Dr Behe's irreducible mousetrap
-
In "Darwin's Black Box" Dr Behe used a 5 part mousetrap to illustrate irreducible complexity (IC).
What IC is supposed to refute is the premise that non-telic processes can account for it.
So what do the anti-IDists do?
They misrepresent Dr Behe, and set up strawman after strawman in order to "refute" him.
John H. McDonald has provided the evidence that supports my claim:
A reducibly complex mousetrap
If one goes to that site you will notice something missing- no where on that page does it describe how non-telic processes can make the changes required!
IOW McDonald proves that he is a clueless dolt.
Why do anti-IDists think their ignorance is some sort of refutation?
In "Darwin's Black Box" Dr Behe used a 5 part mousetrap to illustrate irreducible complexity (IC).
What IC is supposed to refute is the premise that non-telic processes can account for it.
So what do the anti-IDists do?
They misrepresent Dr Behe, and set up strawman after strawman in order to "refute" him.
John H. McDonald has provided the evidence that supports my claim:
A reducibly complex mousetrap
If one goes to that site you will notice something missing- no where on that page does it describe how non-telic processes can make the changes required!
IOW McDonald proves that he is a clueless dolt.
Why do anti-IDists think their ignorance is some sort of refutation?
posted by Joe G @ 10:41 AM
121 Comments:
At 9:19 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Nope! Behe used the moustrap as a specific example of irreducible complexity and claimed that the removal of any of its parts would cause it to fail completely, and hence, it could not have been assembled by a slow gradual process. And that specific point is refuted by demonstrating that a simpler mousetrap can indeed exist. Both Behe's example and the response to it are jokes, only Behe does not seem to realize how much of a joke his example is. The sense of humour appears to be hard to find in the ID/creotard world...
At 9:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Behe used the moustrap as a specific example of irreducible complexity and claimed that the removal of any of its parts would cause it to fail completely, and hence, it could not have been assembled by a slow gradual process.-
Nope, it's all about Darwinian processes- ie random variation and natural selection. "Darwin's Black Box" and everything else Behe wrote makes that very clear.
And that specific point is refuted by demonstrating that a simpler mousetrap can indeed exist.-
Only retards think like that and Behe covered that on page 43 of "Darwin's Black Box":
"The trap described above is not te onlysystem that can immobilize a mouse. On other occasions my family has used a glue trap. In theory, at least, one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped. Or one could simply shoot the mouse with a BB gun. These are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap, however, since they cannot be transformed, step by Darwinian step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar."-
It is as if he predicted the tard in evolutionists.
It is an evolved tard but not hard to flesh out.
IDists talk about one system.
Tarded evos say yeah but look at this one.
IDist says I am talking about this one not that one. That one is irrelevant to this one.
Tarded evo says yeah but look at this one.
You guys are an embarrasment to the human race.
At 9:50 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
In which case, Behe's example fails for another reason: the mousetrap is not a living organism and does not reproduce differentially, hence using it as an example of ANYTHING in the biological realm is simply idiotic.
At 10:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm reproduction is what requires an explanation you tardo.
That is the whole point- living organisms are irreducibly complex, right down to basic reproduction.
IOW if non-telic processes cannot account for a 5 part mousetrap what hope is there that non-telic processes can account for something far more intricate, specified and complex?
Peering into Darwin's Black Box:
The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life-
"Oh but those cells aren't the same as the cells that started evolution."
And yet there isn't any data that says they were any different.
At 10:18 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Babbling won't help you, since evolutionary theory *predicts* what Behe calls "irreducible complexity". I recommend reading some real peer-reviewed papers, as well as boining up on the history of biology, as you apparently are unaware of much biological thought outside the deformed ID/creotard circle. (Hint: Behe's argument has been put forth before, repeatefdly, and was always punctured). And if you do not get the difference between a differentially reproducing organism, and, er, a mousetrap, there does not appear to be much hope for you. I recommend also looking up the statement of Lehigh professors about Behe's silliness.
At 12:11 AM,
blipey said…
Come on, Joe. Behe clearly says the trap cannot have arisen in a gradual manner. That a gradual manner for its creation has been shown refutes that statement.
You might see the previous thread for an discussion of why you'd like to have it both ways.
At 8:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
The theory of evolution does not predict irreducible complexity.
(Muller didn't even address any molecular evidence because he didn't know about it)
Too bad you cannot present any peer-reviewed papers to support you position.
And I know the differnce between inanimate objects and living organisms.
That is the issue- you seem to think it is OK to start with what needs explaining in the first place.
IOW you people are tards all the way through.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Behe clearly says the trap cannot have arisen in a gradual manner.-
Gradual manner via Darwinian processes- meaning undirected, non-goal oriented processes.
That is what he clearly states time and time again.
Again your ignorance is meaningless.
At 8:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Dr Behe:
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
Note the sentence:
The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process.
Once again clownie and the evotards are proven wrong.
I predcit more flailing...
At 9:13 AM,
blipey said…
Right, Joe. And the fact that even one gradual path can be found falsifies IC. That goes both for the stupid mouse trap thing and more importantly for things like the immune system. If even one part of the immune system can be shown to be evolvable, its IC is shot.
That you would like irreducible to mean something else is of little consequence.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
And the fact that even one gradual path can be found falsifies IC.
It is not about a gradual path.
It is about the mechanism(s) involved.
That is what Behe says. That is what the DI says. That is what the debate is all about.
If even one part of the immune system can be shown to be evolvable, its IC is shot.
Only in the minds of ignorant morons.
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik Pratt the fucking projectionist strikes again:
That you would like irreducible to mean something else is of little consequence.
You are the one who would like irreducible to mean something else you ignorant fuck.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
I am off to make vitamin D.
I will be back later...
At 9:54 AM,
blipey said…
You can change what Behe said all you want. Or, even better, you can follow the changes to definitions that Behe made. It doesn't make the idea any more compelling.
One might think that a definition that constantly blurs in a reactionary process may not be a definition at all....
Behe (2006): A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39
Behe (later): An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Wow! Those don't mean anything like the same thing! Why is that?
And, of course, we can't leave Dimbski out: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, p285)
Wow! That's a lot different from the above two definitions.
What have we learned kiddies?
Well, We've learned that an IC system ceases to operate if even one part of it is taken away...unless of course it evolved in a way that allowed for less parts as long as it evolved not by mutation but by design...unless the whole thing might have evolved but didn't do the same thing as it does now.
Kinda hard to see why people don't buy it....
At 9:58 AM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
I am mainly laughing at your apparent incapacity to distinguish between an assertion and a proof and your unawareness of the conditions required for an assertion to be shown false, as IC is in the particular cases Behe brings up. And name-calling is certainly a hallmark of good logic. W00t! (Oh, and just for the record: if you are unable to tell why the lack of reproductive capability matters for a mousetrap your sad attempts to demonstrate IC are, erm, spontaneously aborted).
At 8:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Reproduction is IC.
And you donb't have any evidence that IC can arise via non-telic processes.
At 8:27 PM,
Joe G said…
You can change what Behe said all you want.-
I didn't change what Behe said.
I posted what he said.
He is talking about undirected, ie non-telic processes.
And it is very telling that you can't provide any evidence to refute his claim.
At 8:29 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Reproduction is not IC; that is one of those groundless assertions that you have been making. And we do NOT observe any IC anywhere, so your attempt to invoke "telic" (teleological? teleonomical? there are at least 4 kinds of apparently goal-oriented processes; see Mayr) processes fails since there is no need for them.
At 8:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Reproduction is IC.
Did you even read the article I linked to?
That has been the whole problem for your position- living organisms are IC and their reproductive process is IC. THAT is why the origin of life has been such a problem for your position.
It cannot get around the fact that a whole complex, specified and intricate system has to be in place before anything happens.
Evolutionists don't observe IC because they have their heads up their asses.
At 9:01 PM,
Joe G said…
reproduction is IC:
The smallest living building block of life, the cell, is enormously complex, and a great number of its mechanisms are irreducibly complex. Few theories have been proposed explaining how irreducibly complex mechanisms could have evolved by Darwinian natural selection. It could be argued that given enough time a simple reproducing population of living “protocells” could have provided a format for the evolution of complex mechanisms. However, even in “simple” bacteria, the most basic cell functions display irreducibly complex mechanisms—for instance, cell division. This article considers the origin of an irreducibly complex cell division apparatus and contrasts protocell theory with intelligent design theory.
At 9:04 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Yes, I looked at the article, and it makes the same set of empty assertions. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity"; it is a catchphrase to describe anything tht is not within the realm of current knowledge. As Behe's failures (BCC, flagella) ahve shown, this stance is rather useless, a simple appeal to ignorance.
And you do not need to lecture me on abiogenesis; that is one of my main fields of interest along with searching for biomarkers in explanetary atmospheres.
At 9:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Behe's failures?
LoL!!
You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it.
Everything Behe has claimed to be IC remains IC.
And the theory of evolution is an appeal to ignorance.
The theory was founded on ignorance and thrives due to our ignorance.
BTW science says only life begets life.
IOW your abiogenesis is science fiction.
And if you want to know where to look for life on other planets, read "The Privilehde Planet".
At 9:28 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW you can refute the notion of IC by just substantiating the claims of your position.
But there still isn't anything in peer-review that would do so.
As a matter of fact a recent paper demonstrates the failure of non-telic processes:
Waiting for Two Mutations
A paper that tried to refute Behe but ended up substantiating his claims.
At 9:42 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
1.Have read it. Gonzalez is wrong, and exhibits the same misunderstandings of evolutionary theory as you do, surprisingly, since he is in general a smart guy and a capable astronomer.
2.And your knowledge of abiogenetic hypotheses is? I remind you: we do not have to come up with a *correct* mechanism for abiogenesis, only a plausible one. You are the one claiming it is impossible; all I have to do, logically, is demonstrate that it is possible. The same goes for IC: all I have to do is demonstrate that a given structure is, indeed, "reducible" and the claim goes straight down the drain. (And that has been demonstrated for both flagella and BCC, "flagships" of Behe's claims. It is a sign of Behe's intellectual dishonesty that he attempted to twist like a leaf in the wind and retroactively change his claims and definitions).
3.On the initial subject of the mousetrap, let me repeat again, in kindergartenese. If a moustrap is not a differentially reproducing organism, Behe's analogy fails since then he is comparing apples with plungers. If, on the other hand, he wants us to treat it as a differentially reproducing organism (an outlandish claim, but we'll grant him that, for the sake of humour), then demonstrating simpler functional mousetraps defeats his claim of irreducibility. Either way, he loses.
But since you are apparently unaware of what "differential reproduction" means, I suspect my attempt to explain will go over your head.
At 10:23 PM,
Joe G said…
1. Gonzalez is wrong about what?
And what are his alleged misunderstandings?
Or are bald accusations and false assertions the best you have?
2.And your knowledge of abiogenetic hypotheses is? I remind you: we do not have to come up with a *correct* mechanism for abiogenesis, only a plausible one.
My knowledge is basically what has been written and made available.
And I know enough to know that imagination is not a substitute for data.
IOW just because you think you may be able to put together a glossy narrative doesn't mean anything more than any religious document or bedtime story does.
You are the one claiming it is impossible; all I have to do, logically, is demonstrate that it is possible.
Do you understand the word "demonstration"?
Imagination is not a demonstration.
We have seen what it takes just to get two nucleotides.
We have seen what it takes just to get two rna strands to make ONE BOND.
Any scenario you dream up has to take that into account.
The same goes for IC: all I have to do is demonstrate that a given structure is, indeed, "reducible" and the claim goes straight down the drain.
The world awaits a demonstration.
All you can offer is strawman after strawman and nothing in peer-review.
No experiment- and then that "two mutations" paper.
Quite the clincher.
You accuse Behe of being dishonest when that is all you have- lies and bullshit.
Bald assertions and false accusations, and no substance.
3.On the initial subject of the mousetrap, let me repeat again, in kindergartenese.
Which appears to be above your level.
You appear to not even read what Behe is saying.
Yes he is treating the mousetrap as if it could reproduce.
Do you not understand what he said- and I quoted?:
"The trap described above is not te onlysystem that can immobilize a mouse. On other occasions my family has used a glue trap. In theory, at least, one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped. Or one could simply shoot the mouse with a BB gun. These are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap, however, since they cannot be transformed, step by Darwinian step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar."-
I can't fix stupid Jorgon.
You guys act as if your ignorance and stupidity are meaningful.
But since you are apparently unaware of what "differential reproduction" means
I guess you just had to end with another false accusation and bald assertion.
You seem to be unaware of just about everything.
At 2:24 AM,
blipey said…
Please go to court, Joe. Over anything. Anything at all. Please! Choose the suit. Please.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
I have been to Court and I have won my suit.
I will be going back and I expect to win again.
At 9:50 AM,
Joe G said…
If Erik Pratt ever goes to Court I hope the opposing side hires me as a consultant.
I know I could get him to lie on the stand and/or generally make a fool of himself.
At 10:00 AM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Meanwhile...we are working, discovering new things, doing useful research.
You are screaming on the internet and boasting pathologically.
At 10:14 AM,
Joe G said…
What are you discovering?
Does it support your position?
What useful research are you talking about?
Useful for what and to who?
BTW you are the one boasting you wanker.
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Refuting Matzke:
The evolution of the flagellum
Matzke starts with a TTSS- IC in its own right- to get the flagellum.
However science sez that the TTSS came after the flagellum.
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Do you intend to support your false accusations and bald assertions about myself, Gonzalez and Behe?
If not then fuck off. I am tired of dealing with lying losers.
At 11:07 AM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
LOL, you are a barrel of laughs. And with all the problems that Behe and Gonzalez have with their thinking, your attempt to inject yourself into the same sentence with them is pure comedy, of course.
At 1:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
You are just another piece of shit that gets stepped on, scraped off and washed away.
At 1:48 PM,
blipey said…
So, I seem to remember talking about an EXAMPLE working the Stonehenge Problem. Since that's obviously beyond your abilities, perhaps you could provide an EXAMPLE of a simpler mousetrap than Behe's. That seems easier.
At 5:59 PM,
Joe G said…
So, I seem to remember talking about an EXAMPLE working the Stonehenge Problem.
And you have proven that EXAMPLES are not required.
Also you have failed to describe what is this alleged "Stonehenge Problem".
It appears that it is something that you made up.
Since that's obviously beyond your abilities, perhaps you could provide an EXAMPLE of a simpler mousetrap than Behe's.
Everything but juggling seems beyond your capabilities.
So have at it.
Provide a simpler mousetrap.
I bet it doesn't help your case.
Ya see when someone is talking about one thing it is dishonest and intellectrually bankrupt to bring up something else.
So let's see if you have anything relevant.
Your history predicts you don't.
At 6:05 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
And yet I accomplish something in my field, while all you can do is rant and rave and make a fool of yourself.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Cleaning toilets isn't that big of an accomplishemnet.
2- Being called a fool by a complete dolt is a compliment.
At 6:31 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Impotent rage is a wonder to behold, and a barrel of laughs as I have said already.
At 7:38 PM,
Joe G said…
My characterization of evolutionists exactly.
Impotent rage and a barrel of monkees.
At 7:42 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Who is raging? I point out that your opinions are incorrect and unsupported by facts, and that irreducible complexity is meaningless (an opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists, by the way; not that I would use an appeal to authority which you are clearly fond of), and you rant and foam at the mouth like some two-bit town-haller.
Methings thou art a weasel.
At 8:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
You have provided your opinion only.
You have posted false accusations and bald assertions.
When you do shit like that you prove you are a screaming wanker.
At 8:15 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Incorrect. But at this point all I am doing is goading you into another spittle-throwing fit. I find great comic relief in this. Giggle.
At 8:24 PM,
Joe G said…
No, what I said is very correct and proven by all your posts.
Now all you have is to try to goad me because you sure as hell can't support your claims.
At 8:34 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Really? How is your arbitrary claim that reproduction=IC proven by anything? It does indicate your ignorance of the subject (just as not being able to grasp why Behe's mousetrap is not a good analogy). How does an appeal to ignorance and authority (and personal incredulity)constitute a proof? And if you are trying to appeal to authority, you could do much better than Dembski (who fails to understand the simple concept of algorithmic processes, despite his degrees in mathematics) and Behe (whose intellectual dishonesty led him into some deep conundra, like retroactively changing his definitions and, funniest of all, defending astrology as science). You appear to be deluded as well.
Methinks it is a weasel, still.
At 8:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm the scientific data substantiates my claim- the reproduction is IC.
All you can do is handwave it away.
Now you go on another meaningless rant with more false accusations and bald assertions.
And in all of this you haven't provided one shred of supporting data.
You just make bald claims as if they mean something.
At 8:45 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
I have not made any claims except for pointing out that Behe's and Dembski's claims do not hold water. You, on the other hand, claim omniscience and superiority non-stop. Quite amusing, actually, from someone who, again, does not understand the difference between a non-living and differentially reproducing object, and who is obviously unaware of the (mathematically demonstrated!) power of natural selection acting on said differential reproduction, nor of the self-replicating lipid-membrane enclosed bits of RNA (done in the lab), nor of the self-organizization (look up Kaufmann's work), or self-catalyzing reactions. Nor did you catch any of my specific allusions. Oh well, pearls before swine.
But again, I am not here to argue. Arguing with IDiots and creotards is useless. I am only here for amusement.
At 8:58 PM,
Joe G said…
You don't have an argument, just bald assertions and false accusations.
You have not supported the claim that Behe's and Dembski's claims do not hold water.
To do so would mean you would actually have to support your position.
But you can't and that is why we are having this debate.
Where have I claimed "omniscience and superiority"?
Natural selection is a result that has never been demonstrated to do much of anything.
Differential reproduction can occur by any number of ways.
Whatever survives, survives.
No really predicting who will outreproduce who.
You can't even provide an example of new protein machinery and new body plans.
RNA does not form without our help.
Just to get two nucleotides requires a great deal of our involvement.
Yes I have read Kaufmann and unless he has something new and very revolutionary he doesn't have anything. Self-org doesn't come close to explaining living organisms.
BTW your "allusions" amount to nothing more than bald assertions and false accusations.
Again that is all you have because you sure as shit can't support your position.
At 9:07 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Who is debating? Not me. I am laughing, that's all. You have deomsntrated your incapacity to hold rational debate by your happy ad hominems and near-total ignorance of the field outside of the two or three deeply suspect (and repeatedly debunked) popular pseudo-science books. And why should I point you to the debunkings? You are a grown-up, you know how to use Google.
Still giggling.
At 9:08 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Oh, I am sorry: apparently you do not know what "allusion" means. Oh well.
At 10:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Tards always laugh at that which they cannot comprehend.
All you can do is throw out bald assertions and false accusations.
And you think that is meaningful discourse.
Amazing.
BTW I am aware of the alleged debunking.
I referenced one in the OP.
I am not aware of any that upon close inspection, holds any water.
I have seen strawman after strawman.
That you blindly accept that pap as "debunking" is very amusing indeed.
FYI- I know what "allusion" means.
And what you think are "allusions" are really just bald assertions and false accusations.
And something else to consider- when you make a claim:
And that specific point is refuted by demonstrating that a simpler mousetrap can indeed exist.
You have to provide the reasoning or it is meaningless.
And when you begin with:
Behe used the moustrap as a specific example of irreducible complexity and claimed that the removal of any of its parts would cause it to fail completely, and hence, it could not have been assembled by a slow gradual process.
Proves you are a clueless tool.
At 10:34 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
LOL, never fails. No, my reference to allusions was not to "bald assertions". You still have not demonstrated that you know what it means, just as you have not demonstrated that you are aware of any mathematical work underpinning population biology, or evolutionary ecology. Also, and again, your failure to see why Behe's analogy fails in either case is a clue to your powers of reason.
And again, I am not debating with you. You have not made any claims that do not turn out to be logical fallacies upon closer examination. I would refer my friends and collegues to your site for shits and giggles, but I suspec tthat you are only concerned in blog hits, so they can just watch over my shoulder.
Once more, methinks it is a weasel.
At 1:37 AM,
blipey said…
Examples show mastery of subject. Your complete refusal to even think that examples are useful is amusing.
Keep it (not) coming!
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
It is very telling that you cannot provide any examples to support your position.
At 11:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Your "allusiuons" were and are nothing but bald assertions.
It appears that is all you have as you certainly haven't demonstrated the ability to support your position.
And as I said I know you are not debating me. You have to have some knowledge to engage in a debate and you don't seem to have any.
BTW just because you and your mental midgets think Behe is wrong that doesn't make it so.
At 12:10 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Ah, so silly again, And so easily goaded into useless rants.
I am not debating you because you have not presented a single point that has not been throroughly debunked on both biological and philosophical level. I am not debating you because it is useless to debate someone who thingks that logical fallacies are a good way to argu, and who does not know the difference between an allusion and an assertion but is convinced that he does. I am not debating you because your understanding of molecular and evolutionary biology appears to be that of an average 3rd-grader. What would be the point?
Getting an outraged reaction from you, however, is worth a minute or two it takes to type a quick post. It would almost be trolling were it not true.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
You can babble all you want but you could never support anything you say.
You are not debating me because you don't know anything and don't have anything.
All you can do is misrepresent, lie and spew nonsense.
Bye bye.
At 12:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon's first misrepresentation:
Behe used the moustrap as a specific example of irreducible complexity and claimed that the removal of any of its parts would cause it to fail completely, and hence, it could not have been assembled by a slow gradual process.
Jorgon's firt lie:
And that specific point is refuted by demonstrating that a simpler mousetrap can indeed exist.
And that was just in his first post!
It didn't get any better after that.
At 12:18 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Are you still missing on the difference between a constructed non-living object and a differentially reproducing one? Thought so. You have nothing but spittle. At least I've got a piece of paper from an accredited University...:)
And you are easily and predictably goaded into responding in precisely the way I want you to. That, perhaps, is the funniest thing of them all.
At 12:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Are you still using that which needs to be explained in the first place?
Yes that is the ignoevo way.
At 12:31 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
LOL. But enough of that! I explained the difference to you; you seem not to be able to wrap your mind around it, so we'll leave it at that. After all, your ravings do not pick my pocket nor break my leg.
At 12:58 PM,
Joe G said…
RoTFLMAO!!!!!
You haven't explained anything.
All you have are bald assertions and flase accusations.
That you think those are "explanations" is very amusing.
At 1:08 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
I like the way that you seem to believe that if you repeat "bald assertions and false accusations" enough times it will somehow make it true. All you have is appeals to ignorance, utter ignorance of the basic theory and ad hominem attacks.
Hilarious and predictable. let's see some more spittle!
At 3:46 PM,
blipey said…
Speaking of explanations....
How is it that you determine the design of Stonehenge?
At 10:14 PM,
Joe G said…
How is it that you determine the design of Stonehenge?
Exactly how I have explained it to you.
At 10:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Your posts provide the evidence of your bald assertions and false accusations.
And the theory of evolution was borne out of ignorance and relies on ignorance.
IOW your position is ignorance all the way down.
At 10:41 AM,
blipey said…
Right. You look for counterflow. Which, as you have explained it, means you look for signs that humans did it.
Which is great. But hardly helps with the determination of the design of the universe.
At 10:46 AM,
Joe G said…
You look for counterflow.
Very good.
Which, as you have explained it, means you look for signs that humans did it.
That is false- I never explained counteflow like that.
YOU on the other hand seem to think that we detect design because we know humans did it.
And that is plain ole ignorant.
At 10:47 AM,
blipey said…
So, an example of counterflow you see in Stonehenge that isn't based on what we know humans do would be???
At 11:12 AM,
Joe G said…
So, an example of counterflow you see in Stonehenge that isn't based on what we know humans do would be???
When Stonehenge was first investigated we didn't know humans in that area could move such large stones.
As I said it was only via investigation- decades worth, maybe even centuries- that we determined humans could have built it.
And that doesn't say anything about who designed it.
Also saying "humans" did it doesn't really add specifics.
Just as a forensic scientist investigating a homicide saying a human did it doesn't add anything.
At 3:58 PM,
blipey said…
I suppose you think that no man ever in the history of the world looked at Stonehenge and said, "Man couldn't possibly have built that!"
Or, do you think it possible that some dude (who happened to live in a stone house) in 340 AD looked at it and said, "I wonder what group of guys built that?"
At 4:57 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Man has looked at Stonehnege and said "humans could not have possibly built it."
2- Someone came out of their stone hut, looked at the giant's causeway and said "I wonder what group of giants built that."
Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are clueless.
At 5:04 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
1- Man has looked at Stonehnege and said "humans could not have possibly built it."
And now we know better. The fact that you use that to attempt to defend your position demonstrates your basic cluelessness and general laughability.
This parrot is dead.
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
NOW we do.
THAT is the WHOLE point.
The fact that you can't follow along nor offer up anything but ignorance and stupidity proves that you are the parrot.
At 5:20 PM,
blipey said…
Well, Joe. You seem to believe that humans built Stonehenge.
Do you think those humans came out of their stone houses and said, "Shit! I wonder who built that?"
Keep it coming!
At 5:24 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
The fact that you claim to know something is designed is an appeal to ignorance. Basic logic here, comrade.
At 5:25 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
Blipey: indeed. But Joe here seems to think that he is the pinnacle of human wisdom, and anything undiscovered yet shall forever remain so.
At 5:27 PM,
Joe G said…
You seem to believe that humans built Stonehenge.
They may have.
But no one needed to know that before coming to a design inference.
As a matter of fact it took years of research to gain the knowledge required to make that inference.
So first it was the design inference and then it was determined humans may have built it.
Still nothing on who designed it.
At 5:30 PM,
Joe G said…
The fact that you claim to know something is designed is an appeal to ignorance.
It's called an inference asshole.
And scientists make the claim of design every day.
Are you saying archaeology, SETI and forensic science are based on ignorance?
I claim to infer design because of a few factors:
Laws/ regularity cannot account for it. Chance and necessity cannot account for it. AND it matches a criteria.
At 5:32 PM,
blipey said…
You still have never given us a working example of design determination. There is no reason to believe we can determine anything is designed without attributing it to known intelligence.
We're still waiting for an EXAMPLE of 1 thing we know is designed we don't attribute to known intelligences.
Got anything to sway us?
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
You have never provided ANYTHING to support your position.
No examples, no hypothesis- nothing.
The way we can learn about intelligences we cannot directly observe is by studying the design in question.
At 5:38 PM,
blipey said…
Aren't you now assuming, a priori, that there are other intelligences? That really defeats the purpose of design inferencing, right?
How about an EXAMPLE of something we know is designed that is not attributed to known intelligences?
At 5:42 PM,
Joe G said…
The only assumption is that we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
The design inference flows from that.
Now if you don't like that inference all you have to do is provide something that would refute it.
Your acting like a syphlis-riddled monkey doesn't accomplish anything.
At 5:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Again with your bullshit.
You spew so endlessly you must eat shit several time a day.
It is called a design INFERENCE for a reason.
And science does not and cannot wait for what the future may of may not uncover.
If it did then there wouldn't be any theory of evolution.
At 5:49 PM,
blipey said…
So ya got nothing? There's not even 1 thing that we know was designed that we don't attribute to known intelligences?
That's hard to believe. I wonder what that says about the state of ID?
At 9:08 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
"Laws/ regularity cannot account for it. Chance and necessity cannot account for it. AND it matches a criteria."
ROTFLMAO. And you claim WE make baseless assertions? Idiot.
At 9:11 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
"And science does not and cannot wait for what the future may of may not uncover."
Which is why some of us actually do science while others blather on blogs and toss electronic spit all over the internet.
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
"Laws/ regularity cannot account for it. Chance and necessity cannot account for it. AND it matches a criteria."
And you claim WE make baseless assertions?
What's the baseless assertion?
"And science does not and cannot wait for what the future may of may not uncover."
Which is why some of us actually do science while others blather on blogs and toss electronic spit all over the internet.
You are the one that can't provide any science to support your position.
All you can do is blather and toss out electronic spit.
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
There's not even 1 thing that we know was designed that we don't attribute to known intelligences?
1- The universe
2- Living organisms
3- The laws that govern the physical world
We reached the design inference a=on each of those via obserrvation, experience and testing.
At 11:18 AM,
blipey said…
And we know the universe is designed because???
We know living organisms are designed because???
We know that nature was designed because???
Oh, I know! I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!
Counterflow. Counterflow, we see signs that man made things! So, conclusion:
Man made the universe!!!
What do I win?
At 11:34 AM,
Joe G said…
And we know the universe is designed because???
We know living organisms are designed because???
We know that nature was designed because???
Obsrvation and experience.
Then we consider the options.
Your option doesn't seem to have anything beyond the refusal to accept a design inference.
So we have to factor that in also.
More importantly why do you think your ignorance is meaningful?
At 12:23 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
"1- The universe"
O RLY? Do tell. (For popular references, see Stenger; for real references, go to arxiv.org and google loop quantum gravity, loop quantum cosmology, string landscape).
Your utter ignorance is showing...
And your other 2 examples are just as baseless and empty. Oh well.
At 12:26 PM,
Jorgon Gorgon said…
"What's the baseless assertion?"
I quoted you. All of the statements you have made are baseless, since we do know that "chance/necessity" and "law/regularity" indeed CAN account for it. Your inability to see how that can happen only demonstrates your lack of processing power.
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
All of the statements you have made are baseless, since we do know that "chance/necessity" and "law/regularity" indeed CAN account for it.
Too bad no one knows any such thing.
For examplem chance/ necessity and law/ regularity cannot account for Stonehenge.
They cannot account for my car nor any other artifact.
All you have are appeals to ignorance.
At 7:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
How can we test the premise that the universe arose via non-telic processes?
At 8:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Jorgon,
Anthony Flew was also against ID and was a devote atheist.
However the scientific data changed his mind.
BTW Stenger has never demonstrated anything.
And again if you don't like the design inference all you have to do is to actually substantiate the claims made by your position.
At 4:10 PM,
blipey said…
Perhaps you could link to the place you actually worked an EXAMPLE? You know, all the way through, and came up with an answer. You know, an EXAMPLE that you would work for a class that asked to see one.
This is fun. You're going to let me close down your entire blog all by my lonesome instead of actually working a simple EXAMPLE.
That's awesome! Can we close every thread on the front page?
At 6:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Perhaps you could link to the place you actually worked an EXAMPLE?
I already have.
As I said just because you are too stupid to understand what I post doesn't mean anything to me.
You're going to let me close down your entire blog
Nope, most likely I will just stop posting your ignoarnce and lies.
At 7:57 PM,
blipey said…
You've worked an EXAMPLE? All the way through? And come up with an answer? To a problem dealing with the information content of an actual object?
Link please.
At 7:19 AM,
Joe G said…
You've worked an EXAMPLE?
Yes.
You even tried to change the rules of the EXAMPLE.
The word "aardvark" is an object.
That is if we go by the standard and accepted definitions.
So now that your ignorance has been exposed once again, what manner of flailing will clownie use next?
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
object:
2 a : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action is directed
At 4:14 PM,
blipey said…
Still no idea what the information content of an aardvark is? Or a baseball? Or anything at all really? Keep up the good work, uh, no, uh well, whatever it is you ID people do.
At 9:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes I undersatnd that you still don't have any idea.
However the middle and high school kids I have talked with have a very good idea.
And us ID people do things that clowns cannot.
It's too bad that you can't understand your limitations.
Sort of sad really...
At 5:56 AM,
blipey said…
What about the atom of hydrogen? Can you tell us what the information content of the simplest molecule in the universe is? Could you work an EXAMPLE that shows your methodology and comes up with the correct answer? Or will you just be too scared and close the thread?
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
What about the atom of hydrogen?
What about it?
Do you think I care that you act like a little cry baby and throw hissy fits when you don't get your way?
I do not.
However it is very amusing watching you flail away.
Please continue as your comments will be fodder for the kids' amusement.
At 4:52 PM,
blipey said…
That's fine, Joe. It's perfectly alright that you can't calculate the information content of an atom of hydrogen. It doesn't mean you're stupid; it just means you need to try harder (or ask for help).
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
I understand your problem Erik.
However you are a clown and clowns should never get involved with science.
You have proven that on a daily basis.
Now run along and juggle something.
At 7:27 PM,
blipey said…
In multiple threads, consisting of hundreds of comments, you have suggested that you know how to calculate the information content of an object.
Yet, in none of those threads have you actually calculated the information content of anything (except perhaps the word aardvark, though I don't really think you've done that either).
When asked for an example of how you would calculate the information content of an actual object (say, an aardvark), you sidestep the issue by saying "the word aardvark is an object...".
That the margin by which that statement misses the point is foreign to you is hilarious beyond belief.
In lieu of actually calculating the information content of anything interesting, how about telling us why you won't do it?
That could be hilarious as well.
At 7:40 PM,
Joe G said…
In multiple threads, consisting of hundreds of comments, you have suggested that you know how to calculate the information content of an object.
Actually I explained how to measure the information content of an object.
I also provided an EXAMPLE complete with WORK.
I even provided another EXAMPLE.
To support all of that I provided a reference from non other than Stanford.
IOW I provided more than enough for an educated person to grasp the concept.
So the question remains:
Why are you such an asshole?
At 7:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you think I care that you act like a little cry baby and throw hissy fits when you don't get your way?
I do not.
However it is very amusing watching you flail away.
Please continue as your comments will be fodder for the kids' amusement.
(set for continual rewind and replay- it applies to every one of clownie's posts)
At 4:04 PM,
blipey said…
Does it require a lot of effort to avoid calculating the information content of anything?
Or does avoidance come naturally to you?
Perhaps you could provide a link to any place you calculated the information content of an object that is not merely a word?
At 4:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Does it require a lot of effort to avoid calculating the information content of anything?
Does it require a lot of effort for you to post nonsensical bullshit?
Or does avoidance come naturally to you?
Avoiding nonsensical bullshit comes naturally.
Perhaps you could provide a link to any place you calculated the information content of an object that is not merely a word?
What's the difference? An object is an object.
Also anyone who is really interested (and educated) could take my EXAMPLE, plus the METHODOLOGY and do it for themselves.
OTOH low-life losers would be totally clueless and be forced into acting like the assholes they are.
But anyway, there's this PLACE down the street where I do all my information content MEASUREMENTS.
When you come by I will show it to you.
At 5:43 PM,
blipey said…
What's the difference? You can't be serious.
When we used your methodology to calculate the information content of an aardvark, you informed us that the example only calculated the information content of the word aardvark. So, you tell us what the difference is--apparently there is one.
Your methodology involves the sole step of counting letters of the English language. I believe this is why you have not and never will post an EXAMPLE that calculates the information content of an actual object.
At 5:46 PM,
blipey said…
However, since it may create hilarity, let's use your example of aardvark.
Why is the information content of the word aardvark 1,010 bits? Why is it not:
ay 10
ay 10
ar 10
dee 15
vee 15
ay 10
ar 10
kay 15
Info(aardvark) = 95 bits.
At 5:47 PM,
blipey said…
Or:
Info(aardvark) = Info(ant-eating mammal)
Info(aardvark) = 5 X 17 = 85 bits
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
What's the difference? You can't be serious.
Do tell.
When we used your methodology to calculate the information content of an aardvark
That was never the case.
A word is an object.
I measured the information content of the word.
The information was provided by a dictionary.
Your methodology involves the sole step of counting letters of the English language.
Only an asshole would say such a thing.
I have explained my methodology and it incorporates much more than that.
I believe this is why you have not and never will post an EXAMPLE that calculates the information content of an actual object.
And yet a word is an actual object.
At 6:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Why is the information content of the word aardvark 1,010 bits?
Because the word contains the information in the definition. Duh.
But thanks for the continuing hilarity.
At 7:03 PM,
blipey said…
Different dictionaries list different definitions, Joe.
For example:
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
-noun. a large, nocturnal, burrowing mammal, Orycteropus afer, of central and southern Africa, feeding on ants and termites and having a long, extensile tongue, strong claws, and long ears.
Info(aardvark) = 5 X 188 = 940 bits
or, from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
n. A burrowing mammal (Orycteropus afer) of southern Africa, having a stocky, hairy body, large ears, a long tubular snout, and powerful digging claws.
Info(aardvark) = 5 X 151 = 755 bits
That's interesting. Your methodology--based solely on a sample size of 2--has a pretty wide degree of error. Just think what will happen when other dictionaries are used (especially zoological ones).
Why don't you just calculate something for us and show us where we're wrong?
At 8:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Different dictionaries list different definitions, Joe.
Yes I know.
Mine was just an EXAMPLE using ONE dictionary's definition.
From that EXAMPLE and the METHODOLOGY presented I have empowered anyone with an average IQ to figure out the MINIMAL information contained in an object.
Why don't you just calculate something for us and show us where we're wrong?
Wrong? You're not even coherent.
At 9:38 PM,
blipey said…
Oh!!! Now we have a minimal information content. That's new. You never mentioned that before. Maybe you overlooked that.
But! Now that you mentioned that it was a MINIMAL INFORMATION CONTENT we have an interesting point.
Both of my examples (as valid as yours since they are dictionary definitions) have a lower information content than your MINIMAL INFORMATION CONTENT.
OOPS.
At 7:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh!!! Now we have a minimal information content. That's new. You never mentioned that before.
I knew you were going to say that.
However I have said that before.
I have even linked to the post- several times:
Measuring Information/ specified complexity
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.
That will give you an idea of the MINIMAL information it contains.
I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.
And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?
Again just count the bits in the instructions.
For example a cake would, at a MINIMUM, contain all the information in the recipe.
Have you ever had to assemble something?
The object you assembled would, at a MINIMUM, contain all the information in the assembly instructions.
IOW once again you prove you are not worth the effort as you think that willful ignorance is meaningful discourse.
Both of my examples (as valid as yours since they are dictionary definitions) have a lower information content than your MINIMAL INFORMATION CONTENT.
So what?
That doesn't have anything to do with anything.
As I said mine was just an EXAMPLE demonstrating the METHODOLOGY.
That you are too stupid to understand that, and you are obviously too stupid to read or understand what I post, doesn't mean anything to me.
And that you think your ignorance and stupidity are meaningful discourse exposes your agenda.
So thank you for continuing to give me plenty of hilarity I can present to the local students.
Does it take a lot of effort to be so stupid?
Or does it come naturally to you?
Post a Comment
<< Home