The Ribosome and the Explanatory Filter
-
What happens when we run the ribosome through the EF?
Step 1- Can law/ regularity account for the ribosome?
No evidence that even given all the components that a ribosome will form
Step 2- Can chance and necessity account for the ribosome?
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
Step 3- Probabilities- can small probabilities account for the ribosome?
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
Step 4- Is the ribosome specified?
Yes it has a biological function that is dependent upon the correct configuration of its parts- and the function of the ribosome is separate from the function of its parts.
What happens when we run the ribosome through the EF?
Step 1- Can law/ regularity account for the ribosome?
No evidence that even given all the components that a ribosome will form
Step 2- Can chance and necessity account for the ribosome?
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
Step 3- Probabilities- can small probabilities account for the ribosome?
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
Step 4- Is the ribosome specified?
Yes it has a biological function that is dependent upon the correct configuration of its parts- and the function of the ribosome is separate from the function of its parts.
posted by Joe G @ 8:00 AM
162 Comments:
At 9:58 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Loads of math in that one.
What a dolt.
At 10:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Umm the only "math" required is to determine what the probability is.
Here read thie following article on the explanatory filter written by Wm Dembski:
The Explanatory Filter:
A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design
The only thing about any "math" is:
By selecting the Democrats to head the ballot 40 out of 41 times, Caputo appears to have participated in an event of probability less than 1 in 50 billion. Yet, exceedingly improbable things happen all the time.
IOW Richtard you are the dolt...
At 10:44 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe G said...
Umm the only "math" required is to determine what the probability is.
Where's your math for the probability of the ribosome?
Where's the before-the-fact specification?
At 11:08 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
You are incorrect. This does not rule anything out at all.
What you need to do is create an alternative earth, exactly the same as the earth was before life appeared and wait for millions of years.
That would be the "experiment" that would provide supporting evidence (or not) for your argument.
After all, what basis do you have for your "wait 150 years" metric?
Why is 150 years significant?
By your measure, such things as fringing reefs (a type of coral reef) must be designed as a fringing reef can take ten thousand years to form. As we've seen none appear in the last 150 years created by blind, undirected chemical processes, we can safely assume that they were created or designed.
At 12:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
CAKE.
Math for coins is easy (Binomial distribution) - but for ribosomes...
At 2:52 PM,
Joe G said…
thortard:
Where's your math for the probability of the ribosome?
Start here:
Prokaryotes have 70S ribosomes, each consisting of a small (30S) and a large (50S) subunit. Their large subunit is composed of a 5S RNA subunit (consisting of 120 nucleotides), a 23S RNA subunit (2900 nucleotides) and 34 proteins. The 30S subunit has a 1540 nucleotide RNA subunit (16S) bound to 21 proteins.[7]
And as I said there still isn't any evidence tat even a simple 5 part system can be produced via blind, undirected chemical processes.
So that leaves a big fat ZARO for the probability of the ribosome arising via blind, undirected processes.
thortard:
Where's the before-the-fact specification?
Biological function- no function no design inference.
At 3:01 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Poor poor Joe.
He's got no math for his EF, no probability calculations, no independent specification for the ribosome.
Other than that, there's lots of evidence for ID!
At 3:03 PM,
Joe G said…
In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.
OM:
You are incorrect.
Who are you to say?
OM:
This does not rule anything out at all.
In the world of "anything is possible" it doesn't, but it sure as hell doen't look good for your poition not to b able to provide ay positive evidence in its support.
OM:
What you need to do is create an alternative earth, exactly the same as the earth was before life appeared and wait for millions of years.
Nope- ya see we can intervene.
As a matter of fact we have to get RNAs to replicate.
However if you are right then your position dos not belong in any science classroom- history class perhaps or bed-time fantasy story telling class, but out of science as there isn't any scinc to it.
OM:
By your measure, such things as fringing reefs (a type of coral reef) must be designed as a fringing reef can take ten thousand years to form.
Well coral is a living organism and living organisms are designed.
But you are missing the point.
If you can't even show that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional 5-part system, I have to put that in the realm of a small probabilty- bcause by chance one might form given enough time and enough chances.
Do you realize how our existence is explained away?
By the "existence" of 10^500 other universes.
Not science, metaphysics.
But anyway 5 part system small probability and i am being generous.
Therefor anything more than 5 would be even less likely.
At 3:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still no math fromn you Joe.
*clue* - show every winning hand, not just the one that won.
At 3:16 PM,
Joe G said…
thorton:
He's got no math for his EF, no probability calculations, no independent specification for the ribosome.
The specification was provided.
The math is obvious.
You are clueless.
At 3:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Still no math fromn you Joe.
It is all right there Rich.
It is a word problem though.
I know mental midgets have great difficulty with those.
At 3:26 PM,
blipey said…
Can you clarify step 1?
What equation are you using to prove that law/regularity have been eliminated?
At 3:28 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
What equation are you using to prove that law/regularity have been eliminated?
Obsvation and experience as stated in step 1.
That trumps anything on paper.
At 3:30 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe G said...
thorton:
He's got no math for his EF, no probability calculations, no independent specification for the ribosome.
The specification was provided.
The math is obvious.
If the math is so obvious why can't a guy with a 150 IQ provide the calculations?
At 3:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
It's "not all there" or you would have done it.
ID and IDists have always been dishonest - are you really at the low point of wanting evolution proponents to do the math you can't but need to try and create an ID hypothesis?
At 3:44 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Observations and experience trump anything written on paper?
Supposing I have on paper peer reviewed scientific observations?
At 8:27 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Well coral is a living organism and living organisms are designed.
Is HIV designed?
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
thortard:
If the math is so obvious why can't a guy with a 150 IQ provide the calculations?
There isn't anything to provide beyond zero.
At 10:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
It's "not all there" or you would have done it.
There isn't anything to do. Zero is zero.
Rich:
ID and IDists have always been dishonest - are you really at the low point of wanting evolution proponents to do the math you can't but need to try and create an ID hypothesis?
The dishonesty is all yours.
Exactly what math are you talking about?
I say it is the same math that says automobiles have a zero probability of arising via blind, undirected processes.
The same math that says a new born human baby has a zero probability of kicking a 50 yard field-goal.
The point is Rich you don't have anything to base any math on.
At 10:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Observations and experience trump anything written on paper?
Absolutely.
Rich:
Supposing I have on paper peer reviewed scientific observations?
Then it is based on observations and experiences- duh.
At 10:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Well coral is a living organism and living organisms are designed.
OM:
Is HIV designed?
Yes I would say that viruses are designed and then some evolved into killers.
At 10:46 AM,
blipey said…
blipey: What equation are you using to prove that law/regularity have been eliminated?
Joe: Obsvation and experience as stated in step 1. That trumps anything on paper.
So, it boils down to a subjective determination that will vary widely between observers. Very rigorous.
Perhaps you could give us two examples of the EF at work? One where law was ruled out and one where it wasn't. That would help to clarify the methodology of the EF.
Thanks.
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
So, it boils down to a subjective determination that will vary widely between observers. Very rigorous.
Nope, no subjectivity when observattions and experiences are involved.
blipey:
Perhaps you could give us two examples of the EF at work? One where law was ruled out and one where it wasn't.
I already have- using pulsars.
But this is all moot because you are nothing but an ignorant clown.
At 11:02 AM,
blipey said…
Joe: "Nope, no subjectivity when observattions and experiences are involved."
Ridiculous on its face. Observations and especially experiences vary widely between observers. This is absolutely true when no parameters have been set in order to compare the observations with.
Take a rock, for example. Dude 1 says, "That looks designed." Dude 2 says, "No it doesn't."
As you have set no objective parameters other than saying that "observation is all you need", there is no way to determine which dude is right.
Perhaps you could provide 2 examples that would illuminate the comparison parameters? That way we could apply the EF to anything we find.
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Ridiculous on its face.
Said the ignorant clown.
blipey:
Observations and especially experiences vary widely between observers.
Said the ignorant clown.
blipey:
Take a rock, for example. Dude 1 says, "That looks designed." Dude 2 says, "No it doesn't."
Nothing in there that says either dude used observations and experiences- just observing a rock is not what I am talking about.
blipey:
As you have set no objective parameters other than saying that "observation is all you need",
You have serious dishonesty issues as I NEVER said that.
So fuck off and come back when you can some credibility.
At 11:10 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Then it is based on observations and experiences- duh."
But They're ON PAPER - duh.
At 11:14 AM,
Joe G said…
"Then it is based on observations and experiences- duh."
Rich:
But They're ON PAPER - duh.
Is acting like an asshole the best you can do? oops sorry, you ain't acting...
At 11:17 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Yes I would say that viruses are designed and then some evolved into killers.
And is there a limit to how much a virus (for example) can evolve once it has been designed?
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And is there a limit to how much a virus (for example) can evolve once it has been designed?
That would depend on the design, but so far science has demonstrated that viruses can only evolve into viruses.
What is your point?
At 11:45 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still waiting for math, Joe.
ID is lucky to have you.
At 11:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Still waiting for math, Joe.
Zero is zero Rich.
That is all the math required- zero probability.
So exactly what math are you talking about?
I say it is the same math that says automobiles have a zero probability of arising via blind, undirected processes.
The same math that says a new born human baby has a zero probability of kicking a 50 yard field-goal.
The point is Rich you don't have anything to base any math on.
Ignoring my posts just proves that you are wilfully ignorant Rich...
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
"The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure — it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly
conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome
come to be?" George Church page 76 of "Life- What a concept!"
At 12:16 PM,
blipey said…
Perhaps you could provide an example of your premise:
Joe: "Nothing in there that says either dude used observations and experiences- just observing a rock is not what I am talking about."
Perhaps you have specific details showing what you are talking about?
Posted on AtBC just so everyone knows exactly what you're avoiding.
At 12:26 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
That would depend on the design
Why? How can a limit be designed in when at any point it can mutate in a random way thus destroying that original limiter. Or are the limits on the amount it can evolve held elsewhere other then in Virus itself?
but so far science has demonstrated that viruses can only evolve into viruses
Some viri are more complex then others. Is there a limit to the complexity that a virus can evolve after it's initial design/creation?
What is your point?
When you said
Yes I would say that viruses are designed and then some evolved into killers.
It made me wonder what the original purpose behind the harmless virus was.
What do you suppose HIV's purpose was Joe before it became a killer?
And do you expect that the FSCI in the original virus increased or decreased when HIV evolved into a killer?
At 12:26 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The point is Rich you don't have anything to base any math on."
Oh, shame that the EF uses math then. Are you saying the EF is unuseable? I agree.
At 12:27 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"zero probability" - calculate please.
At 12:29 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Posted on AtBC just so everyone knows exactly what you're avoiding.
BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA
You're a clown Erik. You just make shit up and think that is a valid example.
And again I have been over this stuff- design detection- already. That means that you are just a wilfully ignorant belligerent sack of pus.
So keep posting over on atbc, they deserve having you.
At 12:33 PM,
Joe G said…
"The point is Rich you don't have anything to base any math on."
Rich:
Oh, shame that the EF uses math then.
The EF doesn't use anything. The people using the EF use the evidence, observations and experiences to make determinations.
So what math do you keep referring to?
If it is just figuring out probabilities then as I said if there isn't anything that says a probability exists then you have zero until further notice.
Rich:
Are you saying the EF is unuseable?
The EF is used by anyone trying to scientifically determine design from non-design.
At 12:39 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
The EF is used by anyone trying to scientifically determine design from non-design.
Can you give an example of a non-designed thing that the EF would indicate as not being designed?
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
That would depend on the design
OM:
Why? How can a limit be designed in when at any point it can mutate in a random way thus destroying that original limiter.
Strawman-
The limit doesn't have to be designed in. Also it could be that not all points can mutate- see AVIDA
but so far science has demonstrated that viruses can only evolve into viruses
OM:
Some viri are more complex then others.
Non-sequitur
OM:
Is there a limit to the complexity that a virus can evolve after it's initial design/creation?
It all depends on the design.
Yes I would say that viruses are designed and then some evolved into killers.
OM:
It made me wonder what the original purpose behind the harmless virus was.
Good for you.
OM:
What do you suppose HIV's purpose was Joe before it became a killer?
What I know is that being it being a killer is itself self-destructive. Kill the host you depend on? Doesn't even make sense in the blind watchmaker scenario.
It's as if a packet delivery system went postal- LoL!
OM:
And do you expect that the FSCI in the original virus increased or decreased when HIV evolved into a killer?
I expect that you are grasping because that is all you can do.
At 12:45 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Can you give an example of a non-designed thing that the EF would indicate as not being designed?
I did- pulsars.
At 1:02 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
What I know is that being it being a killer is itself self-destructive. Kill the host you depend on? Doesn't even make sense in the blind watchmaker scenario.
Then why did the designer of the virus allow it to happen? Was the designer incapable of designing a virus that did not include the possibility of it turning into a killer? What sort of designer throws out viri that it knows include the capability of turning lethal?
I expect that you are grasping because that is all you can do.
That's not an answer. Did the FSCI increase or decrease when the original virus (whatever it was) mutated into HIV?
So, Joe, it appears that if you like something it's designed. If you don't like something, like the killer version of HIV, it was not designed that way.
So everything "good" is as it was designed, everything "bad" did not start off that way, it mutated into it's current form.
You might as well say you believe in a literal fall, and the garden of Eden.
One more time:
Did the FSCI increase or decrease when the original virus (whatever it was) mutated into HIV?
At 1:08 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
I did- pulsars.
So that indicates that the universe and the laws of physics are not designed. How could they be designed and pulsars not?
So you lose.
At 1:31 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I did- pulsars."
How do you know they're not designed?
When people ask is ID science?, I point them to your blog and they come back and say "Okay, it isn't. It's crazy wackaloon territory."
At 1:31 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
The EF is used by anyone trying to scientifically determine design from non-design.
Emperically?
At 1:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Are you not promoting all the posts, Joe?
HOW CREATIONIST.
At 2:02 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
So both "original" harmless pre-HIV and "killer" HIV are both designed as far as the EF can tell?
Do I understand you correctly?
And you won't, or are not able to say if the FSCI increased or decreased when it turned killer?
Do I understand you correctly?
So if we separated out the evolved parts of HIV that make it a killer and ran only those parts through the EF would it indicate design or non-design?
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Then why did the designer of the virus allow it to happen?
You're still grasping.
OM:
So, Joe, it appears that if you like something it's designed.
It only appears that way to obtuse morons.
OM:
If you don't like something, like the killer version of HIV, it was not designed that way.
It could have been designed that way.
OM:
So everything "good" is as it was designed, everything "bad" did not start off that way, it mutated into it's current form.
Don't know- that is not my position.
At 3:01 PM,
Joe G said…
I did- pulsars.
OM:
So that indicates that the universe and the laws of physics are not designed.
How does it do that?
OM:
How could they be designed and pulsars not?
Very easily I would presume.
Cars are designed does that mean there aren't any accidents?
Do you really think your stupidity is some sort of refutation?
At 3:04 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So both "original" harmless pre-HIV and "killer" HIV are both designed as far as the EF can tell?
No, viruses could be spin-offs from living organisms- decayed remains that turned into selfish genes.
OM:
And you won't, or are not able to say if the FSCI increased or decreased when it turned killer?
Unable to say because I haven't looked into it.
OM:
So if we separated out the evolved parts of HIV that make it a killer and ran only those parts through the EF would it indicate design or non-design?
You are clueless. But go ahead and do it.
At 3:05 PM,
Joe G said…
"I did- pulsars."
Rich:
How do you know they're not designed?
No positive evidence for design and nature, operating freely can account for them- parismony you ignorant slut.
At 3:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
When people ask is ID science?, I point them to your blog and they come back and say "Okay, it isn't. It's crazy wackaloon territory."
The people who are asking you that question are already seriously fucked up.
Fuck you can't even demonstrate your position is science...
At 3:07 PM,
Joe G said…
The EF is used by anyone trying to scientifically determine design from non-design.
Rich:
Emperically?
They have to use it Rich for all the reasons already provided.
At 3:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Are you not promoting all the posts, Joe?
All your posts are here.
At 3:09 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Rich:
Are you not promoting all the posts, Joe?
All your posts are here."
But that's not what I asked, is it?
At 3:09 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The people who are asking you that question are already seriously fucked up."
Really? Why? Do you know them?
At 3:17 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
No, viruses could be spin-offs from living organisms- decayed remains that turned into selfish genes.,
So those "spin-offs" would be noted as "not designed" if run through the EF?
Unable to say because I haven't looked into it.
So speculate. What's your gut feeling?
You are clueless. But go ahead and do it.
Sure, what's the specification for HIV again? "A Virus" wasn't it?
At 3:21 PM,
Joe G said…
"The people who are asking you that question are already seriously fucked up."
Rich:
Really? Why?
Really, really and that is because you are an ignorant fuck who doesn't know anything about science and even less about ID.
At 3:22 PM,
Joe G said…
All your posts are here."
Rich:
But that's not what I asked, is it?
No other posts should concern you.
At 3:23 PM,
Joe G said…
OM if you have a point then make it.
I am not here to chit-chat with you.
At 3:31 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Really, really and that is because you are an ignorant fuck who doesn't know anything about science and even less about ID."
But what have I got to do with them not knowing anything? Does basic logic escape you? I think you have a magnitude error on your IQ.
At 3:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"No other posts should concern you"
I thought you IDists were big on freedom of enquiry, etc.
EXPELLED!!!!11111one.
At 3:41 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
OM if you have a point then make it.
The point is that inconsistencies in your position like the ones we've identified in this thread alone are consequences of your inability to apply the EF.
If the EF could be applied objectively (i.e. the same result given regardless of who was running it) then you'd be in less of a mess.
But the EF seems to boil down to "Joe thinks it's designed".
Y'see, IOW if you could give us the specification for Stonehenge I could also provide a similar specification for the "giants causeway" and see if the EF notes that as being designed. By following your method that is.
But as no such specification is going to be given by you, we won't be able to test the EF on items that look designed but are not, to see if it really works as claimed.
So "Joe thinks it looks designed" will have to do.
At 3:42 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
doesn't know anything about science and even less about ID.,
Good to see you've finally admitted that ID and science are two very different things.
At 7:28 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Good to see you've finally admitted that ID and science are two very different things.
Of course they are.
Biology is the science. Cosmology is the science. Physics is the science.
ID is a theory based on those sciences.
At 7:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I thought you IDists were big on freedom of enquiry, etc.
blipey was being an asshole- that is all he has ever been.
At 7:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
But what have I got to do with them not knowing anything?
They would have to be a real moron to be asking you such questions.
At 7:39 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
The point is that inconsistencies in your position like the ones we've identified in this thread alone are consequences of your inability to apply the EF.
Any inconsistencies are your imagination.
OM:
If the EF could be applied objectively (i.e. the same result given regardless of who was running it) then you'd be in less of a mess.
Wrong- science isn't for everyone- investigation isn't for everyone- trouble-shooting isn't for everyone.
The EF depends on the person/ people using it and their knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
It takes years to become a forensic scientist and archaeologist- don't you get tired of spewing nonsense?
OM:
But the EF seems to boil down to "Joe thinks it's designed".
Fuck you.
Do you not understand parsimony?
Do you think you can just be a fucking asshole and that alone means my position has inconsistencies?
OM:
Y'see, IOW if you could give us the specification for Stonehenge I could also provide a similar specification for the "giants causeway" and see if the EF notes that as being designed.
Been there, done that.
Parsimony you moron- we know that nature, operating freely can produce structures like the giant's causeway.
OM:
But as no such specification is going to be given by you, we won't be able to test the EF on items that look designed but are not, to see if it really works as claimed.
Look if you want to make this personal just meet me and let's get it over with- otherwise stop with the fucking "But as no such specification is going to be given by you," cowardly bullshit.
The specification exists whether or not I spoon feed it to you.
The specification, along with the elimination of nature, operating freely is what led modern humans to the design inference.
At 5:04 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
The EF depends on the person/ people using it and their knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
So the EF cannot be applied the same way by two different people?
It's not science then. Simples.
It takes years to become a forensic scientist and archaeologist- don't you get tired of spewing nonsense?
Perhaps you could point me to a specific textbook and chapter where the EF is discussed? Or, if not named as such then the closest it gets?
Parsimony you moron- we know that nature, operating freely can produce structures like the giant's causeway.
Do we? Do you have an exhaustive list of the structures that nature, operating freely, can produce?
The specification exists whether or not I spoon feed it to you.
I'm not asking for you to spoonfeed it to me. Just link to it. Or post it. Whatever you prefer. Provide some proof that your claimed "specifications" exist at all.
The specification, along with the elimination of nature, operating freely is what led modern humans to the design inference.
Pulsars are not designed.
HIV is not designed.
The original HIV is designed.
The bits that make HIV a killer evolved and were not designed.
The universe is designed.
The bacterial flagellum is designed.
Giants causeway is not designed.
Yeah, that's consistent. Yeah, proof positive indeed, especially when two people operating with the same data can come to two different "designed, not designed" conclusions.
Show your working Joe. Provide the specification for the Giants causeway and the list of structures that nature operating freely can create, or retract your claim that it is not designed as you've been unable to prove such with the EF.
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
The EF depends on the person/ people using it and their knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
OM:
So the EF cannot be applied the same way by two different people?
It's not science then. Simples.
Then the scientific method in't scintifc because it cannot be applied the same way by to different peole- one who understands science and one who does not.
Also you are not in any position to say. Simples.
OM:
Perhaps you could point me to a specific textbook and chapter where the EF is discussed? Or, if not named as such then the closest it gets?
I have already provided the reasoning why it is ised and you have ignored it.
IOW you are proud to be wilfully ignorant.
Parsimony you moron- we know that nature, operating freely can produce structures like the giant's causeway.
OM:
Do we?
Yes we do- that is why we know it wasn't designed.
The specification exists whether or not I spoon feed it to you.
OM:
I'm not asking for you to spoonfeed it to me. Just link to it.
Do a search on Stonehenge- shit you could have read evevrything about it by now.
OM:
Yeah, proof positive indeed, especially when two people operating with the same data can come to two different "designed, not designed" conclusions.
The inference is testable you asshole. There has to be valid reasons for the inferences- reasons that can be tested.
Also two people using the scientific method can come up with different results.
IOW you are just an obtuse moron.
OM:
Provide the specification for the Giants causeway
Fuck you.
OM:
and the list of structures that nature operating freely can create, or retract your claim that it is not designed as you've been unable to prove such with the EF.
It ain't my claim it isn't designed- it is science's claim asshole.
And scientists made that claim by figuring out what can cause such a thing.
Again your stupidity and ignorance are not refutations.
At 8:16 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
It ain't my claim it isn't designed- it is science's claim asshole.
And scientists made that claim by figuring out what can cause such a thing.
The problem you then have is that these same "scientists" also say that life is not designed and that there is no intelligent designer required.
So how come you trust "scientists" when they say things that you agree with but when then say that biology requires no designer other then evolution you disbelieve them?
Are you picking and choosing what to believe based on a prior belief system and not on the evidence at hand?
Do you agree only with the conclusions drawn by scientists when they agree with that prior belief system of yours?
It certainly looks that way.
So "Scientists say X is designed"
Joe agrees.
Then "Scientists say Y is not designed"
Joe disagrees, not because of the evidence presented but because Joe disagrees.
At 8:18 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Also two people using the scientific method can come up with different results.
An important part of scientific endeavor is reproducibility. I guess you simply don't understand the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
The problem you then have is that these same "scientists" also say that life is not designed and that there is no intelligent designer required.
It ain't my problem that they cannot provide any positive evidence for that claim.
OM:
So how come you trust "scientists" when they say things that you agree with but when then say that biology requires no designer other then evolution you disbelieve them?
I trust the claims that can be empirically verified.
OM:
Are you picking and choosing what to believe based on a prior belief system and not on the evidence at hand?
I am all about the evidence asshole.
OM:
Do you agree only with the conclusions drawn by scientists when they agree with that prior belief system of yours?
I don't have a prior belief system- I used to be an evolutionist you ignorant fuck.
OM:
It certainly looks that way.
It certainly looks like you are an ignorant fuck.
At 8:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Also two people using the scientific method can come up with different results.
OM:
An important part of scientific endeavor is reproducibility.
The same goes for the EF you asshole.
But that doesn't address what I said.
Two people can still use the SM and still come up withn different results.
At 8:38 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
It ain't my problem that they cannot provide any positive evidence for that claim.
Nor can you provide a "specification" for Stonehenge. So it seems you have the same problem as you claim they have.
I trust the claims that can be empirically verified.
Untrue.
I don't have a prior belief system- I used to be an evolutionist you ignorant fuck.
That's right, you converted to Islam at one point.
The same goes for the EF you asshole.
If done properly I assume that the results outputted by the EF will be the same if the same input data is used. But according to you that's not the case.
Two people can still use the SM and still come up withn different results.
Sure, that's what margin of error is. But that's not what we're talking about, is it.
"Scientists" using the scientific method has discovered that life does not require a designer, all using the scientific method. Your use of the scientific method is at the same level of your use of the EF - an unverified claim unsupported by any actual evidence.
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So "Scientists say X is designed"
Joe agrees.
Only because they provided the evidence, data and valid reasoning.
OM:
Then "Scientists say Y is not designed"
Joe disagrees,
Because they did not provide any evidence, data nor valid reasoning.
If people can make their case I listen.
If all they can do is babble- like you- then it is a sure sign their claims are bullshit.
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Nor can you provide a "specification" for Stonehenge.
And yet I have.
I trust the claims that can be empirically verified.
OM:
Untrue.
It's true. All you can do is lie though- your lies are meaningless.
I don't have a prior belief system- I used to be an evolutionist you ignorant fuck.
OM:
That's right, you converted to Islam at one point.
No I didn't and that doesn't have anything to do with being an evolutionist.
The same goes for the EF you asshole.
OM:
If done properly I assume that the results outputted by the EF will be the same if the same input data is used. But according to you that's not the case.
It depends on the person/ people using it- just as the scientific method depends on the person/ people using it.
Two people can still use the SM and still come up withn different results.
OM:
Sure, that's what margin of error is. But that's not what we're talking about, is it.
Sure it is.
OM:
"Scientists" using the scientific method has discovered that life does not require a designer, all using the scientific method.
Liar.
I take it that is all you can do- lie like the fucking asshole you are.
OM:
Your use of the scientific method is at the same level of your use of the EF - an unverified claim unsupported by any actual evidence.
Said the asshole who can't support anything it says with actual evidence.
At 9:14 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
And yet I have.
Then link to it and explain how you input it into the EF.
It's true. All you can do is lie though- your lies are meaningless.
You only approve of scientific conclusions you already agree with. The rest are "unsupported".
No I didn't and that doesn't have anything to do with being an evolutionist.
Who said anything about evolution. This thread is about the ribosome and your inability to demonstrate how the EF determines it was designed other then "Joe says so".
It depends on the person/ people using it- just as the scientific method depends on the person/ people using it.
Incorrect. That's why different groups of scientists can reproduce experiments done by other groups. Hence "reproducibility". I've already linked to the Wikipedia page where it's noted it's a foundational concept of the modern scientific method.
Said the asshole who can't support anything it says with actual evidence.
What's the specification of Stonehenge?
At 9:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Only because they provided the evidence, data and valid reasoning.
The evolution of the flagella can be used for this then.
Here is a small snippet of the evidence, data and reasoning (from Wikipedia)
Endogenous/autogenous/direct filiation models
Contrasting with the symbiotic models, these models argue that cilia developed from pre-existing components of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton (which has tubulin and dynein – also used for other functions) as an extension of the mitotic spindle apparatus. The connection can still be seen, first in the various early-branching single-celled eukaryotes that have a microtubule basal body, where microtubules on one end form a spindle-like cone around the nucleus, while microtubules on the other end point away from the cell and form the cilium. A further connection is that the centriole, involved in the formation of the mitotic spindle in many (but not all) eukaryotes, is homologous to the cilium, and in many cases is the basal body from which the cilium grows.
An apparent intermediate stage between spindle and cilium would be a non-swimming appendage made of microtubules with a selectable function like increasing surface area, helping the protozoan to remain suspended in water, increasing the chances of bumping into bacteria to eat, or serving as a stalk attaching the cell to a solid substrate.
Regarding the origin of the individual protein components, an interesting paper on the evolution of dyneins[3][4] shows that the more complex protein family of ciliary dynein has an apparent ancestor in a simpler cytoplasmic dynein (which itself has evolved from the AAA protein family that occurs widely in all archea, bacteria and eukaryotes). Long-standing suspicions that tubulin was homologous to FtsZ (based on very weak sequence similarity and some behavioral similarities) were confirmed in 1998 by the independent resolution of the 3-dimensional structures of the two proteins.
There are alternate models, also detailed on the same page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
What's IDs equivalent? "it was designed because it could not have evolved" seems to be about it.
Because they did not provide any evidence, data nor valid reasoning.
If people can make their case I listen.
Here is further evidence and data.
http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu/~saier/bimm130/reading130/week4/paper4c.pdf
Please note the part you dispute and why. Please provide the ID "explanation". Please note that your "explanation" should have as least as much detail as the explanation you claim is inferior, otherwise how is the ID explanation any better?
At 9:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Only because they provided the evidence, data and valid reasoning.
The evolution of the flagella can be used for this then.
Here is a small snippet of the evidence, data and reasoning (from Wikipedia)
Endogenous/autogenous/direct filiation models
Contrasting with the symbiotic models, these models argue that cilia developed from pre-existing components of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton (which has tubulin and dynein – also used for other functions) as an extension of the mitotic spindle apparatus. The connection can still be seen, first in the various early-branching single-celled eukaryotes that have a microtubule basal body, where microtubules on one end form a spindle-like cone around the nucleus, while microtubules on the other end point away from the cell and form the cilium. A further connection is that the centriole, involved in the formation of the mitotic spindle in many (but not all) eukaryotes, is homologous to the cilium, and in many cases is the basal body from which the cilium grows.
An apparent intermediate stage between spindle and cilium would be a non-swimming appendage made of microtubules with a selectable function like increasing surface area, helping the protozoan to remain suspended in water, increasing the chances of bumping into bacteria to eat, or serving as a stalk attaching the cell to a solid substrate.
Regarding the origin of the individual protein components, an interesting paper on the evolution of dyneins[3][4] shows that the more complex protein family of ciliary dynein has an apparent ancestor in a simpler cytoplasmic dynein (which itself has evolved from the AAA protein family that occurs widely in all archea, bacteria and eukaryotes). Long-standing suspicions that tubulin was homologous to FtsZ (based on very weak sequence similarity and some behavioral similarities) were confirmed in 1998 by the independent resolution of the 3-dimensional structures of the two proteins.
There are alternate models, also detailed on the same page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
What's IDs equivalent? "it was designed because it could not have evolved" seems to be about it.
Because they did not provide any evidence, data nor valid reasoning.
If people can make their case I listen.
Here is further evidence and data.
http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu/~saier/bimm130/reading130/week4/paper4c.pdf
Please note the part you dispute and why. Please provide the ID "explanation". Please note that your "explanation" should have as least as much detail as the explanation you claim is inferior, otherwise how is the ID explanation any better?
At 2:36 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"They would have to be a real moron to be asking you such questions."
Is ID Science seems a legitamte question - some in the pro-ID camp think it isn't.
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Then link to it and explain how you input it into the EF.
I am not here to bow to the ignorant demands of an asshole like you.
OM:
You only approve of scientific conclusions you already agree with.
That is a lie. You are a liar.
No I didn't and that doesn't have anything to do with being an evolutionist.
OM:
Who said anything about evolution.
Umm we were talking about the fact I was an evolutionist until I took a close look at the evidence.
Are you that retarded you can't follow along?
OM:
This thread is about the ribosome and your inability to demonstrate how the EF determines it was designed other then "Joe says so".
That is your take but then again you are a lying loser.
I ran the ribosome through the EF.
It depends on the person/ people using it- just as the scientific method depends on the person/ people using it.
OM:
Incorrect. That's why different groups of scientists can reproduce experiments done by other groups.
Except I didn't say anything about scientists did I you freak.
As I said if scientists use the EF then other groups can check their work too you moron.
OM:
What's the specification of Stonehenge?
The evidence archaeologists used to determine it was designed.
At 6:38 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
The evolution of the flagella can be used for this then.
You equivocating fuck- EVOLUTION is not being debated.
You need something pertaining to blind, undirected chemical processes and somnething that excludes common design.
NOT ONE MENTION OF BLIND, UNDIRECTED CHEMICAL PROCESSES IN ANY OF YOUR CITES.
Not one reproducible experiment showing the flagellum will sponateously arise given the correct components.
Nothing but speculation based on the assumption it did evolve...
At 6:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Is ID Science seems a legitamte question -
Yes it is but you are the wrong person to ask.
Might as well ask a clown...
At 7:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Stonehenge- the specifications are in the article.
At 11:18 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Yes it is but you are the wrong person to ask."
That's why I send them to your blog, Joe. So they know it isn't.
At 5:15 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Not one reproducible experiment showing the flagellum will sponateously arise given the correct components.
But the only person making that claim is you. Nobody else seriously proposes that it spontaneously arose. In fact, that's the ID position, that on day A there was no flagellum then on day B there was.
Evolution does not predict or propose that the flagellum will sponateously arise given the correct components.
So it's not a problem for evolution. Therefore you are misunderstanding how evolution works.
At 5:16 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
I ran the ribosome through the EF.
Show your working!
At 5:17 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Stonehenge- the specifications are in the article.
It's a long article. Where specifically? Just repost the relevant section here please.
Copy+paste.
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
I ran the ribosome through the EF.
OM:
Show your working!
I did!
At 7:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
That's why I send them to your blog, Joe. So they know it isn't.
Then obviously they cannot read.
And it is a safe bet they cannot produce any postive evidence for any other position- ie their position...
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Not one reproducible experiment showing the flagellum will sponateously arise given the correct components.
OM:
But the only person making that claim is you.
Wrong again.
OM:
Nobody else seriously proposes that it spontaneously arose.
You have no idea what "spontaneously" means- and I find that hilarious
All spontaneous means is without agency involvement- it doesn't have to mean it happened instantly, although that would be possible.
OM:
Evolution does not predict or propose that the flagellum will sponateously arise given the correct components.
Evolution cannot predict anything beyond change and/ or stasis.
At 7:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Stonehenge- the specifications are in the article.
OM:
It's a long article.
No it ain't. Read it.
Let's see how good of an investigator you are- so far you have failed miserably.
At 8:07 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
But the only person making that claim is you.
Wrong again.
Who else is making such a claim then? Name one published biologist making that claim.
All spontaneous means is without agency involvement- it doesn't have to mean it happened instantly, although that would be possible.
I seem to have missed your ID explanation for the origin of the flagellum.
Evolution cannot predict anything beyond change and/ or stasis.
That seems to be 2 more things then ID can predict.
What about the predictions of the locations of fossils? Don't they count?
At 8:10 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
No it ain't. Read it.
Let's see how good of an investigator you are- so far you have failed miserably.
I've read it. I cannot see a specification that can be used as an input for the EF.
Why don't you just show your working for your claimed usage of the EF? It's almost as if you want everybody reading this to think of you as a liar.
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Who else is making such a claim then? Name one published biologist making that claim.
All who rail against ID and Creation make that claim.
But you have no idea what the word means.
OM:
I seem to have missed your ID explanation for the origin of the flagellum.
I missed the blind watchmaker explanation.
Evolution cannot predict anything beyond change and/ or stasis.
OM:
That seems to be 2 more things then ID can predict.
Said the ignorant fuck.
OM:
What about the predictions of the locations of fossils?
What about them?
They aren't a prediction of blind, undirected chemical processes
OM:
Don't they count?
Count for what?
At 8:15 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I've read it. I cannot see a specification that can be used as an input for the EF.
LoL!
1- Thanks for provuing that you are incapable of conducting an investigation
2- STONEHENGE is the input to the EF.
OM:
Why don't you just show your working for your claimed usage of the EF?
I have.
OM:
It's almost as if you want everybody reading this to think of you as a liar.
If those people are as ignorant and dishonest as you I don't give a shit.
Honest people could do their own research.
At 8:27 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
I missed the blind watchmaker explanation.
Start here
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of.html
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of_17.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#update
Any ID alternatives you can link to other then "it was designed?"
Thought not.
STONEHENGE is the input to the EF.
What, Stonehenge itself? I think somebody will notice if I take it and put it into a filter. Perhaps we need a more abstract description?
At 8:36 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of.html
Nothing about the blind watchmaker in that link.
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of_17.html
Nothing about the blind watchmaker in that link- He talks about homology as if that is enough for evolution- but nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#update
And nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes there.
IOW you are a dishonest freak.
STONEHENGE is the input to the EF.
OM:
What, Stonehenge itself?
Yes that is the object we are trying to determine was designed or not.
But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance.
At 8:59 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
but nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes.
There's nothing in there about teleological direction being required. Why do you think that is?
At 9:00 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
And nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes there.
Nothing about an intelligent designer either nor any requirement for such.
Why do you suppose that is?
At 9:14 AM,
Joe G said…
but nothing about blind, undirected chemical processes.
OM:
There's nothing in there about teleological direction being required.
Of course not that is not the party line.
OM:
Why do you think that is?
Ignorance and bias.
At 9:52 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Of course not that is not the party line.
Unfortunately for you that implies a worldwide conspiracy of scientists suppressing the "truth of ID".
Which is laughable.
Ignorance and bias.
That's right, people who have spent decades studying, performing experiments and analyzing data are all ignorant compared to you Joe.
All those scientists worldwide, of all religions and no religion are somehow "biased" because their results don't say what Joe want's them to say.
Perhaps there is a more parsimonious explanation?
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Unfortunately for you that implies a worldwide conspiracy of scientists suppressing the "truth of ID".
That has been proven. Just look what happened when a pro-ID paper got published.
OM:
That's right, people who have spent decades studying, performing experiments and analyzing data are all ignorant compared to you Joe.
Strange how not one of them can support the claims of their position.
At 10:03 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"STONEHENGE is the input to the EF.
OM:
What, Stonehenge itself?
Yes that is the object we are trying to determine was designed or not."
Oh! - apparently the filter is actually a very large, physical tangible device! No wonder there is confusion.
At 10:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
That has been proven. Just look what happened when a pro-ID paper got published.
Yet if there were such a conspiracy then logically such a paper would not have been published at all. And what did "happen" Joe? Anybody lose their job? Anybody lose any wages?
Strange how not one of them can support the claims of their position.
I suppose in comparison to "design" other explanations based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships pale in comparison.
No wonder you believe what you believe, "design" is such a powerful concept.
At 4:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Oh! - apparently the filter is actually a very large, physical tangible device.
It's a flow-chart Rich.
Do you understand how flow-charts work?
At 4:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Om:
Yet if there were such a conspiracy then logically such a paper would not have been published at all.
Not if there are cracks in it.
OM:
I suppose in comparison to "design" other explanations based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships pale in comparison.
ID is based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships.
At 4:47 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
If ID is based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships.
And "Darwinian evolution" is based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships.
Then why does only one produce a massive body of work, only getting more detailed day after day and the other concentrate it's activity mainly in websites like UD which spend their time highlighting phrases like "an efficient motor" or "finely tuned" from scientists who actually publish papers in an effort to pretend that ID has some actual scientific support?
You referred me to a couple of books earlier Joe, when are you planning to publish yours?
At 4:53 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Not if there are cracks in it.
Joe, ID has several journals.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
Oh, hey, you did have a film, right?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
At 4:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Om:
And "Darwinian evolution" is based on observed chemistry, physics and networks of relationships.
Except it isn't.
"Darwinian evolution" is based on metaphysics.
OM:
Then why does only one produce a massive body of work, only getting more detailed day after day
The more we know the better ID looks.
Anthony Flew finally gave ion to the overwhelming evidence in favor of ID.
I hear of PHDed biologists and chemists joining ID because of the evidence but none leaving ID. Why is that?
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Om:
Joe, ID has several journals.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
Oh, hey, you did have a film, right?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Do you have a point?
At 5:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh, then you mean some abstraction of stone henge, not "Stone Henge itself".
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Oh, then you mean some abstraction of stone henge, not "Stone Henge itself".
Nope- everything about it- Stonehenge, the thing itself, is what is the input.
At 6:51 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Do you realise you're suggesting that the physical object stone henge is put through a filter? It's easy to filter rocks that big.
Previously you've suggested a recipe or description was enough. which is it?
At 12:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So is the filter bigger than Stonehenge or do you have to grind it up?
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Do you realise you're suggesting that the physical object stone henge is put through a filter?
The silter is a flow-chart you moron.
Do you realize that evotards say that all living organisms are put through a filter? That biomass far exceeds Stonehenge.
Rich:
Previously you've suggested a recipe or description was enough. which is it?
Reference please.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
So is the filter bigger than Stonehenge or do you have to grind it up?
Obviously your brain is ground up...
At 8:06 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
Do you realize that evotards say that all living organisms are put through a filter? That biomass far exceeds Stonehenge.
It's a big filter!
Almost as big as the planet, but a bit more like a fractal. I tried to measure it's size, but it seemed like a never ending job, so I gave up. Not quite sure how it all works TBH.
At 7:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Do you realize that evotards say that all living organisms are put through a filter? That biomass far exceeds Stonehenge.
OM:
It's a big filter!
Any evidence for that?
At 1:59 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, you don't seem to uderstand the difference between an abstraction and the actual, physical object.
At 7:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Joe, you don't seem to uderstand the difference between an abstraction and the actual, physical object.
Said the asshole who thinks Stonehnege needs to be ground up in order to get it into the EF...
At 9:17 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
No I don't, but I inferred that you did from you saying Stone Henge itself" should be put through it. Stone henge itself is of course both physical and corporeal, so the filter would have to be.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
No I don't, but I inferred that you did from you saying Stone Henge itself" should be put through it.
That is because you are ignorant of the EF and how to conduct an investigation in general.
Rich:
Stone henge itself is of course both physical and corporeal, so the filter would have to be.
What a clueless twit.
At 9:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
The EF uses and abstraction of the real. Your ability to admit or understand this is priceless. Keep flailing. Tell us Joe, what goes through the filter?
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
You are clueless and you are the asshole who is flailing.
The EF uses and abstraction of the real.
Prove it.
At 9:48 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Sure, easy - the Caputo example (Dembski offers) uses the abstraction of the mathematical probability of coins being tossed and their probabilistic outcomes is passed through the filter, not physical tangible coins. The coins themselves are are abstraction for a 50/50 chance (in a binomial expansion)
At 9:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Dembski took the EVENT and ran it thorugh the EF.
At 10:07 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
No he didn't. The caputo event happened in 1985. The EF wasn't formalized until 1996. So it was clearly an abstraction, the 'event' had already happened over a decade ago.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
When called to explain an event, we therefore have a decesion to make-"
And yes asshole the EF tries to determine the cause of PAST events- duh. If we observed caputo in action we wouldn't have to use the EF as we would see what he was doing.
Now when I say Stonehenge is run through the EF that means people actually have to go to it and examine it asking the questions along the way.
So you are there, physically, with the structure physically before you/ around you. And you start your investigation.
You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used.
At 10:23 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So we're not observing Caputo at all, we're creating an abstraction? Thanks for playing.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
So we're not observing Caputo at all
Caputo isn't going into the EF, the EVENT is.
And thanks for ignoring the rest of my post:
Now when I say Stonehenge is run through the EF that means people actually have to go to it and examine it asking the questions along the way.
So you are there, physically, with the structure physically before you/ around you. And you start your investigation.
You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used.
Thanks fer playin' indeed...
At 11:16 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
You, do the actual events / objects go through the filter or some abstraction / mental approximation of them?
At 1:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Now when I say Stonehenge is run through the EF that means people actually have to go to it and examine it asking the questions along the way.
So you are there, physically, with the structure physically before you/ around you. And you start your investigation.
You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used.
With Caputo the event was the outcome- that final tally of Ds with an R.
With a coin toss, same thing- it's the final tally that is input into the EF. And then yo a trying to determine the cause of that tally.
Do you really think your ignorance is a refuttion?
At 1:10 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, I think you don't understand thw difference between an object and an approximation of it in a model. If you did you wouldn't write such breathtaking ignorant things as:
STONEHENGE is the input to the EF.
OM:
What, Stonehenge itself?
Yes that is the object we are trying to determine was designed or not."
At 1:13 PM,
Joe G said…
As I said and supported Stonehenge itself is put through the filter:
Now when I say Stonehenge is run through the EF that means people actually have to go to it and examine it asking the questions along the way.
So you are there, physically, with the structure physically before you/ around you. And you start your investigation.
You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used.
Case closed asshole- you lose.
At 1:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Stonehenge itself is put through the filter" - then you have examintation, the asking of questions, etc, so *some* *aspects* of stonehenge are *approximated* and *abstracted* for use in the EF.
Case re-opened. Twat.
At 1:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Now when I say Stonehenge is run through the EF that means people actually have to go to it and examine it asking the questions along the way.
So you are there, physically, with the structure physically before you/ around you. And you start your investigation.
You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used.
Richtard:
so *some* *aspects* of stonehenge are *approximated* and *abstracted* for use in the EF.
Nope- the whole thing and then some- ya see we need evidence from the surrounding area to. That is all collected and used.
Just admit it Rich, you don'tknow what you are talking about.
At 1:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Nope- the whole thing and then some"
This is fun. So this whole thing and then some (not some approximation but the real, actual, phyisical stonehenge) is passed through a filter..
1) What is the 'then some'? what do you add to the *actual* thing
2) The filter must be physical to have a physical object put through it. If the filter isn't phsyical then you must be putting non-physcial things (such as approximations, data, etc) through it.
This is right up there with Gil's not understanding 'simulation'. Well done!
At 2:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
1) What is the 'then some'? what do you add to the *actual* thing
I said what it is- are you that fucking retarded?
Rich:
2) The filter must be physical to have a physical object put through it.
Just because you say so?
Do you have anything to support your claim?
Natural selection is a filter yet no one can see, smell, touch, hear nor feel it. It can't be physical! Therefor organisms are not physical- Richtard's "logic"!
At 2:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"You are there, it is there and the EF is there being used."
But Dembski wan't there in '85 with Caputo...
Are you cnfused, Joe?
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
The confusion is all yours asshole.
The result was present for Dembski to examine.
Are you that infected?
At 2:10 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh so when you claim you have to be there, you don't. You can take an account of something, which is of course not the physical thing at all, but you insist that the physical thing must go through the filter. Goodness, Joe - you're very confused. Would you like to start again, from the beginning?
At 2:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Oh so when you claim you have to be there, you don't.
Now what are you babbling about?
Rich:
You can take an account of something, which is of course not the physical thing at all, but you insist that the physical thing must go through the filter.
With Caputo the physical thing is that final tally of Ds and one R.
I told you that already.
So Rich is a retarded twat and he really thinks his retardation is a refutation.
Thanks for the laughs...
At 2:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You really don't understand the difference between physical and conceptual, do you?
Do wonder you think design is a mechanism.
At 2:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Well I have proven that design is a mechanism. All you can do is choke on it.
I don't know why you keep bringing that up- are you proud to keep exposing your ignorance?
And Rich, the results are physical, not conceptual.
IOW you are still clueless...
At 2:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Well I have proven that design is a mechanism" - LOL, in your own tiny mind! Tell Dembski his search for a mechanistic narrative is over!
"The results are physical, not conceptual." The results of the filter?
At 3:24 PM,
Joe G said…
"Well I have proven that design is a mechanism"
Richtard:
- LOL, in your own tiny mind!
On tiny minds think that design isn't a mechanism.
Are you that stupid that you don't know how to us a dictionary?
mechanism:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
:
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
But I guess you will live in denial forever...
At 3:55 PM,
Joe G said…
mechanism:
3. method or means: a method or means of doing something
design:
2. way something is made: the way in which something is planned and made
At 4:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152-p-3.html
"As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. " - William Dembski, ID 'theorist'.
I trust you have contacted him and corrected him, Joe. Make him aware, he needs a mechanism!
At 4:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanism
Everyone but you is using version 2 (Dembski included).
You are equivocating.
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Everyone but you is using version 2 (Dembski included).
Evidence please. Also eversion 2 fits- action- design is the act of doing X.
However it is clear that mechanisms in context means a exactly what I posted. Mutation and selection is a process for achieving a result.
IOW you are so stupid that you haven't a clue.
At 5:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Mutation and selection <> Design.
Have you emailed Dembski yet?
At 5:03 PM,
Joe G said…
As for Dembski's quote we have been over that before- more than once. IOW you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
Richtard repeating the same stupid and refuted mistakes
At 5:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Mutation and selection <> Design.
Design also involves mutations and selection.
IOW tardo you are really fucked up.
Rich:
Have you emailed Dembski yet?
I have emailed him several times.
At 5:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Mutation and selection- so OBVIOUSLY we are talking about the definition of "mechanism" that I provided and not Richtard's nonsensical spewage.
At 5:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What did Dembski say? Was he relieved to hear design was a mechanism?
At 5:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Was he relieved to hear design was a mechanism?
Why would he be relieved to hear about something that is a given?
There isn't any evidence that he ever doubted the fact that desgn is a mechanism.
You are one of the few- others being fucked-up evotards also- who doubt design is a mechanism. Unfortunately for you I have the support and you have nothing but whining.
At 5:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Why would he be relieved to hear about something that is a given?
He clearly doesn't (didn't) think so and as yet to confirm he agrees with you.
At 5:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
He clearly doesn't (didn't) think so...
LoL!!! As if you know.
As I said there are only a few people that don't think design is a mechanism and they are all evotards like you.
Shit even Mike Gene said design is a mechanism.
What the fuck Rich- I even provided dictionaries that confirm what I say is true.
And all you can do is jerk-off.
At 6:10 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Ah yes - here you are (pretending to be 'Jim') getting slapped down:
http://telicthoughts.com/design-is-not-a-mechanism/
At 6:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Strange all I see are piss-ants whining about the facts.
Why is it that I have supported my claim and all Rich can do is jerk-off?
Post a Comment
<< Home