Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Carl Zimmer said what????

-

Recently Dr Behe was interviewed on BhTV (bloggingheadsTV).

The regulars there didn't like it that an IDist was given the opportunity to talk.

Can't have someone talk about their ideas.

But anyway the clip was aired, then taken away, and then put back up.

Now a couple of guys- cosmologist Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer- have said they will not appear on bloggingheads again.

Kooties and all. Gotta stay away from ID kooties.

But anyway in departing Carl said the following:

My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.

This is not Blogginghead’s standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways.


The problem is what is being debated isn't in peer-review. That was/ is Dr Behe's whole point.

I am sure Dr Behe would love to discuss the peer-reviewed papers on the evolution of the/ any bacterial flagellum via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

The origin of information, the origin of living organisms, the origin of our universe- not much beyond we know that the universe had a begining, that living organisms exist at least on one planet, as for information.

If we limited our discussions to existing knowledge how could new ideas get introduced?

Reference existing knowledge yes. Use it to refute or confirm, sure.

Also use it as an impetus to reach the truth- there is only one reality behind our existence.

If you really think this all the result of a bunch of accidents/ sheer dumb luck, put it in peer-review- describe the methodology used to make that determination.

Tell us how to test the premise. Give us some EXAMPLES.

But don't act like a wussy.

Unless of course that is your true nature...

posted by Joe G @ 8:26 PM  

47 Comments:

  • At 12:44 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Except, as I recall, he hasn't read any of them.... Not that that detail matters. I have it on good authority that one needn't actually read stuff to know what said stuff says....

     

  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can one read what doesn't exist?

     

  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Geez, Joe. You'd think you'd have to read a paper or a book before deciding that it didn't contain anything.

    That is, unless you've decided beforehand that the paper or book is wrong...

     

  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you have an EXAMPLE?

    You do realize that if the ACLU pulls that bluff again they will be called on it.

    IOW they will be forced to show the exact passages in their literature that pertains to non-telic processes.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    As well they should be forced to do so. However, that's not really the point, is it?

    The point is that Behe said he did read them. And he also said he knew what they contained.

    That's the point.

     

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually that is the point.

    Ya see those referenced books do not contain evidence for non-telic processes.

    BTW Behe qualified his statement- ya see the more recent peer-reviewed literature supersedes that older stuff the ACLU presented.

    That is how science goes- newer research replaces the old.

    But anyway you have claimed not to have read any pro-ID books.

    Yet you think you know ID is wrong.

    Strange.

    Even stranger considering you cannot provide anything that would support your position.

     

  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    ID is wrong because it is not supported by people with a grasp of reality. Just because ID is not "journable" does not mean every scientist who has deemed it thus is crazy and uninformed. Actually, it means the opposite; they are sane, lucid, and highly informed, and deem ID nonsense. You, Joe, seem to be the uninformed one.

    I always see excuses from you. I have never seen you refute anyone with facts. We evolutionists like facts. If you don't want to argue with them, fine, but your position will continue to be pilloried, correctly.

     

  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID is wrong because it is not supported by people with a grasp of reality.

    Said the lunatic.

    Just because ID is not "journable" does not mean every scientist who has deemed it thus is crazy and uninformed.

    It appears the non-telic position is not "journable" either.

    If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    You, Joe, seem to be the uninformed one.

    I keep hearing that yet no one can come forward with any valid information to enlighten me.

    I have never seen you refute anyone with facts.

    You and facts are like water and oil.

    We evolutionists like facts.

    You mean you like to ignore the facts.

    That is what you like about them.

    If you don't want to argue with them, fine, but your position will continue to be pilloried, correctly.

    That is what the ignorant do with things they cannot understand.

    The reality is all you have to do is start supporting the claims of your position and ID will go away.

    But you can't so you are reduced to acting like a bunch of chimps.

     

  • At 8:37 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I think just about every article on origins that is in a peer reviewed journal is non-telic. What the hell are you talking about?

     

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

    If there were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    So what the hell are YOU talking about?

    There was a recent peer-reviewed paper that demonstrated it takes agency involvement just to get two nucleotides. ("Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" )

    There ws another in which synthesized RNA could catalyze ONE bond between two other strands of RNA. (Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme" )

    Each of those scenarios relied heavily of agency involvement.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow! I have claimed to have read many pro-ID books, Joe. I've listed them for you. Jesus H Christ, you're a lying sack of shit. Here they are again. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE PRO-ID BOOKS THAT BLIPEY HAS READ:

    Darwin's Black Box
    parts of The Design Inference
    Darwin on Trial
    Icons of Evolution
    parts of Edge of Evolution
    The Privileged Planet

     

  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Super WOW!!!

    Then why is it that you don't appear to know anything about ID?

    BTW "Icons of Evolution" isn't pro-ID.

    It is an argument against some alleged icons of evolution- evolution refering to the blind watchmaker thesis.

    As for "The Privileged Planet" maybe you watched the movie but your ignorance of the book tells me that at best you held it.

    You claim to have read "Darwin's Black Box" yet you obviously didn't understand the mousetrap EXAMPLE.

    But anyway I apologize for mistaking your ignorance for not having read any literature.

    Usually reading about something cures ignorance.

     

  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I do understand the mousetrap example. Asking questions is not a sign of ignorance, Joe. In fact, it is often the opposite.

     

  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I do understand the mousetrap example.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    Asking questions is not a sign of ignorance, Joe. In fact, it is often the opposite.

    To regular folk asking questions means they do not know.

    To assholes well they ask questions when they think they know and never listen to the answer.

     

  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In the thread Dr Behe's irreducible mousetrap you spewed your normal
    claptrap pap    , which to me anyway, is evidence you didn't read it:

    Come on, Joe. Behe clearly says the trap cannot have arisen in a gradual manner.

    You have not substantiated that claim.

    However I have provided Dr Behe's words saying the debate is all about the mechanism, not the time required.

    You continue with another bald assertion:

    That a gradual manner for its creation has been shown refutes that statement.

    Not if that manner requires agency intervention.

    That has been the case in every attempt to refute the premise- agency involvement required.

    But anyway it is noticeable that you never provided an EXAMPLE, nor any PROCESS, nor any METHODOLOGY to support your position.

    All you can do is misrepresent ID- ie erect strawman after strawman- and then act as if you have accomplished something.

    All that when all you really have to do is have the balls to ante up and actually support your position.

    And in the end you can't understand normal thinking.

    Think about it...

     

  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's because the point is made by DEFINITION, Joe.

    Behe says something that is IC cannot have arisen gradually. He then says that a mousetrap is an example of an IC object.

    I'm not sure why I need to substantiate that Behe says a mousetrap cannot have arisen gradually. By the nature of his EXAMPLE, it is evident.

     

  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Behe says something that is IC cannot have arisen gradually.

    Gradually via undirected processes.

    You keep leaving that last part out.

    He then says that a mousetrap is an example of an IC object.

    A specific mousetrap.

    IOW once agan you misrepresent what Behe said.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics:

    "But, as I tried to emphasize in my book, the point that is relevant to Darwinian evolution is not whether one can make variant structures, but whether those structures lead, step-by-excruciatingly-tedious-Darwinian-step, to the structure I showed."- Dr Behe

    and

    "Since I agree with Professor McDonald that there could be mousetraps with fewer parts, the only relevant question is whether the mousetraps he drew are physical precursors, or merely conceptual precursors. Can they "be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step" into the trap I pictured (essentially the same structure as the fifth trap shown below), as some people have been led to believe? No, they can't."

     

  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why is it that an Sweedish aardvark has a different information content than an Israeli aardvark?

     

  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And when we're talking about Russian objects, is the information content calculated in Phoenician or Cyrillic? Why?

     

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Which collection contains more information?

    A. 64 gatos
    B. 64 cats

    Why?

     

  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Before English was invented, how was information content measured?

     

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that an Sweedish aardvark has a different information content than an Israeli aardvark?

    There's a Sweedish aardvark?

    Is the Israeli aardvark circumsized?

    And when we're talking about Russian objects, is the information content calculated in Phoenician or Cyrillic?

    Yes.

    Why?

    It's September.

    Which collection contains more information?

    My collection.

    A. 64 gatos
    B. 64 cats

    Which weighs more?

    Why?

    I want to know if they are healthy.

    Before English was invented, how was information content measured?

    In cubits.

     

  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, really you have no reasonable explanation for why information is measured in the unit "English"?

    If you come up with one be sure to share it with the world; it needs a laugh.

     

  • At 7:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, really you have no reasonable explanation for why information is measured in the unit "English"?

    I have already been over this.

    So no, other than the reasons already provided, I haven't thought of any more.

    Hint: It ain't about the language used and it ties in with just about every thing else I have been telling you but you ignore.

    And now once again you think your ignorance is meaningful.

    My name is Erik Pratt and I ask questions because I know everything- NOT!

     

  • At 9:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you CAN explain why an English baseball has a different information content than an Italian baseball?

    Or why an English hawk has a different information content than an Italian hawk?

    Awesome. We'd like to hear it.

     

  • At 9:30 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If it's not about the language used, why do we count the characters of the words in order to determine the information content?

     

  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If it's not about the language used, why do we count the characters of the words in order to determine the information content?

    I have explained that already also.

    Why is it that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    So, you CAN explain why an English baseball has a different information content than an Italian baseball?

    What is an "English baseball"?

    What is an "Italian baseball"?

    Be specific.

    Or why an English hawk has a different information content than an Italian hawk?

    By an "English hawk" are you talking about the jet?

    As for the Italian side I can only find refernce to a "Italian Hawk Moth"- is that what you mean?

    If you are going to ask questions you really should be more clear.

    However I understand to do that requires an education.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Come on, Joe. A Rawlings baseball described by an Italian must necessarily have a different information content than the same baseball described by a Swede.

    That is, if we use your stoopid system of calculating information content.

    Perhaps you'll explain why that is wrong. I mean, of course you won't, but I hope you do because it would bring the funny.

     

  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    aardvark:

    a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

    An aardvark has (202 X 5) bits of information, or I = 1,010. This is using JoeG's 5 bits per character.

    cerdo hormiguero:

    un gran mamífero nocturno de madriguera (Orycteropus afer), de África subsahariana, que tiene un largo hocico, lengua extensible, poderosas garras, orejas grandes, pesados y la cola y se alimenta sobre todo en las termitas y hormigas

    Here, an aardvark has (232 X 5) bits of information, or I = 1,160.

    What gives?

     

  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A Rawlings baseball described by an Italian must necessarily have a different information content than the same baseball described by a Swede.

    Why?

    That is, if we use your stoopid system of calculating information content.

    The "stoopid system" is yours.

    I explained mine. And I backed it up with a reference from Stanford.

    You are just too stupid to understand my explanation.

    So why is it that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

    You never answer that. But you prattle on ignorantly as if you have some idea.

    All the while your "examples" prove my point.

    And the sad part is even if I spell it out for you- AGAIN- you still won't understand it.

    So the bigger questions are why do you keep asking me to explain things I have already explained?

    And why do you claim to have read books that you clearly have not?

     

  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    aardvark:

    a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

    An aardvark has (202 X 5) bits of information, or I = 1,010. This is using JoeG's 5 bits per character.

    cerdo hormiguero:

    un gran mamífero nocturno de madriguera (Orycteropus afer), de África subsahariana, que tiene un largo hocico, lengua extensible, poderosas garras, orejas grandes, pesados y la cola y se alimenta sobre todo en las termitas y hormigas

    Here, an aardvark has (232 X 5) bits of information, or I = 1,160.

    What gives?

    You mean besides the fact that you are an asshole?

    Do you understand why its 5 bits per character?

    It's obvious you don't because of what you said:

    "This is using JoeG's 5 bits per character."

    IOW you're not even qualified to be having this discussion.

    The next point is my EXAMPLE of the WORD aardvark was SPECIFIC to that WORD, not the animal.

    And I have already explained the language part.

    That you keep bringing it up just exposes your ignorance and desperation.

    But then again you are playing the only hand you have.

    So as I said, nothing gives- you are just an asshole.

     

  • At 11:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, it's not my fault that you think counting the characters of a definition equals information content.

    Per your examples of how to calculate information content--counting the characters--both the Spanish version and the English version are correct.

    Yet they give different values for the same object. It's not my fault that your methodology is inconsistent.

     

  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, it's not my fault that you think counting the characters of a definition equals information content.

    What do you think is the information content of a definition if it isn't the definition itself?

    Please do tell.

    Ya see Erik it isn't my fault that you are an ignorant clown.

    Per your examples of how to calculate information content--counting the characters--both the Spanish version and the English version are correct.

    Prove it.

    Yet they give different values for the same object.

    Yet as I explained it is the WORD not the OBJECT.

    IOW you appear to be very proud of your ignorance.

    It's not my fault that your methodology is inconsistent.

    My methodology is fine.

    The PROBLEM is YOU.

     

  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Do you understand why it's 5 bits per character?

     

  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, I see.

    So the information content of a baseball has absolutely nothing to do with the definition on the word baseball.

    So, Joe. Could you pretty please tell us how to calculate the information content of a baseball, the object, and not a baseball, the word?

     

  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Could you pretty please tell us how to calculate the information content of a baseball, the object, and not a baseball, the word?

    I have, more than once.

    Take that together with what I presnted in Measuring Information/ specified complexity and Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!, and it is all explained.

     

  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, right. When I asked for an example of how to do the calculation, you gave the aardvark example.

    When the aardvark example is used, you say that it is not an example of the information content of an aardvark, just for the word aardvark.

    When one reads the link above, it boils down to counting the characters in the bill of materials.

    However, this is the same methodology as used in the aardvark example, which you say is not the way to calculate the information content of an actual aardvark.

    Pretty circular, Joe. Why don't you just admit that you have no idea how to go about calculating the information content of a baseball?

     

  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When I asked for an example of how to do the calculation, you gave the aardvark example.

    When you asked for an EXAMPLE of MEASURING CSI I provided the aardvark EXAMPLE.

    When the aardvark example is used, you say that it is not an example of the information content of an aardvark, just for the word aardvark.

    I explained what the aardvark EXAMPLE was for.

    You tard doesn't change that explanation nor negate it.

    When one reads the link above, it boils down to counting the characters in the bill of materials.

    Maybe when that ONE is an asshole fuckhead clown, sure.

    However an educated person would read:

    So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions.

    I went on to say:

    "Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

    The more specifications required the more information required-

    First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

    1- a specified core
    2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
    3- specified leather cover
    4- specified thread

    That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

    How tightly to wrap the core
    Direction of wrapping
    How much material to use
    The cover would be cut in a specified manner
    It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

    After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

    All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.

    Now what?

    Once again the clueless clown is exposed as the asshole he tries so hard to be.

     

  • At 8:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

    It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

    "One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."

    Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)

    A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.


    All that was a repost...

     

  • At 10:14 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Damn! Just when I figure out it's you posting moronic comments on my blog, the comments go down.

    Notice, however, that I don't moderate them?

     

  • At 7:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only a moron would think what I posted is "moronic".

    I did notice, however, that your response was based on ignorance.

     

  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, Joe. It's perfectly clear now that counting characters has absolutely NOTHING to do with the information content of actual objects.

    Not sure why you spent so much time talking about counting characters....

    Perhaps you thought it would give you enough time to bullshit something else?

    So, when you get the BOM and the assembly instructions together, Joe--this next part is important--how do you calculate the information content from them?

    An EXAMPLE please. One that actually applies to the problem would be nice.

     

  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's perfectly clear now that counting characters has absolutely NOTHING to do with the information content of actual objects.

    Try to follow along asshole.

    YOU said the information of the content was to merely count the bits in the bill of materials.

    When one reads the link above, it boils down to counting the characters in the bill of materials.

    All I did was to point out it is much more than that.

    Now you respond with more bullshit.

    And again if you are too stupid to understand this stuff perhaps you should go pollute a blog about clowns.

    One that actually applies to the problem would be nice.

    YOU are the problem.

     

  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. Your examples, if you want to call them that, say that is what to do.

    I asked for an example of how to calculate the information content of an object. You've continually responded with methodologies that consist entirely of counting the number of English characters in the definition of the object.

    If you would like to change your mind and give us an example that actually applies to the problem of determining the information content of an object, feel free.

     

  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I asked for an example of how to calculate the information content of an object.

    I have provided that- that is how to measure the information content.

    You've continually responded with methodologies that consist entirely of counting the number of English characters in the definition of the object.

    I have explained why I use English and I have also explained the EXAMPLE using a definition.

    YOU appear to be too stupid to be able to follow along.

    YOU twist everything I post and when I correct you all you do is go off on some other ignorant tangent.

     

  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your examples, if you want to call them that, say that is what to do.

    Yes I call them, EXAMPLES.

    I have noticed that you cannot provide any EXAMPLES that support your position.

    If you did then we could compare.

    Then you would have a right to critique what I post.

    Also the baseball EXAMPLE does not say to count the bits in the bill of materials.

    So when YOU said:

    "When one reads the link above, it boils down to counting the characters in the bill of materials."

    It proved that you are an asshole.

    So now that we have that cleared up, we can move on.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home