Comments on Dembski-Marks’s “active information.”

| 87 Comments

This is a guest appearance of Erik Tellgren.

I (Mark Perakh) have not contributed anything to this essay and am posting it as a courtesy to Erik.

Here starts Erik’s text:

William Dembski has been one of the most influential contributors to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Among other things, his work has added the terms specified information, specified complexity, and complex specified information to the basic vocabulary of the ID movement. These terms are all directly related to the logarithms of special types of probabilities, e.g. the probability of a pattern of interest given that it was produced in some way that excludes the foresight and guidance of an intelligent agent.

In a recent draft manuscript, Dembski and his coauthor Marks extend the vocabulary with three new terms [1]: endogenous information, exogenous information, and active information. They consider as given a search space and a fixed subset, called a target, that makes up some fraction ps of the search space. An issue of interest to them is how to measure how well a search algorithm [2] exploits the structure of the search problem. Two possible candidates are the probability p that a search algorithm is successful and the ratio p/ps. Readers of Dembski’s previous writings will not be surprised to discover that Marks and Dembski prefer to log-transform their probabilities and rename them ‘information’. In equations, their definitions are

endogenous information = -log2(ps),

exogenous information = -log2(p),

active information = -log2(ps/p).

Continue reading Comments on Active Information at Talk Reason

87 Comments

Thanks Mark, excellent and timely postings on the work by Dembski and Marks.

Once again, Dembski seems to have forgotten that the NFL theorem applies only to all possible search spaces, never to only one.

Also, no doubt, Dembski will once again claim that his work has something to do with evolution (the alleged impossibility thereof), ignoring the fact that no targeted search can ever be analogous to the biological process of evolution.

On reading Marks’ paper, a simple question arose for me. Take a simple search algorithm, such as Newton’s root-finding method. Now I apply it to a problem with one zero. And then I apply it to a problem with many zeros. By random search, the second problem is easier. Yet according to Marks’ ‘active information’ it would seem that Newton’s root-finding method had different amounts of external information input to the first problem than the second. Where did this extra information come from? The programmer?

A couple of weeks back I stumbled across a blog that was discussing application of information theory to evolution in terms of the “surprisal” of a survival or death. It started off with a post by MarkCC and had about three or four more going.

Unfortunately I was using a library computer when I read this, and now can’t remember the URL. Google has nothing. Can anyone help?

Funnily enough, since they both appear on the same day, the Haggstrom paper criticises Tellegren (see footnote on page 5). I don’t think this is possible by random chance!

Re: Comment 130886 by Steve F.

Olle’s critical remark is about another post by Tellgren ( see here. It relates to a specific point in Tellgren’s referenced essay and is not generally refuting Tellgren’s thesis. As to this new essay by Tellgren, Olle’s remark is not about it at all. While there may normally be certain divergences of opinions between Erik Tellgren and Olle Haggstrom, both are in general agreement that Dembski/Marks’s arguments are baseless.

The problem for Dembski et al. is that the quantity of “endogenous information” in biological systems is pretty small.

Do ID proponents explore scenarios whereby “ps” is much greater than “p”? This would seem to be the closest that their ideas can come to biological reality.

Funny that the empirical work of Behe in “Edge of Evolution” for the high populations of malaria and HIV both back up Dembski’s postulation that the CSI needed to be found for protein/protein binding sights is correct in its assertion!!! Where is Olle’s and Haggstrom’s empirical validation for their assertion that CSI is easy to find???

Bond, James Bond,

“Olle’s and Haggstrom’s” ???

Have you read the papers in question? It’s Dembski who says that certain evolutionary outcomes are easy to find. (See Dembski’s paper, last paragraph in section 4, where he says that the environment and the laws of physics and chemistry make certain endpoints likely, per Simon Conway Morris.)

Funny that Behe hasn’t done any empirical work.

Bond, James Bond:

Funny that the empirical work of Behe in “Edge of Evolution” for the high populations of malaria and HIV both back up Dembski’s postulation that the CSI needed to be found for protein/protein binding sights is correct in its assertion!!! Where is Olle’s and Haggstrom’s empirical validation for their assertion that CSI is easy to find???

There is no empirical work, all there is, is a poorly founded estimate based on a sidenote in a paper to suggest a poorly founded thesis.

Funny how poorly these ID activists respond to their world falling to pieces when science gets involved. So many expectations from Marks and Dembski and yet, so many problems right from the start.

Of course, CSI as defined by Dembski is incredibly hard to find, since any time science can provide a detailed explanation, CSI disappears. Poof… In other words, CSI, is a meaningless concept.

Remember: CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Specified is trivial, all we need is biological function Complex Information is when the -log2P(A) is sufficiently large or the probability that A can be explained by a known regularity/chance path is sufficiently low.

Note that Dembski has failed to show that CSI exists for instance for the bacterial flagella.

In fact, it may be all but impossible to calculate the probabilities involved, making CSI a totally impractical concept.

Don’t be fooled by ID’s terminology. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Correction: The URL for Tellgren’s post referred to by Olle was misspelt in my earlier comment. Here is the correct URL.

Maybe you guys can get your highly touted mathematical illusionists to save the, now thoroughly, trashed population genetics of Haldane, Fisher and Wright. For the main weakness of your hypothesis of evolution at this point in time, is not so much the threat from Dembski’s CSI, but it is the fact that the Genome is now absolutely proven to have severe epistasis (to be a complex interwoven network) by the ENCODE project!!!!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/he[…]eled/?page=1

For you see guys, it is commonly taught in evolutionary biology classes that evolution is absolutely required to have little or no epistasis (no complex interwoven network) for it to have the plasticity it needs, on the genetic level, to accomplish evolutionary novelty seen in life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis

In fact, in order for evolution to avoid being overturned last century by Mendelian genetics,Haldane, Fisher and Wright developed population genetics in which the unit of selection was transfered to the gene instead of the whole organism like it originally was for evolution!!! (pg. 52-53, Sanford: Genetic Entropy) Thus, with this ENCODE revelation, natural selection is now rendered mute and powerless in its ability to select mutations!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

… You see guys Mendelian genetics, contrary to evolution, is empirically verified and thus the genome was required to be considered a multiple independent collection of genes by evolution in which genes could be selected or discarded as natural selection saw fit… This is absolutely the only way that evolution could have been considered scientifically plausible with the established fact of Mendelian Genetics…

Put simply…IF genes cannot be selected on an individual basis then no new novelty can arise by RM/NS for natural selection cannot select for a completely novel trait..Thus evolution is clearly demonstrated to be scientifically denied the plasticity it needs for novelty!!!

With the shattering revelation of ENCODE,, Evolutionary biology classes have absolutely no basic mechanism left to teach their students for evolution….All Haldane’s, Wright’s and Fisher’s work in population Genetics is pure and utter Garbage…

It really is going to take some mathematical contortion by evolutionists to get out of this jam!!!!

So, then, James Bond, Plagiarist for Jesus, how does this alleged explanation account for the fact that no one, not even Dembski, himself, has ever used Dembski’s explanatory filter to do science? How does this explanation of yours explain the diversity of birds of paradise seen in Papau New Guinea?

Bond, James Bond

These are your sources!?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/he[…]h_science/arhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

You are lucky that you are not in my freshman research class because you have just failed it. First rule of thumb: If you wish to claim expertise in a subject, read–and cite–primary sources.

Maybe you guys can get your highly touted mathematical illusionists to save the, now thoroughly, trashed population genetics of Haldane, Fisher and Wright. For the main weakness of your hypothesis of evolution at this point in time, is not so much the threat from Dembski’s CSI, but it is the fact that the Genome is now absolutely proven to have severe epistasis (to be a complex interwoven network) by the ENCODE project!!!!

Now that Dembski’s CSI has been shown to be without merrit, ID quickly moves to the ENCODE project, which shows an interwoven network.

Perhaps Bond has missed the postings in which I addressed how such networks, contrary to ‘common sense’, are actually quite open to evolution.

How many times will Bond repeat his ignorant claims before he admits, like in this instance with CSI, that ID is full of it?

For you see guys, it is commonly taught in evolutionary biology classes that evolution is absolutely required to have little or no epistasis (no complex interwoven network) for it to have the plasticity it needs, on the genetic level, to accomplish evolutionary novelty seen in life.

Could I get some references for this ‘common claim’?

As far as epistasis is concerned, you may have missed the scientific work on scale free networks.

For instance

In a study of simple and complex digital organisms (organisms that could only replicate vs. organisms with computational abilites) Lenski et al. [11] showed that simple organisms in general are more fragile compared to the complex ones.

Remember how in the Avida experiments it was shown that there exists a strong epistasis in these evolved systems.

The results from our experiments with Avida show that for both low and high mutation rates the genetic architecture of Avida creatures tends to a scale-free structure. Although the genome does not form a network in a strict sense, the overlap of genes can be interpreted as interactions between different genes, which in turn can be seen as an interaction network. It is known that scale-free networks can be generated using a simple growth algorithm that relies on growth of the network and preferential attachment. The emergence of a scale-free architecture in the genetic architecture therefore suggests that it is the preferential attachment or gene clustering that is the dominating force behind gene development.

Science is so far ahead of your understanding of these issues.

Yet it’s good to see you move away from Dembski… Another gap of ignorance has been closed

How many times will Bond repeat his ignorant claims before he admits, like in this instance with CSI, that ID is full of it?

To paraphrase the lyrics of an old song the singer Dennis Day used to sing, the mountains will crumble to dust, and the seas will dry up before Bond will swallow his pride to admit this. Considering Bond’s monstrous ego and conceit, it would be far easier for the mountains to crumble to dust and let the seas dry up than to wait for him to do so.

Well said. Shows you how denial is the first stage towards recovery.

The problem I have with “James Bond”, as opposed to other local trolls, is that most of the time I cannot even understand what it is he is trying to express. Parsing his grammar is like trying to pick apart some elaborate code.

With this in mind, I can’t help but wonder– weren’t Haldane, Fischer, and Wright working in the 1920s? If the goal is to refute mainstream population genetics, is this really the most appropriate source to be attacking?

“The problem I have with “James Bond”, as opposed to other local trolls, is that most of the time I cannot even understand what it is he is trying to express.”

Neither does he. That is the problem.

Elf Eye Wrote:

Bond, James Bond [snip] You are lucky that you are not in my freshman research class because you have just failed it.

Nicely said, Elf Eye.

I suspect that BJB would fail even the most elementary biology class, since (s)he seems to revel in ignorance, and also seems incapable of expressing a coherent idea. Whether this latter represents the absence of coherent ideas or dyslexia is something for which we curently have no empirical data.

Coin Wrote:

The problem I have with “James Bond”, as opposed to other local trolls, is that most of the time I cannot even understand what it is he is trying to express.

Stuart Weinstein Wrote:

Neither does he. That is the problem.

With respect, I think it is only a part of the problem.

BJB appears to enjoy being ignorant. (S)he also apears incapable of rational thought and/or expression thereof. BJB certainly apears to be incapable of understanding biological science to any useful level of detail. The question we should ask ourselves is: does BJB have a genuine learning difficulty, or is (s)he making a deliberate effort to remain ignorant?

Meanwhile, back on-topic (more or less), I find it astonishing that Dembski can claim so many special properties of information with a straight face, when his definition of information is simply the inverse log of a probability. A probability that neither he nor anyone else has sufficient data to calculate.

Remember also that Dembski’s definition of a “design process” would actually encompass both modern evolutionary theory and something as simple as a seive.

The results from our experiments with Avida show that for both low and high mutation rates the genetic architecture of Avida creatures tends to a scale-free structure.

Empirical Evidence,We Don’t Need NO Stinking Empirical Evidence!!! Watch closely,,, nothing up the sleeves, behold the magic of evolution right before your eyes on my handy dandy computer program called Avida…

And presto, I hit a few buttons and then whazam evolution made to order all day long… Bet I impressed you simpletons!!!!!

If you guys think this is empirical proof for evolution,,, You guys really need a urinalysis!!!!

WHENEVER you guys get thrown out of science, as is proper in the greater scheme of things, maybe you can get jobs as magicians!!!!

Here’s some real biochemistry showing how real evolution happens Bond. I could attempt to reason out why your arguments are horribly wrong or I could just present all the evidence that Behe ever asked for http://www.cbs.umn.edu/labs/deanlab[…]imDean05.pdf

Alternatively if you want to see how fast natural selection acts read some of the following http://www.msu.edu/~lenski/

SteveF wrote: Funnily enough, since they both appear on the same day, the Haggstrom paper criticises Tellegren (see footnote on page 5). I don\x{2019}t think this is possible by random chance!

As others pointed out above, Häggström is criticizing an earlier text by me. However, I repeat the cricitized comments in my new text.

In brief, Häggström describes me as “confused” because I claim that optimization is easy in the NFL scenario. As a counter-example, he offers the possibility of concocting a scale for fitness that is absurdly more fine-grained for inviable genomes than viable genomes. E.g. there might be 10^1000 grades in the inviable range for every grade in viable range. To this I reply, firstly, that fitness cannot be measured to such an absurdly high precision so this is a purely hypothetical scale. Secondly, we must remember the context at hand, which includes Dembski’s default assumption of uniform probability. If Dembski were to say “uniform probability is only the default assumption when we choose a fitness scale with 10^1000 inviable grades for every viable grade”, then I think the debate is lost for him. Thirdly, later in the new article, Häggström himself commits the same sin of confusion that he accuses me of. E.g. in his discussion of black-and-white pictures, he assumes without comment that ‘black’ and ‘white’ are equally probable and does not take into account the possibility of, say, having 10^1000 shades of ‘black’. If I must take into completely absurd fitness scales, why shouldn’t Häggström have to take into account completely absurd colour scales?

The fact that optimization is generally easy in the NFL scenario remains, because the performance is independent of the size of the search space. The only way to make it difficult is to impose some artifical and absurd fitness scale, but then it is misleading to point to the vastness of the search space as the source of the difficulty because it is really isn’t the source.

JGB: Refer to Edge of Evolution” for solid refutation of long term e coli experiment!!!

The first paragraph of your other reference states the following:

Although all natural IMDHs use nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) as a coenzyme, they can be engineered to use nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) instead. Intermediates between these two phenotypic extremes show that each amino acid contributes additively to enzyme function, with epistatic contributions confined to fitness. The genotype-phenotype-fitness map shows that NAD use is a global optimum.

Ok JGB: it states that NAD is the normal enzymne and NAD is the global optimum,,, thus NADP substitution demonstrated Genetic Entropy.

I will gladly cite your paper as proof of Genetic Entropy for organism from optimal condition with the amino acid substitutions!!!

BJ Bond wrote:

“Empirical Evidence,We Don’t Need NO Stinking Empirical Evidence!!!”

And there you have it folks, as succinct a summary of ID as you will ever find.

Bond, check out the thread on mammalian molar evolution. It shows how minor genetic changes can cause morphological evolution on a micro or macroevolutionary scale. ID may have no need for empirical evidence, but real science does.

Behold PZ myers, the great illusionists, watch as he mystifies audiences with his ability to turn fox teeth into other mammalian teeth !!!! Watch closely, nothing up his sleeves…He points to the fox teeth…the audience goes UUHHH AAAAHHH at his de^ath defying manuever… he points to similarities of fox teeth to other similar mammalian teeth, a women faints in the audience from the suspense, and presto fox teeth can, with a lot of help from the audience’s imagination, turn into monkey teeth!!!! To PZ’s dismay a boy in the audience says “Hey!!!,,, wait a minute!,, He didn’t actually change anything into anything else, he just said that the fox teeth could change into mammalian teeth and then did the ole switcheroo!!!” But the audience (a bunch of PT bloggers actually) shouts the boy down, and calls him all sorts of vulgar names, I believe if allowed they would actually beat the boy senseless, for ruining their belief in the magic of the magic show…

Bond, James Bond.

Are you taking any medications?

Bond, James Bond:

Behold PZ myers, the great illusionists, watch as he mystifies audiences with his ability to turn fox teeth into other mammalian teeth !!!! Watch closely, nothing up his sleeves…He points to the fox teeth…the audience goes UUHHH AAAAHHH at his de^ath defying manuever… he points to similarities of fox teeth to other similar mammalian teeth, a women faints in the audience from the suspense, and presto fox teeth can, with a lot of help from the audience’s imagination, turn into monkey teeth!!!! To PZ’s dismay a boy in the audience says “Hey!!!,,, wait a minute!,, He didn’t actually change anything into anything else, he just said that the fox teeth could change into mammalian teeth and then did the ole switcheroo!!!” But the audience (a bunch of PT bloggers actually) shouts the boy down, and calls him all sorts of vulgar names, I believe if allowed they would actually beat the boy senseless, for ruining their belief in the magic of the magic show…

BJ Bond:

This my be slightly off topic, but please take a course in English composition. Using proper grammar should be non-controversial, even to you. After all, grammar is an arbitrary standard created by humans. Unlike science, which works whether anyone wants it to or not, English only works if everyone uses the same basic set of rules.

Any English teacher will tell you that the overuse of exclamation points is an indication of weak writing, and the use of multiple exclamation points after a simple declarative sentence is just plain incorrect grammar.

You also have problems with your use of commas, ellipsis, capitalization, paragraphs, and argumentative structure.

In particular, it is hard to understand what reason you have to deny something you personally haven’t witnessed and don’t understand (evolution), only to replace it with something no one can ever possibly witness or understand (creation). Doesn’t that amount to replacing one sort of magic with another?

Of course, Bond’s ignorance also requires him to ignore the contradicting evidence

5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium’s normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas’ induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Source: Observed Instances of Speciation by Boxhorn

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

In an attempt to understand the significance of predation in the evolution of prey species, the ecological and morphological characteristics of bacterial species under predation by a ciliated protozoa,Cyclidium sp., were investigated. Serial transfer at 7 day intervals was applied to the bacterial populations in the presence or absence of Cyclidium. Although cells of the parental bacterial strain are typically short rods up to 1.5 μm long, cells of much greater length, up to 20 μm long (type L) were found in populations exposed to predation from Cyclidium. However, the wildtype, shorter length bacteria persisted even after the appearance of type L. Type L was not observed in the singlr bacterial culture throughout the serial transfers. Type L appeared to improve the ability to escape predation by elongating cell size, but growth rate and saturation density were decreased.

Btw the various cut and pastes were plagiarized from

Superbugs at AIG others are from UcD where Bornagain77 presents his ‘arguments’

Ignorance begets ignorance it seems

Yes, of course I am!! and I find comfort in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which shows time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light…which coincidentally conforms to the ancient Theistic assertion that Almighty God exist in a timeless eternity!!!,

Still ignorant about science I notice?

Anyone else notice that Jesus’ self-proclaimed plagiarist cleverly failed to broach the topic of the appearance of the enzyme in two strains of Flavobacterium, and one strain of Pseudomonas aerugenosa in his copy and pasted rant about the non-existance of evolution in bacteria?

Stanton:

Anyone else notice that Jesus’ self-proclaimed plagiarist cleverly failed to broach the topic of the appearance of the enzyme in two strains of Flavobacterium, and one strain of Pseudomonas aerugenosa in his copy and pasted rant about the non-existance of evolution in bacteria?

ID creationists seldomly can deal with facts, especially when the usual creationists websites don’t spoon feed the ‘answer’.

ID creationists seldomly can deal with facts, especially when the usual creationists websites don’t spoon feed the ‘answer’.

I keep forgetting that facts are to Creationists what vancomycin is to penicillin-resistant Staphylococcus

People like Bond, James Bond are good reasons I don’t let such idiots into my Evolution Education group. http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/evol[…]on_education

Stanton asserts evolution is proven by:

The repeated independent evolution of nylonase in two different strains of Flavobacterium and one strain of Pseudomonas.

Yet this is not as clear cut proof as he would like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/[…]bacteria.asp

of special note: It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Thus the Genome itself remains the same…the enzyme is generated in a sort time defying tremendous mathematical odds, thus indicates a “front loaded” instruction to manufacture the enzyme.

Naturalists claim stunning proof for evolution because bacteria can quickly adapt to detoxify new man-made materials, such as nylon and polystyrene. Yet once again, when carefully looked at on the molecular level, the bacteria still have not demonstrated a gain in genetic (genome) information. And of course in an environment without nylon the “adapted” bacteria are quickly “out competed”, thus are not as fit for survival on earth as the parent bacteria!!!!! Indeed, it is not nearly as novel as they think it is, for the bacteria are still, only, complacently detoxifying the earth of toxins as they have always been doing for billions of years. Even though naturalists claim this is something brand new, that should be considered stunning proof for evolution, I’m not nearly as impressed, with their stunning proof, as they think I should be!

BJ Bond,

Please define the term epistasis. Please state exactly why you think this is a problem for modern evolutionary theory. Please cite a reference where any real scientist has made this claim (creationists want-to-bes do not count).

By the way, please also explain the results of all of the models that account for epistasis in population genetics. You have read all of these references haven’t you? No? Well then why are you trying to convince professional biologists that you know better than they do? If ignorance really is bliss, you should be very happy.

I see that you have not read the thread on mammalian molar evolution yet. The reference in that thread shows that very simple genetic changes can affect more than one phenotypic trait. Far from being a problem, this explains the correlations we see between various phenotypes for various traits. Contrary to your claims, epistasis is not only no impediment to evolution, but complex interactions in development can provide very powerful mechanisms for making coordinated morphological changes. Oh well, better luck with your next cut and paste argument.

BJB: You’re getting better. I’d give the last one a D-. You refrained for the most part, but just couldn’t help dropping in a !!!!!. But if you keep it up, I’m sure you can overcome that bad habit.

Next lesson: Eliminate ALL exclamation points. You overuse them egregiously, which devalues them, so you end up quadrupling them, when a simple period would have been better all along.

Now let’s work on ellipses (…). The only time you should use them is when you’re acknowledging a deletion from a quote (which, by the way, should never be done if it changes the meaning or sense of the quote). Don’t use them for “dramatic pauses,” like [Thus the Genome itself remains the same…the enzyme…].

Stanton,, Your nylon bacteria bit the dust??? Shame!!!!

My reference for epistasis is page 52 and 53 of the book “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J.C. Sanford, (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! He holds over 25 patents for inventions relating to genetics! If you ate today you have probably eaten some food touched by his work in genetics!!!!)

He just may know a thing or two about genetics!

So are you trying to say that evolution has absolutely no problem with the fact that the genome is now proven to be a “complex interwoven network”????

Are you obfuscating the fact that Haldane’s, Fisher’s, and Wright’s work in population genetics is now utterly meaningless?

If you can contort your way out of this, It just goes to show that evolution can explain anything! And can be falsified by absolutely nothing! Sir, A theory that can explain anything and be falsified by nothing, is not a theory of science but an article of faith that belongs with the easter bunny and the flying spaghetti monster!

Now if we could just get you to learn some actual biology, instead of just parroting sciency-sounding stuff that you don’t really understand. But it backs up your prejudices, so you use it to try to impress someone. No one here is impressed.

Perhaps it’s yourself you’re impressing.

I give up. He’s back to !!!! and ????.

He can’t learn simple punctuation rules, and he sure as hell doesn’t know diddly about biology. How about if everyone just ignores him?

Maybe, for innocent lurkers, someone could write up a boiler-plate statement to post after every one of his blathers. Something like “We ignore this guy because he just copies and pastes crap that he doesn’t understand, he doesn’t respond to questions, and he refuses to learn.”

bondagain:

Are you obfuscating the fact that Haldane’s, Fisher’s, and Wright’s work in population genetics is now utterly meaningless?

Even if this were true, isn’t it kind of like disparaging the ether theory?

They were early investigators, doing real science, with the real information, and the real tools available at the time.

They weren’t engaged in wishful thinking based on their bronze-age superstition.

BJB Wrote:

I follow the evidence period.….….

BJB uses evidence as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.

BJB.

Do you mind if I just call you ‘BJ’?

Are you home-schooled? Are you taking medication?

Oh, and please stop cutting and pasting.

I wish derailments of PT threads could be as easily moderated as they are on Infidels. I’m interested in the topic of the OP, but it has unfortunately disappeared, sunk in a welter of bullshit from a pure troll.

RBH

Bond, that bullcrap you copy and pasted from Answers In Genesis does not explain why, if there was a precursor to all the genes ever found in bacteria, including nylonase, the nylonase gene enzymes in all three strains, as well as the nylonase genes that have appeared in newer strains ever since, are all different. Furthermore, if you actually had an elementary school level grasp of evolutionary biology, you would realize that beneficial genes are only beneficial when their host is in an environment conductive to those new genes’ end products. This is in fact the reason why sickle cell anemia persists in Subsaharan Africa, why thalassemia persists in the Mediterranean, and why the ice fish were able to colonize the coastal waters of Antarctica when it froze over during the Miocene. It is also the reason why microbiologists and pharmacologists recommend ceasing the use of a popular antibiotic when a new resistant strain of pathogen appears, in the hopes that, without the popular antibiotic to kill off competing, susceptible strains, the resistant train will hopefully be out-competed by other strains that are not metabolically burdened with metabolically expensive anti-antibiotic countermeasures. But, given as how you used Answers In Genesis, a site that insists that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell as we type because he made the unforgivable sin of not believing in God in the exact same way as Ken Ham, I’m not at all surprised that no one here at this blog was swayed by your reply.

Furthermore, the only reason why I did not immediately respond to your moronic post was because, at the time, I was in class. Unlike you, I happen to be trying to enrich my education. Let me tell you something: no one here dislikes and or hates you because of your relationship with God. Most of us don’t care, in fact. The reason why we all dislike and or hate you is because you are a moronic imbecile so appallingly arrogant, that you actually masturbate to your own stupidity, and then you have the unmitigated gall to claim that it’s divine inspiration. What would Jesus say to someone who spouts lies like “Hitler was inspired by Darwinism,” or “Evolution is false because beneficial mutations hinder their hosts when in unfavorable environment,” and thinks he defeats his opponents with incoherent nonsense? Let me answer my own question: Our Lord, Jesus, would knock your table down, and castigate you so furiously that the first, second and third layers of skin on your nose would peel off, just like he knocked down the tables of the moneychangers and castigated the Pharisees for deciding who among the Jews could enter Heaven or not. Please show us who among the regular posters at the Panda’s Thumb, or Pharyngula that you have convinced to give up Evolutionary Biology? I mean, honestly, you type like a 30 year-old high school dropout who was barred from ever setting foot in a 4th rate community college campus because you have the grammatical skill of a C- caliber 2nd grader. And yet, you have the gall to honestly think you’re eloquent.

Of all the entertaining nonsense Bonds “definition” that just because a bacteria has evolved a new function in response to a new environment (nylon) is not evolution because the environment didn’t exist on Earth before. Well technically by that reasoning Bond since all environments on present day Earth are unique from a quantum mechanical perspective you’ve really managed to twist yourself into a most laughable pose.

My reference for epistasis is page 52 and 53 of the book “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J.C. Sanford, (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! He holds over 25 patents for inventions relating to genetics! If you ate today you have probably eaten some food touched by his work in genetics!!!!)

Nice appeal to authority. Another endearing Christian abuse of science

So are you trying to say that evolution has absolutely no problem with the fact that the genome is now proven to be a “complex interwoven network”????

Are you obfuscating the fact that Haldane’s, Fisher’s, and Wright’s work in population genetics is now utterly meaningless?

Fine, Haldane’s dilemma is no more. Will you break the news to your creationist friends? In the mean time, you do realize that these population dynamics were but a zero’th order approximation to reality? Are you sure you are not familiar with the progress made by science in these areas, allowing one to take into consideration these new findings?

Sigh… The ignorance is abundant once again

If you can contort your way out of this, It just goes to show that evolution can explain anything! And can be falsified by absolutely nothing! Sir, A theory that can explain anything and be falsified by nothing, is not a theory of science but an article of faith that belongs with the easter bunny and the flying spaghetti monster!

Don’t forget ID :-) Of course, evolution is not a theory that can explain anything and like with for instance oceanography, when fine scale details emerged showing turbulence being a major factor, oceanography was not disproven, rather new mechanisms were added to explain previously unknown data and help understand the details of air-sea interactions.

You have a very simplistic view of science it seems.

You have a very simplistic view of science it seems.

What view? The prize in a box of Crackerjacks has more science in it that James Bond has ever had in that empty head of his.

Feel free to send all to the unpublished bin until we have the bathroom wall back in place.

BJ,

Well I see you ignored all of my questions once again. So I guess I can safely ignore you from now on. Just one last thing before I get back to ignoring you, do you really think that Fisher was the last population geneticist to work in the field?

Bond, James Bond,

How come that you directly refer to “Almighty God” when you can also say “Almighty Zeus” or “Almighty Allah” or “Almighty Dog”?

PvM:

Yes, of course I am!! and I find comfort in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which shows time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light…which coincidentally conforms to the ancient Theistic assertion that Almighty God exist in a timeless eternity!!!,

Still ignorant about science I notice?

Bond, James Bond,

How come that you directly refer to “Almighty God” when you can also say “Almighty Zeus” or “Almighty Allah” or “Almighty Dog”?

PvM:

Yes, of course I am!! and I find comfort in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which shows time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light…which coincidentally conforms to the ancient Theistic assertion that Almighty God exist in a timeless eternity!!!,

Still ignorant about science I notice?

Yes but back to information.

I hereby pronounce that:

Endogenous Self Deception = -log2(ps),

Exogenous Self Deception = -log2(p),

Active Self Deception = -log2(ps/p).

With units in “bits of moral failure”.

Standardization of terms? To hell with that, I want to take somone elses equations and make up completely new names for them. Out of thin air? I don’t really have to answer to anyone so sure why not?

And nevermind that it somehow validates my position and nevermind that it looks self aggrandizing and above all, nevermind that alot of people will be mislead.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mark Perakh published on October 7, 2007 2:31 PM.

Häggström: Uniform distribution is a model assumption was the previous entry in this blog.

“Intelligent Delivery” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter