbon … I mean, really! How come my feet aren’t being held to the fire over these glaring errors?). Shigella has no flagellum. I was probably thinking Salmonella. Via intermediates such as Shalmonella… 🙂

    Interestingly, many of the more virulent bugs have a Type lll Secretory System that contains several sequence relatives from the flagellar system. The syringe of the T3SS is (apparently) homologous with the flagellum. It injects toxins into our cells, which is a great piece of design, ta very much Designer. Cells equipped with both are particularly well-favoured for screwing with us.

    Not sure which way evolutionary traffic is thought to go, but why so much focus on the flagellum when the T3SS is just as IC (or not)? Or is the T3SS a post-Fall flagellum?

  14. Actually, Behe has argued that T3SS is descended from the flagellum.

  15. petrushka: Actually, Behe has argued that T3SS is descended from the flagellum.

    That sort of seems to contradict his arguments against reducing the flagellum and against exaptation.

  18. Joe G: It doesn’t matter- your position cannot account for either of them.

    Oh look – Joe got ID wrong again.

  20. Ho oleg-

    Nested hierarchies- guess what? YOU still have failed to provide a valid definition of a nested hierarchy. And all you can do is bad-mouth the SITE that hosts the definitions that everyone uses.

    So have at it oleg- produce a valid definition of nested hierarchy or stuff a sock in it.

  21. Joe G:
    Ho oleg-

    Nested hierarchies- guess what? YOU still have failed to provide a valid definition of a nested hierarchy. And all you can do is bad-mouth the SITE that hosts the definitions that everyone uses.

    So have at it oleg- produce a valid definition of nested hierarchy or stuff a sock in it.

    A nested hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets. Do you understand what this means or should I unpack it for you? Term by term?

  23. So, we have two mechanisms, both of which are IC (the Designer had to make them both, though he must have reused parts). They both assist bacteria to infect and often kill us. Mysterious ways, indeed.

  24. Nested hierarchies- what oleg apparently doesn’t understand is just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used.

    My claim is that evolution will not produce a nested hierarchy of traits based on descent with modification.

  26. Joe G: Please reference your definition- it is too vague to be of any use.

    It’s useless because you don’t know how to use it, Joe. No problem, I can help.

    Let’s begin with nested sets. Do you understand what it means for sets to be nested? Can you give me an example of nested sets?

  27. Joe G:
    Nested hierarchies- what oleg apparently doesn’t understand is just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used.

    My claim is that evolution will not produce a nested hierarchy of traits based on descent with modification.

    Citation?

  28. Joe G: Nested hierarchies- what oleg apparently doesn’t understand is just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used.

    This is actually wrong. Here is an example of sets that do not form a nested hierarchy: {A,B}, {B,C}. One counter example should be enough.

  29. Yes, I’d like to see an example of a multi-celled organism whose genome is obviously not the result of common descent.

  30. The giant sucking sound you hear today is the sound of information going in one of Joe’s ears and out the other. 🙂

  32. No, it is useless because it is not referenced. Obvioulsy you have issues, oleg. REFERENCE the definition.

    Here I will help you, again-

    Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory

    Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

  34. Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models
    in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

    Any hierarchy based on descent with modification will be a non-nested hierarchy that fits the example having “first-life” at the sarting point.

    oleg cannot counter that with anything but spewage.

  35. Joe G:
    No, it is useless because it is not referenced. Obvioulsy you have issues, oleg. REFERENCE the definition.

    Here I will help you, again-

    Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory

    Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

    Joe, I am not sure how adding a “REFERENCE” to a crackpot web site makes your definition any better than mine. But let’s have a closer look. After all, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. 🙂

    Here is the definition you found (or what looks closest to being a definition in that paragraph):

    nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

    Here is my definition:

    A nested hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets.

    And here are a couple of questions:
    1. Are the two definitions equivalent?
    2a. If they are then what was the point of your objection?
    2b. If they are not then what is the difference? Bonus question: can you provide an example that satisfies one definition but not the other?

    Good luck!

  36. ??? In what way is that a crackpot web site? Looked quite reasonable to me.

  37. Flint:
    ??? In what way is that a crackpot web site? Looked quite reasonable to me.

    These are a bunch of old guys doing their cargo-cult science. Check out their annual bulletins on this page. The 2009 one, for example.

  38. oleg,

    I understand that you cannot deal with the content of the definition I linked to so you are forced to act like a little baby.

    The site I linked to contains several criteria that has to be met. Also Dr Allen’s definitions, Dr Allen is the author of that site, is referenced in peer-revewed literature. YOU are not.

    YOUR definition is vague as it requires another definition, that of nested sets- why are they nested and what makes them nested.

  40. nested hierarchies and evolution:

    With a gradual evolution we would expect to see a blending of characteristics, which would produce a Venn diagram. With a nested hierarchy we cannot have a blending of characteristics as each set on any one level must be exclusive- that is only consist of and contain members of one set at any one level. With a Venn diagram an organism could be part of two or more sets at any one level.

    That said, the nested hierarchy we have created- Linnean taxonomy- is NOT based on nor does it reflect, descent with modification.

  41. Materialism doesn’t even rate “cargo-cult”- perhaps oleg should look in a mirror before pointing fingers…

  42. Nested hierarchies- what oleg apparently doesn’t understand is just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used.

    For example someone could construct a nested hierarchy out of their body, their bureau, their bedroom, their house, and their car.

  43. Joe G:
    oleg,

    I understand that you cannot deal with the content of the definition I linked to so you are forced to act like a little baby.

    The site I linked to contains several criteria that has to be met. Also Dr Allen’s definitions, Dr Allen is the author of that site, is referenced in peer-revewed literature. YOU are not.

    YOUR definition is vague as it requires another definition, that of nested sets- why are they nested and what makes them nested.

    Joe, you complain as if the notion of nested sets is difficult to understand. It’s not. If you understand what a subset and a superset are then you should have no trouble of understanding nested sets. At some point, on another forum, you claimed to understand these notions. Did you forget all that? 🙂

    Anyway, since you can’t answer my questions, I will answer them myself. The two definitions are equivalent. 🙂

  44. Joe G:
    nested hierarchies and evolution:

    With a gradual evolution we would expect to see a blending of characteristics, which would produce a Venn diagram. With a nested hierarchy we cannot have a blending of characteristics as each set on any one level must be exclusive- that is only consist of and contain members of one set at any one level. With a Venn diagram an organism could be part of two or more sets at any one level.

    That said, the nested hierarchy we have created- Linnean taxonomy- is NOT based on nor does it reflect, descent with modification.

    After all these years, Joe, you still do not understand in what sense the tree of life is a nested hierarchy. It’s a nested hierarchy of clades, not characteristics. For example, most monkeys have tails, but apes and humans do not. Nonetheless, monkeys, apes, humans, and their common ancestors form a clade (Haplorhini). A clade = an ancestral taxon + all of its descendants. Such a structure is a tree by definition. Nested sets. Or each level (a clade including the ancestral taxon) consists of and contains all lower levels (clades that include its descendants but not the ancestral taxon itself).

    All these years of reading the Berkeley evolution site, all for nuttin’, Joe! 🙂

  45. olegt: These are a bunch of old guys doing their cargo-cult science. Check out their annual bulletins on this page. The 2009 one, for example.

    Do have a look at their web site. They are hilarious nutters. Here is an excerpt from the 2008 address of the ISSS President:

    Leaving aside the issue of science for a moment, there is clearly a need for paying attention to the quality of the work and research that we do as professionals. If we allow ourselves and each other as peers to promote vague and general notions with no foundation, in our writing or presentations or applications, then we bring questions about credibility onto ourselves. To address this problem, though, requires establishing clearer standards about what we mean by systems, and what good work within those boundaries requires. This also implies being clear about how we distinguish our work in systems from work in other disciplines. Bluntly, if someone were to randomly read an article from a systems journal and not be able to tell that it came from a systems journal, rather than from a journal in any of a hundred more specialized disciplines, we have a problem. At the least, we need clarity between developing systems principles per se, and applying systems principles to other disciplines of research or study. In this way we need both more rigor within our own discipline and greater internal relevance to clearer concepts.

    They don’t even know for sure what they mean by systems!

  46. Joe G:
    Nested hierarchies- what oleg apparently doesn’t understand is just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. It all depends on the criteria used.

    For example someone could construct a nested hierarchy out of their body, their bureau, their bedroom, their house, and their car.

    I would surely like to see that one!

  47. After all these years, Joe, you still do not understand in what sense the tree of life is a nested hierarchy.

    In what way?

    It’s a nested hierarchy of clades

    Clades are based on shared characteristics.

    not characteristics.

    After all these years oleg still does not understand cladistics:

    Cladistics is a method of categorizing organisms based on shared characteristics. Each clade (allegedly) consists of a common ancestor and all of its (alleged) descendents:
    intro to cladistics

    The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are “closely related,” more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

    cladistics:

    Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

    IOW the way they determine who is a relative is based entirely on shared characteristics.

    And also what is cladistics?

    The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy- see Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

    Each clade, note- not the entire cladogram, can be a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics in that each descendent node will consist of and contain, ie share, a set of defined characteristics present in the alleged common ancestor. However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    The point being is that if your basis for clade-construction is to make it conform to a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics, then yes, you should see that a clade is a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics, duh.

  49. oleg:

    Anyway, since you can’t answer my questions, I will answer them myself. The two definitions are equivalent.

    No, they are not. On the site I linked to it is more specific. Your definition requires prior knowledge and uses the word that needs to be defined in the definition.

  50. Joe G: No, they are not.

    If they are not then there must be systems that are nested hierarchies according to one definition and are not according to the other. Go ahead and provide an example. 🙂

    If no such systems exist then the two definitions are equivalent. 🙂

Comments are closed.