Nova ‘Judgment Day’ show online

| 128 Comments

Kudos to PBS, it looks like they’ve put up the transcript and the video of “Judgment Day” a day early. Since there are various reports of PBS stations skipping or editing the show to avoid offending their viewers (or something – I guess reality offends some people, but you would think they wouldn’t watch Nova at all in that case), this is all for the good.

128 Comments

From discussion last night:

By george I think I am starting to understand.

So Darwinist evolutionists believe:

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

I guess that raises another question or two, but I am not sure they are within the scope of evolution theory.

If evolution theory holds that intelligent beings can induce artificial evolutionary processes to develop life forms, does evolutionary theory also believe that there has only been one life chain ever created and that is the one line for the last 4.5 billion years on Earth.

By that I mean does the theory exclude the possible existence of any other intelligent life? Anywhere at any time.

Bach: Do you agree that Buckingham and Bonsell lied in their testimony in the Dover trial? Or were they telling the truth?

Do you agree that the CEO of the (so-called) “Foundation for Truth and Ethics” lied about the Christian focus of his foundation in his testimony in the Dover trial? Or was he telling the truth?

And do you agree that your two comments above have nothing at all to do with the subject “Nova ‘Judgment Day’ show online”?

Sorry, that should be .…So do Darwinists actual look for INTELLIGENT artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

Note that Bach is now spamming multiple threads with the same stuff.

His comment #135220 posted above at 5:22 PM is the same as his comment #135219 posted at 5:21 PM on the Morning After Judgement Day thread.

His motives are quite clear.

Paul, Not only do I believe they lied their asses of, I believed they should be put on the rack and tortured until the admit their sins against the Church of Darwein.

I believe the F for T&E is a terrorist organization and must be routed out. We need a real Crusade of darwinists to go after this lying scum!

And I believe my comments directly relate to the on-going discusson or I should be whipped on the Alter of the Darwein Church and sent to the desert for 40 days and nights.

Bach,

Those are intelligent questions. Let me attempt an explaination:

“If evolution theory holds that intelligent beings can induce artificial evolutionary processes to develop life forms, does evolutionary theory also believe that there has only been one life chain ever created and that is the one line for the last 4.5 billion years on Earth.”

A few different points. One is this: evolutionary theory does not rely or rest on there only being one connected hereditary line on earth or within the universe.

BUT, that’s all we’ve ever discovered. If on Mars we find a microorganism which uses a different genetic code (like a non DNA or non RNA code, or DNA that codes for proteins differently than all life found (so far) on earth, that does not disprove that evolution indeed happened on earth. Evolutionary theory does not rely on UNIVERSAL common descent. We HAVE DISCOVERED global common descent because of the genetic, fossil, morphologicical, embriological, biogeographical (and many different other independent corroborating lines of) evidence.

I fully expect that elsewhere in the universe there are different chains of heredity. We just haven’t found them yet.

The fact that every lifeform we’ve ever found on Earth is related doesn’t mean that other lines don’t exist somewhere.

Science also doesn’t assert that there was only one line of life ever formed. We don’t know how many “lines” of life (and by life here, I mean specificically heredity, to include pre-cellular protolife) have existed on earth. Perhaps there were many, but one form “ate” all the rest. There may have been millions and millions of seperate lines of heredity at some point in earth’s history. But we’re down to one at this point, as far as we know.

But tomorrow someone might find some type of thermophilic xenomorph microorganism from deep inside the Earth’s core, and then we’d indeed have a question: Is this organism related to us or not?

read the following on another thread wher bach asked same question:

If Bach is laying out the future arguments of ID (or whatever it will be called), the ID crowd should be worried.

Bach arguments seem to be an example of evolution not proceeding toward some goal of perfection but in fact regressing considerably. One of the problems of inbreeding

***********************************************

right on, so bach is a product of inbreeding, that explains it, who else would pose such a stupid question

Damn. Reading the other posts I find I’m feeding a troll here.

Nevermind folks. Hopefully my post will be helpful to a lurker.

And I believe my comments directly relate to the on-going discusson or I should be whipped on the Alter of the Darwein Church and sent to the desert for 40 days and nights.

Would the Bathroom Wall do?

No Mike, I wasn’t ‘spamming’. I simply didn’t know if the people actually go back and re-read old threads, so I thought since I said I would read everyones comments, I simply was trying to make sure I caught all those involved in that discussion. Its not spamming.

I thought my question was fairly well thought out for a novice, I spent alot of time thinking about it.

Bach:

No Mike, I wasn’t ‘spamming’. I simply didn’t know if the people actually go back and re-read old threads, so I thought since I said I would read everyones comments, I simply was trying to make sure I caught all those involved in that discussion. Its not spamming.

I thought my question was fairly well thought out for a novice, I spent alot of time thinking about it.

You were the first poster on this thread. Who were you answering? It didn’t address the topic of this thread.

Are you mentally ill?

Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

Mike Elzinga asked (of “Bach”): “Are you mentally ill?’

He’s obviously a very religious person, so, obviously, yes. (G, D&R)

I’m not a biologist, but even a ninth grade science student from Dover could pick apart your moronic statements.

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

It’s just selection, it really doesn’t matter whether it was selected because it ran faster than it’s predator or it’s prey, or could exploit food that others of it’s species could not, or if somebody chose it to breed with another because it’s fur was prettier. To say that breeding programs are a belief system rates pretty high up on the idiot scale.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

Other than IDiots, I’ve never seen anybody state that any life form was designed. That includes special breeds. Even they were selected from what nature produced. To state that science believes that life forms were designed is a pathetic strawman and a fallacious argument. Apparently the only kind you seem to be able to muster.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

Show some evidence of man (or any other being) existing in the fossil record for the last 3.5 to 4 billion years and you can make an argument here. Of course you’ll also have to explain all the other evidence (genetics, homologies with apes etc.).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

Since #2 is a fallacy and there is no evidence for #3, this statement is utter nonsense. As are all of your posts.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

Besides any evidence of any being or species capable of selecting the breeding pairs of every creature that ever lived, you are missing the ability to think outside of your delusions.

By that I mean does the theory exclude the possible existence of any other intelligent life? Anywhere at any time.

Unlike your narrow minded interpretation of the Bible, science does not exclude the possiblity of anything. Science requires evidence. This evidence is used to form testable hypothses, which may or may not be falsified as further evidence comes to light, or additional tests have been performed. Evolution has has been challenged by geology, plate tectonics, genetics and other branches of science. Instead of breaking the theory, they have only reinforced it. And despite ID’s moronic insinuations that the Evolutionist mafia is out to get anybody who disagrees with them, if there was any evidence of any other intelligent life, it would be included in science’s explanations of Earths history. The fact that I even need to repeat the above for you is testimony to the level of your intellect.

Other than IDiots, I’ve never seen anybody state that any life form was designed.

As has been pointed out, natural selection qualifies as a design process according to Dembski’s definition of design, which simply refers to a decision process. And without question, natural selection is a decision process - it decides (in statistical terms, to be sure) who lives and who dies.

When this was pointed out on the Uncommon Design forum, it was promptly deleted, a strong indication that it couldn’t be countered. But it seems to me entirely valid to regard natural selection as a design process, and the “purposeful arrangement of parts” as the outcome of that design. The purpose being to survive better.

Mr_Christopher Wrote:

Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

:-)

Behe finally overcome with cognitive dissonance and trolling at PT. That’s an interesting picture. How about Dembski?

The current trolls have emotional ages in about the 12 to 14 year old range and are playing a Jim Carey role somewhat like “The Mask”. They don’t appear to represent anything but pure mischief. And they aren’t very bright.

But it occurs to me that this could be the ID/Creationist’s idea of cyber-terrorism. There is definitely religion behind it.

I am of the definite opinion that there are numerous intelligent species on the face of the earth right now: many species of mammals and birds.

thanks for posting this. I live in a small college town and have no television stations that I can get without cable so, I was glad to see that it was online.

On a completely different note, although still having to do with the ID and religion aspect, did anyone else notice the UD post saying that Michael Medved has been named a DI fellow? I guess they’re not too concerned about religious overtones anymore.

Before we decide he is Dembski, I think we need some real evidence. Maybe we should ask him if he loves fart jokes.

What’s the skinny on this dropping parts out business? My local station didn’t air it (orange county)and isn’t listing it anytime in the next week, but I get PBS out of LA too so I still got to watch it. I’m curious to know how widely spread this little evasion of facts goes (or if theres some other reason behind it)

Well, the most important point that has been missed by the NOVA production crew is that the entire trial was about me.

MeMeMe!!!!111!!!!!1.

Why don’t you people realize this odious fact?

Err, oblivious fact? OR, MEMEMEMEEMEMME.

The mirror does not lie.

Intelligent design creationism can not look in the mirror. It is nothing but old-school creationism hidden behind Dembski’s mathocomplexobabble, and Behe’s irrochemoguck.

The following is sometimes to be interpreted to be a description of artificial selection in the Bible.

New International Version Ge 30:41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

I noticed that NOVA’s ID site has footage from the Scope’s Trial. Talk about interesting.…

Mr_Christopher: Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

If so, we’ve been STUNG! Pun intended!

Dale Husband:

Mr_Christopher: Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

If so, we’ve been STUNG! Pun intended!

Mr Behe may be a twit, but, you can’t act as stupid as Bach, you need to suffer a contusion from falling down a flight of stairs and land face first into a bucket of nails in order to pretend to be that stupid.

Karen S:

I noticed that NOVA’s ID site has footage from the Scope’s Trial. Talk about interesting.…

Um, I’m pretty sure that would be the movie “Inherit the Wind,” which, though based on the Scopes trial, is not explicitly meant to be a documentary of such.

You are wasting attention on “Heart of Gold.” They are just jerking you (around, or off, as you like).

Is the mutual masturbatory orgasm the main attraction? Personally, I find it booring.

Toying with trolls can be useful. I am on the edge of a personal insight, “I don’t care if you assholes know anything or not.”

That feels like such a liberating thing to write. I don’t care if your ignorant creationist bullshit can be reconciled with the Bible. It can’t. I have spent years studying the Bible, studying biblical languages, and many more years studying science. I have tried to find a way to bring the Bible as conceptualized by fundamentalists into the reality shared by the majority of humans. I have finally realized that it is not MY PROBLEM ANY MORE.

The Creation is what it is, and creationist ignorant whiny bullshit can not change that reality at all. Your ignorant corruption of history, science and the Bible will ultimately be a historical footnote. Two “world” powers, Roma and Peking, failed because of material limits on communication, and resource distribution. America will be the first to fail due to raw stupidity, and creationists will lead the march off the cliff.

Masturbatory attraction?

Toying with trolls can be useful, but only when they are cleverer than you are. If they are more clever, the cretobot can force you to dig for newer, better scientific evidences, arguments or at least a TalkOrigin link. That is saddly lacking these days at PT.

Random Lurker said: What’s the skinny on this dropping parts out business? My local station didn’t air it (orange county)and isn’t listing it anytime in the next week, but I get PBS out of LA too so I still got to watch it. I’m curious to know how widely spread this little evasion of facts goes (or if theres some other reason behind it)

I live in Orange County (California) and KCET had it at 8:00pm on Tuesday night. KOCE is going to play it also (Friday I think but not sure).

But the conclusion about genetic algorithms is not correct. I’m not even sure it is entirely correct to refer to genes as “containing algorithms”. I know it has been used metaphorically, but I think it is misleading.

I was not refering to organic “genes” with this comment, but I can see how it was easy to misunderstand. I was referring to man made computer based programs used to generate an efficient design. There is a well known example of satellite antennas somewhere on the web.

The rest of your post put into words pretty much the way I feel about the “is evolution a form of design” question. I do not see evolution as improbable, nor do I think of it as design. I think of it as spontaneous as the rings of Saturn, and even more beautiful.

Mike Elzinga:

The vast diversity of life on this planet should be enough evidence that complicated systems have many billions of possible directions they can develop. The fact that so many directions did develop indicates that there are many relatively stable configurations that can exist within the ranges of environments that have occurred on this planet.

Physics is a field that can enjoy the privilege of having simple enough systems available for the study of the basic principles, which makes it easier to derive powerful theories. In biology, all the systems are very complicated indeed.

As you pointed out, there are patterns throughout the range of complexity from single particles to biological organisms, without any demarcation line between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’. Quantum chemistry is slowly bridging the gap between two-particle and protein reactions, although it may not yet be very effective in the study of evolutionary processes.

So I guess I don’t see evolution as improbable at all. It may very well be inevitable within certain energy ranges.

Complicated interacting systems are known to have many possible states, some of which are found to be stable enough to last for a period of time. Indeed, it seems very difficult to avoid evolution.

Evolution may be chaotic in the sense that minute variations in the environment may produce large effects in the long run. Chaotic systems do not have a target or aim to produce a certain pattern in the end, but any of the many possible patterns, and even the possible patterns are changing all the time. It is not possible to make any long-term predictions, although short-term predictions are possible, with some uncertainty, of course.

Regards

Eric

MememicBottleneck Wrote:

I was not refering to organic “genes” with this comment,…

My apologies. I see now what you meant.

Some of my confusion probably came from noting in other contexts that computer simulations are often taken by some to mean that the “algorithms in living systems” are being simulated by a computer.

You didn’t imply that. I should have read your comment more carefully.

Eric Finn Wrote:

Physics is a field that can enjoy the privilege of having simple enough systems available for the study of the basic principles, which makes it easier to derive powerful theories. In biology, all the systems are very complicated indeed.

Yeah, we physicists have it easy.

And evolution being chaotic is a nice way to put it.

Physics is a field that can enjoy the privilege of having simple enough systems available for the study of the basic principles,

Yeah, just look at the number of basic “kinds” in each field. Physics: 4 particles that aren’t “color” variations or excited states or antiparticles of one of those 4, plus some forces and their carrier particles. Chemistry: 117+ elements (#1-#116 and #118), each with one or more isotopes. Biology: millions of species living today, maybe hundreds times that in the past, with lots more variety and detail within each kind than you get in physics or chemistry. (Though granted, physics has those multidimensional fields with complex dimensions (wonder if those are irreducible?) and organic chemistry has an open ended number of compounds.)

Henry

It was an absolutely phenomenal program. I was transfixed. It should be required viewing for every citizen of the United States of Dumb.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

There are objections by some (such as myself) to the notion of a supernatural being, but the objection from scientists generally is to the ID claims that a) life forms are too complex to have evolved and b) therefore there must be such a creator of life forms.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

Perhaps, but it’s hard to know what you thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural?

Sometimes they say no, but that’s certainly what that they think. In any case, if the being isn’t supernatural, then where did it come from?

If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

Not only doesn’t Darwinist theory require an intelligent designer, as ID does, but there’s no evidence of intentional design, and in fact all the evidence leads away from intentional design.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

It’s possible to be misled by “artifactual pollution”, and scientists should perhaps watch out for it more than they do, but spending a lot of time looking for artificial selection by superintelligent superpowerful beings in the absence of prior evidence for such is a waste of energy.

Hey I think this post is quite interesting if some points about the main idea are expounded and clarify a bit. I read someone’s comment a little bit harsh for the writer.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on November 15, 2007 5:03 PM.

Nigersaurus, a Cretaceous hedge-trimmer was the previous entry in this blog.

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 6) 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 4.381

Site Meter