On 4/20/2011 4:01 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is a reason why a lot of biologists use the term IDiocy to
> describe this. Sadly, a few too many comp-sci people fail to grasp why
> its similarly intractable in terms of computer code (where, the
> equivalent in that would be taking a running application, and inserting
> new code into it, without breaking links, jump points, functionality, or
> mangling the data being processed, mid-change).
To clarify, other requirements - The application be monolithic, not 
include scripting/JIT compilation, and have massive crosslinking, such 
that a minor change "might" be OK in the running code, but if you do 
need to reboot (split off a clone, or produce other sorts of offspring), 
some form of reboot "will" happen, and your change has just broken 500 
other steps in the process, since its a critical part of some library, 
which just happened to not cause problems in the "running" 
implementation, but causes a whole shitload of errors, during start up 
(like a zip library, which works fine for a set sized data sample, but 
breaks when you try to unzip entire branches of the boot code, which are 
larger, or smaller, than being handled in the "running" instance).

In any case, even if you could produce such a thing, and have it self 
modify safely, it only helps the front load argument, not the "it didn't 
evolve" one. You still have to show where the front load code is, which 
means doing research, and... these people don't *do* research.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 15:26, andrel wrote:
> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.

OK. Let's grant that that is the actual hypothesis.

> even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as a
> result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

Designed by whom? An naturally-evolved creature? Who then selected that 
protein unnaturally?  As soon as you say "naturally-evolved aliens might be 
the intelligence" then you've broken your hypothesis.

Seedless grapes and bananas were evolved by natural selection. It happened 
to be humans doing the selecting, but it was natural selection and evolution.

So again, even if you find a protein that you think could not have evolved 
naturally, then you have to prove that nobody who is naturally evolved 
created it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
> 
> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by 
evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.  
What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a 
poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization (at 
worst).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> No it can't. Not in science.

I didn't say "in science".  In common usage, and that's part of the 
problem with the Creationist argument (which I stated before):  They 
misuse the word "Theory".

Now, if you couple the idea that ID is not science but evolution is, you 
can use "theory" in describing both - because one has the context of not 
being science, and one has the context of being science.

It is a legitimate *linguistic* usage of the word.  My point was to 
illustrate that this is the device used by creationists to argue that 
it's science, and it's born out of ignorance of the *scientific* usage of 
the word as compared to the 'common usage' use of the word - or it's born 
out of malicious use of the same word intended to cause confusion in 
those who don't understand that words can actually mean more than one 
thing, and that the *context* is important.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to deny.

> When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war 
> professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were 
> nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but 
> they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of 
> these churches.

  The problem with the claims that nazis were atheists is the implied
correlation-implies-causation. In other words, nazis did what they did
*because* they were atheists (and they would not have done it if they
had been christians). This is unjustified.

  Nevertheless, whether the nazis were religious or atheists, it doesn't
really matter. The *origin* of antisemitism is largerly religious. Religion
caused the spread of antisemitism and prejudice against the jews. Without
the Catholic church it's very possible that the nazis would have not been
antisemitic (for the simple reason that there would have not been a widespread
negative notion of the jews).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:19:18 -0400, Warp wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to
>> deny.
> 
>> When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war
>> professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were
>> nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but
>> they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of
>> these churches.
> 
>   The problem with the claims that nazis were atheists is the implied
> correlation-implies-causation. In other words, nazis did what they did
> *because* they were atheists (and they would not have done it if they
> had been christians). This is unjustified.

Yep, that's the point I was getting at.

>   Nevertheless, whether the nazis were religious or atheists, it doesn't
> really matter. The *origin* of antisemitism is largerly religious.
> Religion caused the spread of antisemitism and prejudice against the
> jews. Without the Catholic church it's very possible that the nazis
> would have not been antisemitic (for the simple reason that there would
> have not been a widespread negative notion of the jews).

Agreed.  At the very least, Naziism had an undercurrent of "Jews = Evil 
because they killed Jesus", which to some extent was until *very* 
recently something the Catholic Church supported (The Pope only in the 
last year renounced that idea, certainly it was considered a 'valid' 
position by some within the Catholic church in the 40's.)

But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was 
the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout 
history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to 
decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a 
Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was 
> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout 
> history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to 
> decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a 
> Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

  Ah, the classic no true scotsman fallacy...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:58:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
>> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as
>> throughout history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so
>> who gets to decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no,
>> that's not a Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't
>> Christian".
> 
>   Ah, the classic no true scotsman fallacy...

Precisely. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 22:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>
>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
>> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
>> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).
>
> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.
> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

That was exactly my point. Everyone on the goddidit side believes there's 
only evolution or god.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

(Replying late because I've been neck deep in idiotic accounting problems for a
couple of weeks.)

Following this from within, this is an easy question:
Frightening, hands down.

Yes, the vast majority of these folks, many of whom hold positions of
responsibility and authority in important institutions, are absolutely serious
and this completely out of touch with reality as indicated by reason,
observation and the scientific method.

Once a group of people have decided that agreement with an unquestioned
authority is the one and only check on reality that is required, and can

position, there is virtually no limit to the level of outright silliness that




then *YOU* are the bigot.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message