Jonathan Wells: Another ID Creationist Who Doesn’t Understand Information Theory

| 172 Comments

Intelligent design creationists love to talk about information theory, but unfortunately they rarely understand it. Jonathan Wells is the latest ID creationist to demonstrate this.

In a recent post at “Evolution News & Views” describing an event at the University of Oklahoma, Wells said, “I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content.”

Wells is wrong. I frequently give this as an exercise in my classes at the University of Waterloo: Prove that if x is a string of symbols, then the Kolmogorov information in xx is greater than that in x for infinitely many strings x. Most of my students can do this one, but it looks like information expert Jonathan Wells can’t.

Like many incompetent people, Wells is blissfully unaware of his incompetence. He closes by saying, “Despite all their taxpayer-funded professors and museum exhibits, despite all their threats to dismantle us and expose us as retards, the Darwinists lost.”

We don’t have to “expose” the intelligent design creationists as buffoons; they do it themselves whenever they open their mouths.

172 Comments

I love the way these IDiots keep claiming that evolution is dead already and it’s just that the body hasn’t stopped moving yet. It’s as if they think they’re God and can simply speak it into being so.

Like many incompetent people, Wells is blissfully unaware of his incompetence.

It’s a very strange game of the crank: believing that he can hoodwink everyone else by putting a bag over his own head.

There is a legitimate sense of “information” which is not increased by duplication. If I own, and have read, 2 copies of a book, I am not thereby better informed than if I had only owned and read one. The crucial point is that after a gene has been duplicated, and one of the duplicates has mutated and been selected for a new function, the genome then undoubtedly contains more information than before.

David Evans:

The commonsense definition of “information” which you are appealing to is not the definition used by mathematicians, computer scientists, and mathematical biologists. Although it may at first seem counterintuitive, two copies of a string really can have more information than one in the Kolmogorov sense.

But even in the informal sense, I can argue that multiple copies of a text may contain more information than simply one. For example, I can encode a message with the number of the copies - I could say: “Go to my office, and count the number of copies of the Origin of Species on my shelf. That is how much I will pay you for your doughnut.”

David Evans said: There is a legitimate sense of “information” which is not increased by duplication.

I suspect that Shallit will tell you that you are mistaking “knowledge” for “information”.

Take two bitmap images with a resolution of 300x300 pixels. In uncompressed (.BMP) format they are the same size in bytes. Suppose one has an image of a geometric solid and the other one is just a grid of pixels set at random – pure visual noise. Which has more information?

The noisy image does. If converted to a compressed (say .PNG) image format, it doesn’t compress as much as the picture of the nice neat geometric solid. There is more information in the noisy image file.

If you have two different images of exactly the same object that are the same size in pixels, do they have the same information in them? Almost certainly not, because one will compress better than the other.

Shallit’s approach to this idea will be much more formal and precise, but the same principle applies: as information theory has it, information is more or less a “quantity” measurement, effectively the number of bits in an arbitary “message” after compression. What the message contains is otherwise irrelevant.

Now there are a jillion ad-hoc measurements of “information” that can be produced – the number of pages in a book for example, as listed on Amazon, or the number of polygons in a solid model.

However, there’s no clear definition of “information” that supports the bogus “law of conservation of information” that the evobashers are fond of tossing around … in hopes of confusing people.

If you make a copy of a message, then two people can read it at the same time. If they can then act of it faster, they might be able to make a difference in their situation.

In the same way, two copies of a gene might make twice as much RNA, which might make a difference to the organism. Quantity of information is irrelevant; it’s what you do with it that counts.

John Wendt said:

If you make a copy of a message, then two people can read it at the same time. If they can then act of it faster, they might be able to make a difference in their situation.

In the same way, two copies of a gene might make twice as much RNA, which might make a difference to the organism. Quantity of information is irrelevant; it’s what you do with it that counts.

Let me pound on that theme a bit more. Many genes (regulatory stuff aside) code for proteins via the transcription-translation sequence. A duplication of one such gene results in more of the protein being produced. Wells must think that’s biologically irrelevant. But some cell processes are dose dependent with respect to proteins, so a straight gene duplication can add ‘biological information’ even in the sloppy and informal sense in which IDiots use the phrase.

I know diddly-zip about information theory. Where can I learn the basics? Is there an on-line Information Theory for the Stupid Dummies type site?

RBH said:

A duplication of one such gene results in more of the protein being produced … But some cell processes are dose dependent with respect to proteins, so a straight gene duplication can add ‘biological information’ …

That rang a bell, which on checking my notes led me to a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article from last year where I took the comment:

* A sidebar to the article explained how gene copy number variations, with some people having fewer or more copies of the same gene than others, are being seen as an increasingly important genetic phenomenon. Studies suggest that about 12% of the human genome consists of copy number variable regions, and that human cultures where the people have a starchy diet have additional numbers of copies of the gene for amylase, a starch-digesting enzyme found in saliva. It is increasingly apparent gene duplications may well be much more common than previously thought, and that rapid proliferation of gene copies may be driven by evolutionary selection pressures.

Incidentally, if you have two identical books, do you have twice as much information? No – but you have to specify that the books are duplicated, and that specification by itself represents an increase in information over one copy of the book.

bigjohn756 said:

I know diddly-zip about information theory. Where can I learn the basics? Is there an on-line Information Theory for the Stupid Dummies type site?

Errr … I almost hate to do this, because it’s “Information Theory For Dummies” written by an admitted Information Theory Dummy, but it was what I could scrape up – in seven installments:

(1) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m03.html#m18

(2) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m03.html#m13

(3) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m03.html#m8

(4) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m03.html#m3

(5) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m04.html#m20

(6) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m04.html#m15

(7) – http://www.vectorsite.net/g2009m04.html#m10

Sorry for the seven links, I’m working on internally hyperlinking my notes, but it’s taking time. Important disclaimers at the end of the last installment.

Creationists like Wells are also fond of insisting that gene mutations are frequent events and almost all such mutations are deleterious, leading to non-functional or dysfunctional proteins. Having two copies of any gene would thus greatly improve the chances of having some of the good protein. X-linked SCID (severe combined immune deficiency) is also called bubble-boy syndrome because it almost never occurs in females. It is caused by a mutation in an immune master gene located on the X chromosome. Thus, males have only on such gene and its disruption is inevitably fatal. Females have two copies of the gene and the disruption of one copy is insignificant. Now, we need Wells to come up with his definition of INFORMATION that would show these two different outcomes to be irrelevant.

As long as we have Jeffrey on the hook here, could I raise some points to see if we can find a way to clarify these concepts and confusions for the layperson? I am neither a computer scientist nor an information theorist.

A random string of characters, generated by a uniform random number generator, contains lots of “information”, in the Kolmogorov sense, because, in order to replicate that string, one must supply a tremendous amount of information (essentially the string itself). On the other hand, a string of the same character requires little information to replicate it. A string generated by a Gaussian random number generator would have some intermediate level of information – less than for a uniform random number generator but more than for the string of same character.

So, as computer scientists and information theorists understand it, the less information in a file, the more easily it can be compressed into a smaller file and re-extracted or replicated again later.

If I may belabor an example for which I attempted to get some feedback on a different thread, take that example of two gravitationally interacting bodies coming into each other’s vicinity (not a head on collision). I think this relates to biological systems as well, because ultimately there are potential wells involved in the molecular chains and complex folding membranes making up the system.

So, two bodies (planet and moon, sun and planet) swing around each other and go off onto either parabolic or hyperbolic trajectories. But how do they come to orbit each other? Energy has to be extracted from the system.

How? One possible way is by a myriad of collisions with a myriad of other bodies in the vicinity. Some of these collisions pass momentum and energy onto other bodies that carry it away from the system as they are ejected off to infinity. Other collisions turn kinetic energy into heat which gets carried away by photons or is contained in the kinetic energies of the particles making up the two bodies. Other mechanisms include tidal friction converting kinetic energy into heat, or gravitational waves carrying energy away from extremely massive neutron stars or black holes.

So we finally close the trajectories into either elliptical or circular orbits; the latter being the one with the least potential energy consistent with the angular momentum of the system.

Leave aside the question about the entropy of such a system for a moment and concentrate on the concepts of “order” and “information”; especially “information” as Jeffrey understands it.

Which of the final states, elliptical orbits or circular orbits, is more “orderly”? Which contains “more information”?

To try to clarify the question a little more, which of the orbits requires less “information” to describe? But on the other hand, which orbit tells us more (gives us more information?) about the history and formation of the system? How does order relate to information?

If I am not mistaken, much of the confusion about “information” in describing systems, from planetary systems to biological systems, hinges on just what one wants to highlight. The junk tossed out by the cdesign proponentsists simply adds to the confusion and makes the job of legitimate scientist more difficult.

In addition, the terms are used differently in different disciplines. Maybe we in the various disciplines should form a united front and see if we can clear up the problem for the general public.

Is this a good forum to attempt clarification?

Whatever Wells is, Jeffrey, he is like you—an evolutionist. He accepts species mutability, evolution. Calling a fellow evolutionist a buffoon doesn’t look good.

“Hump? What hump?”

Ray said

Ray Martinez said:

Whatever Wells is, Jeffrey, he is like you—an evolutionist. He accepts species mutability, evolution. Calling a fellow evolutionist a buffoon doesn’t look good.

Oh, dear, we have a troll.

Ray - I don’t care if a person is an “evolutionist” or not. If they say stupid things, while arrogantly insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong, they’re a buffoon. And yes, I am a buffoon from time to time, as my wife will testify!

I suppose that duplicating a gene (prior to mutation to one of the copies) wouldn’t produce a different protein, though it might produce a larger quantity of the same protein. And that could have side effects, depending on what the protein does.

Henry

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Oh, dear, we have a troll.

Responses in this particular case are about as useful as a conversation with a concrete block.

Mike Elzinga said: Which of the final states, elliptical orbits or circular orbits, is more “orderly”? Which contains “more information”?

Putting theory into practice - in this case, taking a theoretical construct such as Kolmogorov complexity, and applying it to physics - is not always trivial. Here there are two problems: (1) Kolmogorov complexity is, in general, uncomputable, and usually only stated up to an O(1) additive term, so often it is hard to compare two specific strings (as opposed to sequences of strings described in a parametric way) (2) physical quantities need to be expressed in units, and it’s not clear that units are actually computable. For example, what is the Kolmogorov complexity of the fine-structure constant? Paul Vitanyi thinks it is O(1), but I suspect it is not.

But - all other things being equal, and choosing a point with generic coordinates - an ellipse will be more complex than a circle because an ellipse requires three numbers to encode it and a circle only two.

@wile coyote I knew that. Everyone knows that.

Seriously, that is an excellent and cogent explanation. I appreciate your pointing me to it. I have learned a lot tonight. Thanks.

I was apprehensive about putting it here. Shallit seems to be pretty nice guy but I know for a fact he is precise.

I frequently run into creationists who seize upon words like “information” and “code” to leap to the conclusion that there must be an intelligence who supplied the information and wrote the code. This is a most unfortunate terminology problem. In Wells’ case, however, I suspect that the confusion is deliberate.

Jonathan Wells isn’t necessarily ignorant, nor is he incompetent and blissfully unaware. Rev. Moon payed for Wells to get a doctorate in biology (he already had 2 doc. in religion) specifically so he could argue against evolution. He combs through evolutionary information specifically to find things he can twist into creationist propaganda. Wells is no where near as benign as you make him sound. He’s a premeditated liar whose goal is to disrupt understanding of evolution.

Jeffrey Shallit said:

But - all other things being equal, and choosing a point with generic coordinates - an ellipse will be more complex than a circle because an ellipse requires three numbers to encode it and a circle only two.

Indeed, from the point of view as a physicist, I would give the same answer. You need, in this case, numbers to describe angular momentum, energy, and those numbers required to describe the center of mass and orientation of the angular momentum vector (which, in vector form, also gives its magnitude). The ellipse is “more complex”, requiring more numbers to describe it.

So if you simply make a string or an array of numbers (units don’t really matter here; that’s encoded in the positions of the numbers in the array and the agreed conventions for the array), the ellipse requires more numbers.

And I am glad you raised the issue of complexity, because this gets into what we in the physics community refer to as the “number of degrees of freedom” in a system. Whether one uses this idea to describe the state of the system itself (most often the case), or how the system got into that state , the larger the number, the more complex the system or phenomenon.

The more interesting case is the latter, which is not often discussed in more elementary treatments of physical systems; how the system got into the state it is in.

With the possible exception of highly improbable one-off events that flip a circular orbit to an ellipse or vice-versa, the circular orbit reflects many more complex interactions in its evolutionary history than does an elliptical orbit. But this “information” depends on what we already know about systems that interact gravitationally and electromagnetically (there are van der Waals forces involved in the ripping apart of molecular bonds during contact collisions among solid or liquid bodies in this case).

Similar kinds of analyses apply when the forces of interaction involve the nuclear forces.

At issue here, however, are biological systems. Electromagnetic forces in the form of chemical bonds and van der Waals forces are primary. Gravitation comes into the picture when the living systems have to support themselves and/or move around.

As a physicist, I am not completely familiar with what the biologists who model biological systems use as “complexity” or as “information”. I don’t get a consistent picture as I read. Complexity seems to correlate with degrees of freedom, but “information” is often confusing.

If Joe Felsenstein is looking in, perhaps he could offer some clarification.

Wouldn’t a simple demonstration be to take a word, and keep appending duplicated mutations of it?

eg. for the word ‘wells’, this would result in something like:

1: wells 2: wellswenls 3: wellswenlswxnls 4: wellswenlswxnlsaxnls 5: wellswenlswxnlsaxnlsaxnly

So if I understand the ID claim correctly, their claim is that string 1 has exactly the same amount of information as string 5?

Mike Elzinga said:

As a physicist, I am not completely familiar with what the biologists who model biological systems use as “complexity” or as “information”. I don’t get a consistent picture as I read. Complexity seems to correlate with degrees of freedom, but “information” is often confusing.

If Joe Felsenstein is looking in, perhaps he could offer some clarification.

Well, I would state clearly what biologists mean by complexity and what they mean by information – if there were widely-agreed-on definitions of these. There really aren’t.

In arguing with ID types (or with standard creationists) who state that evolution cannot build information into genomes, I think the best approach would be to recognize that what is being talked about is really high fitness. It might be best to leave the term “information” to people here who like to argue about it. The real issue is: does someone (William Dembski is the someone) have a logical argument that natural selection cannot make a species better adapted? He claimed to – his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information. If his Law were true (it isn’t) and if it showed that a state of being better adapted could not be achieved (it changes the definition of specification in midstream, so even if his Law were true, it wouldn’t do that either), then he would have achieved an amazing feat. He would have invalidated 100 years of theory about natural selection, and he would stand as the major thinker about evolution in our time.

We can argue about that without even using the word “information”, and I suggest that would be a better way to proceed.

Duplicating a string does add a bit of information.

Joe Felsenstein said:

In arguing with ID types (or with standard creationists) who state that evolution cannot build information into genomes, I think the best approach would be to recognize that what is being talked about is really high fitness.

I have always felt intuitively that “fitness” is the better scientific term; and I can relate that to “fitness” in physics as “nestling into the nearest local minimum potential or ground state”.

Intuition tends to work better in areas where one has years of experience and depth of understanding. Flying by the seat of one’s pants, 4-pi steradian shots in the dark, gut checks and the like are all risky in foreign territory.

I suppose, as you seem to be suggesting, that the “information” line of argumentation is best avoided because it apparently shows up only in the context of arguments with ID/creationists (much like genetic entropy and entropy barriers). These are not part of the lexicon of real science.

That’s good, because I have never felt, intuitively, it was worth the effort to try to understand it in this context.

AnswersInGenitals, I would just like to say that your moniker is the funniest I have read in a while. If someone thinks about it, it is funny on so many levels; well done.

Decent post too.

This is the same Evolution News and Views post wherein Wells asked why, given the commonality of the HOX gene between them, a fly is not a horse.

I find it very hard to believe he can really be this biology-stupid and have successfully defended a PhD dissertation in molecular bio.

bigjohn756 said: I know diddly-zip about information theory. Where can I learn the basics? Is there an on-line Information Theory for the Stupid Dummies type site?

Try wading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmog[…]v_complexity

(Nothing against wile coyote…)

“We can precisely quantify how much each new copy adds, on average, though. If we make n copies, we add approximately log n bits. So each new copy adds approximately logn - log (n-1) bits, on average.”

Anyone know the argument behind this? Seems pretty trick to extrapolate to something useful if we can’t know duplication will always increase the k-complexity of a string. For instance, it is quite plausible that duplication will dramatically *decrease* the KC of a string, and it doesn’t seem possible to predict when this will happen.

Simple counting arguments can’t be used since duplication picks out a very small, particular subset of strings, which may not have properties similar to the average string of that length.

Jeffrey Shallit said:

Toidel Mahoney said: If you splice a gene you add information coming from your mind. All information must come from some mind. That is what ID states.

So, Toidel: when weather forecasters predict the weather, they use information that they collect from the environment: temperature, pressure, wind speed, etc. Which mind does that information come from?

Well, if weather happens by random chance, none, but id it is non-random information must be present so it must come from the mind of an intelligent designer.

oops!

“id it is non-random”

should be

“if it is non-random”

Toidel Mahoney said: Well, if weather happens by random chance, none, but id it is non-random information must be present so it must come from the mind of an intelligent designer.

And there you have it, folks. Mr. Mahoney thinks that the information that weather forecasters use to predict the weather comes from “the mind of an intelligent designer”.

Now, I just wonder which intelligent designer it is. Zeus? Thor? Baal? Jupiter?

Really, there’s simply no words for this kind of stupidity.

DS said:

Toidel wrote:

“All information must come from some mind.”

No, actually information is found everywhere in nature, whether there is a mind to create it or not. It doesn’t require a mind to produce information, it requires a mind to interpret information. Organisms can evolve by natural means without intelligent intervention, however it takes a mind to understand how that evolution actually occured. Whether anyone is intelligent enough to figure it out, it still occured.

How do you know this, from the Barnumesque third rate art projects such as Piltdown Man, Archaeaptor and Tikkalik? You have to do better than at! That junk couldn’t be used for special effects in a Godzilla movie!

As for creolanders, they apparently lack the intelligence to even figure out that evolution did occur, let alone determine how. Perhaps if they were less obsessed with the sexual behavior of others they would at least have more time to study the information in nature.

Well, why shouldn’t we discuss the practice of evolutionism right along with the theory of evolutionism?

Toidel Mahoney said:

… but id it is non-random information must be present so it must come from the mind of an intelligent designer.

Ah, the infamous Law Of Conservation Of Information! One of the fundamental laws of nature taught in EVERY physics book! Oh, we must be clueless to have forgotten it!

Toidel Mahoney said:

How do you know this, from the Barnumesque third rate art projects such as Piltdown Man, Archaeaptor and Tikkalik?

Believe it or not Piltdown Man was … A HOAX! And everybody knows that, it seems EXCEPT FOR YOU, despite the fact that it was known as a hoax for probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE!

Well, ignoring that embarrassing lapse … yes, we all know there are only two fossils ever found (or maybe only one since I can’t find what an “archaeapter” is), which means that the numerous natural history museums I’ve visited that are full of detailed fossils are frauds … as are the fascinating reports we get of new fossil finds EVERY MONTH these days …

Well, ignoring that embarrassing lapse … yes, we all know there are only two fossils ever found (or maybe only one since I can’t find what an “archaeapter” is), which means that the numerous natural history museums I’ve visited that are full of detailed fossils are frauds …

Or maybe none because I couldn’t find Toidal’s “Tikkalik” either…well, I did find Reinhardtius hippoglossoides or Greenland Halibut so maybe he’s saying this bizarre but existing living fish with its eye on the dorsal ridge (cyclops-like) is also a third-rate art project? If so, I can’t imagine you would endear yourself to any Creator by saying his/her/its fish looks like a third-rate art project even if you add that s/he/it made it taste good.

If Toidal can’t get the basics like names right then what are the odds that anything else s/he says will be right?

–Oh, Toidal’s post was an example of Poe’s Law, right?

Daniel J. Andrews said:

Or maybe none because I couldn’t find Toidal’s “Tikkalik” either …

Oh, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one since I know there are ‘peepel who cant spel gud.”

It seems that Davey posted and ran away, in a manner indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward. What a surprise.

Maya said:

It seems that Davey posted and ran away, in a manner indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward.

Eh, he just went someplace else to vandalize with his can of spraypaint.

wile coyote said:

Toidel Mahoney said:

… but id it is non-random information must be present so it must come from the mind of an intelligent designer.

Ah, the infamous Law Of Conservation Of Information! One of the fundamental laws of nature taught in EVERY physics book! Oh, we must be clueless to have forgotten it!

Anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the global epicenter for sodomy is the only reason Dembski has not won the Nobel Prize in physics. You are clueless to have forgotten his sublime discovery!

wile coyote said:

Toidel Mahoney said:

How do you know this, from the Barnumesque third rate art projects such as Piltdown Man, Archaeaptor and Tikkalik?

Believe it or not Piltdown Man was … A HOAX! And everybody knows that, it seems EXCEPT FOR YOU, despite the fact that it was known as a hoax for probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE!

Well, ignoring that embarrassing lapse … yes, we all know there are only two fossils ever found (or maybe only one since I can’t find what an “archaeapter” is), which means that the numerous natural history museums I’ve visited that are full of detailed fossils are frauds … as are the fascinating reports we get of new fossil finds EVERY MONTH these days …

Yes, Piltdown Man was actually exposed as a hoax. The other hoaxes have yet to be exposed. There is too much money to be made fleecing the gullible public at the circus freak shows that have re-christened themselves “natural history museums.”

In addition, this is Archaeoraptor.

Daniel J. Andrews said:

Well, ignoring that embarrassing lapse … yes, we all know there are only two fossils ever found (or maybe only one since I can’t find what an “archaeapter” is), which means that the numerous natural history museums I’ve visited that are full of detailed fossils are frauds …

Or maybe none because I couldn’t find Toidal’s “Tikkalik” either…well, I did find Reinhardtius hippoglossoides or Greenland Halibut so maybe he’s saying this bizarre but existing living fish with its eye on the dorsal ridge (cyclops-like) is also a third-rate art project? If so, I can’t imagine you would endear yourself to any Creator by saying his/her/its fish looks like a third-rate art project even if you add that s/he/it made it taste good.

If Toidal can’t get the basics like names right then what are the odds that anything else s/he says will be right?

–Oh, Toidal’s post was an example of Poe’s Law, right?

Well, you can’t even spell my name correctly.

Boy are you stupid!

yters said:

“We can precisely quantify how much each new copy adds, on average, though. If we make n copies, we add approximately log n bits. So each new copy adds approximately logn - log (n-1) bits, on average.”

Anyone know the argument behind this? Seems pretty trick to extrapolate to something useful if we can’t know duplication will always increase the k-complexity of a string. For instance, it is quite plausible that duplication will dramatically *decrease* the KC of a string, and it doesn’t seem possible to predict when this will happen.

Simple counting arguments can’t be used since duplication picks out a very small, particular subset of strings, which may not have properties similar to the average string of that length.

I was speaking on average, not for any particular string. Consider x^n for a fixed n and let n go to infinity. “Most” n will be incompressible or nearly so (in a sense that can be made precise) and so for these n, the string x^n will need log n + O(1) bits to describe. Averaged over all n, then, each new copy gives approximately log n - log (n-1) extra bits.

Yes, Piltdown Man was actually exposed as a hoax.

Well DUH, Einstein, everybody knows that … where have YOU been? Two scientists performed a careful analysis and proved it in 1953 – OVER HALF A CENTURY AGO.

Is this the best you’ve got? I mean, if we want to trade scandals, I could think of a prominent US evobasher in Federal lockup on a ten year sentence for tax fraud and a prominent Turkish evobasher convicted of small-time gangsterism. Oh tell us more about that, we’d be interested.

The other hoaxes have yet to be exposed.

“Well, I think there are all kinds of hoaxes out there, but I don’t know what they are.” Well HOP TO IT, man, stop wasting your time trolling on internet forums and get MYTHBUSTERS on the job ASAP!

Terry Pratchett: “There’s all sorts of things going on that we don’t know anything about!”

“Really? Tell me ONE THING that going on that you don’t know anything about!”

In addition, this is Archaeoraptor.

Ah, so you cant spel gud.

Anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the global epicenter for sodomy is the only reason Dembski has not won the Nobel Prize in physics.

It’s the CONSPIRACY! Well, just put another layer of tinfoil in your hat to block out the mind-control beams, and you’ll be all right.

Toidel Mahoney said:

Anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the global epicenter for sodomy is the only reason Dembski has not won the Nobel Prize in physics. You are clueless to have forgotten his sublime discovery!

Why should Dembski win the Nobel Prize for Physics? He is a mathematician who has done literally absolutely nothing in science, let alone done anything to merit even a 3rd place ribbon in an elementary school science fair. That, and if Dembski is such a good Christian boy like you claim, why would he want a prize from a hotbed of sodomy like you claim?

wile coyote said:

Anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the global epicenter for sodomy is the only reason Dembski has not won the Nobel Prize in physics.

It’s the CONSPIRACY! Well, just put another layer of tinfoil in your hat to block out the mind-control beams, and you’ll be all right.

There ain’t much in Toidel’s itty bitty head for them mind-control beams to control, mind you.

Another candidate for the bathroom wall.

DS said:

Another candidate for the bathroom wall.

Agreed. I am enjoying myself here, but I know PT is not my Personal Fun Club.

Aw, this was a really quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too - taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get something done

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jeffrey Shallit published on October 4, 2009 3:04 PM.

Darwin blogs the Voyage of the Beagle was the previous entry in this blog.

Sorbus aucuparia 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