Stephen Meyer

6.55– AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
SALLY KERN IS HERE!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

7.06– Pretends hes talkin up Darwin. DIRP! John Lynch would be having a seizure.

7.09– Intelligent Design>Evilution

7.10– Meyer is clueless on origin of life and Darwin. He sounds exactly like a parrot. I know the people studying origin of life, and they are waaaaaaay beyond this kindergarten shit Meyers talkin bout. This is like listening to a fourth graders report on ‘origin of life’. My god this hour is going to be long…

7.18– Proteins are ‘precise three-dimensional structures’. News to HIV-1 env, which is not at all precise. Flutters. Pulsates. Causes a lot of trouble, actually… As someone who deals with protein structure and AA neutrality and evolution, this is a very bizarre portion of the talk (as if this whole thing isnt going to be a drug trip LOL!)

7.23– The animation stolen from PBS

7.24– I get it. I get what Meyer is doing. Superficial, and incorrect statements to elicit a ‘GEE WIZ!’ response in audience. Cells = CAD.

7.27– ‘Origin of information in DNA’. HAHAHA I made all the mathematicians *facepalm*

7.30– INFORMATION! Bored. Before he was talking under the audience, now hes talking over them and confusing them/terms. Bored….. CHARLES THAXTON!

7.37– I think hes just reading an outline. This talk is really weird. Like, hes saying the same thing over and over, or saying the same thing in different ways… over and over.

7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.

7.43– My god this is weird… Glad Im not a mathematician right now. Pretty sure theyre raging right now. Im just still bored. Hes on stage, multiplying numbers, trying to tell everyone the odds of something spontaneously generating… not evolving. BUY MY BOOK!

7.49– Ian, “You know what you should do, Abbie”
Me, “Wat?”
Ian, “Yo, Meyer, Im really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but I just got to say Susana Manrubia is one of the best astrobiologist of all time!”

8.01– Why isnt this over yet? Talking about discussions he had in 1985. This is liek, so current. I was 2 years old. 2.

8.07– Rosetta Stone was made by people, NOT NATURE! SUCK IT, EVOLANDERS!

8.10– So, apparently my research is impossible. Theres a big orange X over exactly what I do in the lab, every day. Wish I could take a pic to rub his nose in it when I publish, LOL! Loser.

8.12– JUNK DNA!!!

8.14– Problem: I dont think I can ask a Q without taking a dig at Kern. Giving Ian my car keys– Hes not going to give them back unless I stay away from her.

8.22 Q&A– Meyer doesnt believe in ERVs, Alus, or pseudogenes.

8.24 Q&A– Meyer doesnt know what a ribozyme is. Oh wait, ya he does! Kinda! I mean, he used the word… But then brushed them off, LOL!

8.34 Q&A– So, basically scientists can never ‘prove’ evilution, because if we do experiments that use randomness/chance/necessity and get new information, there is intelligence involved.

8.37 Q&A– Kerns husband– JUNK DNA DIRP!!! Specially created junk DNA AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!!! Humans and chimps are specially created!!! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Im embarased for him!

Meyers is diggin it! Humans and Chimps might not be related! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He knows whos paying him!!

What a waste of time.

Comments

  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    I read through about half of Meyer’s book while sitting in Border’s the other day (yeah, I was freeloading, sue me). If it makes you feel any better, he understands information theory about as well as he appears to understand biochemistry and biology.

  2. #2 Robert
    September 28, 2009

    If you’re going to write like a 8th grade boy trying impress the locker room crowd at least get your facts straight.

    Please do not make false claims. You are either lying, or uninformed. The videos in Dr. Meyer’s presentation are not from PBS or anywhere else, they are 100% original and copyrighted by Discovery Institute. I suspect you just didn’t know you were watching this video. http://www.journeyinsidethecell.com/

    Please, try to keep the debate and discussion somewhat civil.

  3. #3 ERV
    September 28, 2009

    Robert Crowther– Oh Im sorry, you dont like it when people apply Teh Design Inference? Why doesnt everyone look at both of those animations side-by-side and let them decide for themselves!

    TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

  4. #4 paragwinn
    September 28, 2009

    Susana Manrubia? inside joke?

  5. #5 ERV
    September 28, 2009

    Susana Manrubia kicks ass. Shes doing some kick-ass research, and Meyer, supposedly talking about ‘origin of life’, hasnt mentioned any of the research I find stock-standard. I was pointing out one of her papers to Ian, and lulz ensued.

    Its like Meyer made this presentation 15 years ago.

  6. #6 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    Ugh. Probably the most annoying thing about IDiots like Meyer is that they use the word “information” when what they’re actually using is just the most elementary probability. But information just sounds so much more technical and sciencey! It impresses the flock of antievolutionist Christard believers, which I’m pretty sure is enough for them.

  7. #7 herr doctor
    September 28, 2009

    An infinitely more satisfying science video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBCmt_pJTRA

  8. #8 Jared
    September 28, 2009

    Sorry, I know the ID arguments get dull.
    So, find any good porn?

    Alternatively, I’m off to find papers by Manrubia.

  9. #9 ERV
    September 28, 2009
  10. #10 Pete Dunkelberg
    September 28, 2009

    Its like Meyer made this presentation 15 years ago.

    He probably did, with minor changes.

  11. #11 George
    September 28, 2009

    I was reading the ID blog, something about the statement: “The creation of new information is habitually association with conscious activity.” Seems completely WRONG! I can thing of thousands of events that generate information that are not due to conscious activity. Actually, one of them would be the physical process of the sun fusing hydrogen into helium and then fissioning helium into hydrogen. Wouldn’t you agree that there is no conscious agent regulating that process, which of course, informs us of its occurrence via the transmission of electromagnetic radiation? That is to say, because we see the light from the sun we are obviously being informed of it’s existence and that process is most definitely not by a conscious agent. Additionally, every other star in the universe is doing exactly that same thing when we view it at night. I suppose you could argue that the NEW information generated by those processes might outweigh all of the conscious agents currently alive on this planet. Dunno… wat u think?

  12. #12 Dr. J
    September 28, 2009

    Meyer doesnt know what a ribozyme is.

    He wrote a book about cells and…never mind, I confused him with an actual scientist for a second. Won’t do that again.

  13. #13 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    “That is to say, because we see the light from the sun we are obviously being informed of it’s existence and that process is most definitely not by a conscious agent.”

    You’re entirely correct. In Shannon theory this would formally correspond to a reduction in entropy caused by a string sent through a communication channel. Thus a completely non-conscious process has generated “information.”

    The typical IDiot response when dealing with such trivial counterexamples is to say that they’re not talking about Shannon information (or Kolmogorov complexity), they’re talking about “specified information.” Of course, “specified information” has been a moving target since Dembskifag coined the term 15 years ago, and as far as I know has no rigorous definition a la Shannon or Kolmogorov, which is probably why it’s impact in the world of real informatics research has been precisely zero.

  14. #14 waldteufel
    September 28, 2009

    Hey, Crowther . . .when you wiggle your ears, does your anal sphincter feel a tickle?

    Just wonderin’ . . . .

  15. #15 afarensis, FCD
    September 28, 2009

    Meyer doesnt believe in ERVs, Alus, or pseudogenes.

    Are you having fun at our expense or what? I find this kind of…of…of…well, I’m going to go sit in a corner and think about that for a bit. I seem to be having trouble wrapping my brain around that statement.

  16. #16 George
    September 28, 2009

    Q: The scrabble example is overestimating the probabilities.

    A: Recomends Doug Axe’s work. The amount of information isn’t governed by the number of letters in the alphabet. The plausibility of chance needs to account for the number of combinations attempted. The probabilistic resources are lacking to produce even a modest protein.

    I’m really starting to wonder if this guy isn’t retarded…
    If the amount of information is independent of the number of letters in the alphabet, then how much information can be generated in an alphabet of one character. For example, let’s say our alphabet is just the character ‘a’…. Oh wait, yes in fact it is governed by how many letters are in an alphabet….

  17. #17 Azkyroth
    September 28, 2009

    7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.

    Skipping to this and staying there would have been orders of magnitude more informative.

  18. #18 Aseem
    September 28, 2009

    You still around? Just want to come say a hi. I was wondering why you weren’t asking anything. Sally Kern explains it.

  19. #19 Aseem
    September 28, 2009

    ‘7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.’

    The greatest evidence for ID and against evolution that the DI had was that ERV had flipped Casey Luskin hence ID = twue!!!! Now they have another.

  20. #20 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    “The amount of information isn’t governed by the number of letters in the alphabet. The plausibility of chance needs to account for the number of combinations attempted. The probabilistic resources are lacking to produce even a modest protein.”

    Aside from the fact that he’s once again conflating ordinary probability with information, the fallacy here is obvious: he’s overlooking the fact that deterministic physical processes underlie the noisy data you observe. There are things like, you know, selection!

  21. #21 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    Here’s a trivial example to illustrate what I’m talking about. Try “randomly” popping balloons filled with hydrogen and oxygen, and determine what the probability is that they will all “randomly” form the same molecule (H2O). Why, the probabilistic resources just aren’t there! There must be supernatural intervention!

  22. #22 Jay
    September 28, 2009

    I don’t think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

  23. #23 Paul Lundgren
    September 28, 2009

    7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.

    As opposed to the twat on stage?

  24. #24 Jay
    September 28, 2009

    I don’t think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

  25. #25 waldteufel
    September 28, 2009

    Jay, I don’t think you know or understand anything about science in general, or biology specifically.

    A seventh grade science course would do you wonders.

  26. #26 Brian H
    September 28, 2009

    I don’t think Jay understands how to submit a comment. At least I see nothing here to indicate that he does.

  27. #27 Jay
    September 28, 2009

    I don’t think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

  28. #28 Jay
    September 28, 2009

    Ok. Point out a scientific error in Meyer’s talk. A scientific error. Not a failure to mention a cool scientist doing awesome research.

    BTW, I saw cameras in the crowd, and I heard Meyer grant the reality of some junk DNA, and he specifically mentioned retroviruses at least once (so stop lying to readers who were not there. Meyer clearly “believes” in ervs).

  29. #29 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    I think there is significant evidence to indicate that Jay is a bot.

  30. #30 Tyler DiPietro
    September 28, 2009

    Jay,

    Assuming you can read a comprehend semantics it should take you all of two seconds to locate this in ERV’s post:

    “7.18– Proteins are ‘precise three-dimensional structures’. News to HIV-1 env, which is not at all precise. Flutters. Pulsates. Causes a lot of trouble, actually… As someone who deals with protein structure and AA neutrality and evolution, this is a very bizarre portion of the talk (as if this whole thing isnt going to be a drug trip LOL!)”

    Which describes a scientific error. You fail, unsurprisingly.

  31. #31 Azkyroth
    September 28, 2009

    I don’t think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

    Why don’t you explain it then?

  32. #32 StGJM
    September 28, 2009

    Thanks for coming out tonight, all those that did. Meyer did speak under the crowd at times and over at others, but overall handled questions and such exceptionally well (especially in the post lecture huddles at the front of the auditorium).

    Dr. Westrop’s lecture tomorrow night should be really interesting as well. PLUS Wells and Meyer will be there for more conversation and questions.

  33. #33 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    I know that when someone points out the willful obfuscation of a sophist online (such as my pointing out that Meyer’s did not deny the existence of retroviruses) the general response is to insult them but …c’mon, I was being serious, I do not see Meyer’s argument being dealt with anywhere on this blog.

    Azkyroth wants me to explain it (I really doubt that) and apparently I am a Bot who cannot read because I did not hear Meyer claim that all Proteins are precise three-dimensional structures. But now that I have learned Science from ERV and her science buddies, I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein. Thanks for educating me on that.

  34. #34 llewelly
    September 29, 2009

    7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.

    PROOF POSITIVE that evolutionism causes rank immorality!

  35. #35 vhutchison
    September 29, 2009

    I’M really glad that Ian took your keys to keep you from going after Silly Sally Kern. Did you forget that she always packs a pistol? TWICE she entered the Capitol with a weapon and did not get arrested.

  36. #36 386sx
    September 29, 2009

    I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein.

    Maybe you didn’t notice the “env” part of the “HIV-1 env”. Poe’s law strikes again…

  37. #37 justfinethanks
    September 29, 2009

    I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein. Thanks for educating me on that.

    Sir, you just went full retard.

    Skim this over and feel ashamed at your lack of basic understanding of what is being discussed.

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

  38. #38 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    Thanks 386sx. However, I think you may be mistaken on what a parody is and who is and is not a fundamentalist.

    I do have another question. Was that guy who asked the first question during the QandA correct when he later blurted out that the “vast majority of DNA is Junk” ?

    Also, when the young fella in the back asked the question about Miller’s discovery of amino acids in his experiment, I noticed that that same guy blurted out “What?!!!” as if he couldn’t believe the young man’s words.

    I know the question was off-base because Meyer wasn’t talking about the Origin of amino acids (but their sequencing) and nobody holds to the Miller scenario anymore… but was the guy in the front right unable to ascertain the fact that the kid was trying to critique Meyer, just as he was, … or what. Maybe he was just some crazy guy off the street (?), but sitting near him was incredibly annoying. Oh well to each his own. i took notes, he murmured. I guess my trying to think through a lecture might be as annoying to him as his murmuring and whispering was to me.

  39. #39 386sx
    September 29, 2009

    Okay sorry Jay maybe you’re not a parody, but who else besides a fundamentalist would think that Jesus “poofed” the proteins? :P

    Glad to see somebody learned somethin though. Always remember…

    “If we’re made in Gods image, God’s made of gag, pol, and env!”

  40. #40 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    My knowledge increases even more!!!!

    The wiki link says “the proteins of HIV have been the subject of extensive research”

    “the” “proteins” … so is it each protein that “Flutters. Pulsates. [and] Causes a lot of trouble” or is it something about their assemblage.

    I really don’t know. Educate me. Is the HIV-1 env “a” protein, “a set” of proteins, or what?

    But back to what I am really interested in. If more and more identified “junk” DNA turns out to be functional DNA. Will this matter to any of the anti-ID folk. Won’t you guys just turn somewhere else?

    And It would be great if someone could answer my simple Q above concerning the claim of Questioner number 1. Is the “vast majority of DNA”, junk? Or did that guy misspeak?

  41. #41 Techskeptic
    September 29, 2009

    George #11,

    I wrote a post on this because that exact topic has come up a number of times recently. Lots of things encode information. It doesn’t take intelligence to encode something. It takes intelligence only to understand the code.

  42. #42 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    Wait a second, who claimed that “Jesus “poofed” the proteins?” I didn’t here that from anybody. Oh, I get it, that is your recapitulation of Meyer’s argument. I thought it was more complex than that. Well you know us old folk.

    But that reminds me, I sure didn’t here much about religion from the creationist in the lab coat. I heard a rather sophisticated philosophical argument about the nature of scientific methodology and its application to questions concerning the origin of sequence specificity.

    Oh, and another thing. not to be too pedantic or belittling but ERV’s little, “If we’re made in Gods image, God’s made of gag, pol, and env!” is pretty ridiculous. For one thing, no Christian Jew or Muslim has ever considered G-D to be a material being made up of things… and another, adherents of these faiths have fully recognized for the past two thousand (more and less) years the fact that the world is fallen, and bent out of its proper shape as a result of the sin of mankind. This is plain and simple knowledge. (The catch-line to this blog reminds me of the ignorance and straw-man reasoning employed by that sham fundie Richard Dawkins. Oh wait, I bet she would take that as a compliment. Your welcome.)

    ERV’s catch-line also rests upon the most simple and childlike understanding of the word “image” conceivable. No serious theological minds chalk up the image of G-D to molecular material. How funny that intelligent people think the toddler that runs this blog is clever. Wait, she is clever, just lacking in wisdom and the department of clear reasoning.

    Please don’t kick me off, this is my first time here and I have already learned so much from and about Darwinian Fundies.

  43. #43 386sx
    September 29, 2009

    Wait a second, who claimed that “Jesus “poofed” the proteins?” I didn’t here that from anybody. Oh, I get it, that is your recapitulation of Meyer’s argument. I thought it was more complex than that.

    Okay yeah it’s a little more complex than that.

    The odds of a protein “poofing” itself into existence is something like a gazillion billion to one. So, therefore, by process of elimination, Jesus “poofed” the proteins. Correct me if I’m wrong! Thanks!

  44. #44 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    So I guess everybody has gone to bed. If anyone wants to post here whether or not the Questioner who stated that the vast majority of DNA is junk was correct or not, I’ll check back tomorrow afternoon. I am just trying to learn from the, what are we supposed to call them here? evilutionists?

    (The ID guy claimed that there was “some” junk DNA and a lot of formerly thought to be junk DNA that turned out to be functional, and that ID “predicted” to be functional,… but that questioner who said that ID was false because it wasn’t falsifiable, claimed that the vast amount of DNA was Junk. Who is right on this?)

    Before I hit the sack, I do want to relate my favorite part of the night though. As I was leaving I heard some old bald guy call some young fella who asked him a question an asshole. Good answer sir. Well played. You showed him.

    Sleep well Darwinists those IDiots are have way done with you.

  45. #45 Jay
    September 29, 2009

    he he… “have” way done with you. I got to go to bed.

    BTW, wikipedia is willing to claim that much of the DNA out there is junk.

    ID predicts otherwise I suppose. Oh wait, ID does not put forward any predictions. Oops.

    Seriously this time. I click post, I go to bed.

  46. #46 Ben
    September 29, 2009

    I have heard a lot of objections to ID arguments from the HIV research community. This is because HIV is the fastest mutating “organism”, if you will, that we know. HIV simply has vastly larger probabilistic resources than most biological systems. So undoubtedly it can perform vastly greater structural computations than most other stuff can.

  47. #47 mcmillan
    September 29, 2009

    I’m going to stick with the original request to provide an error in Meyer’s talk which Tyler Dipietro started to answer by pointing to where he said proteins have to have a well-defined structure. I’m not an HIV expert, but my impression is Abbie was pointing out that the Env protein does NOT have a well defined structure. There’s two ways that I can see this being the case, though I’m not certain which Abbie was referring too.

    First, all proteins aren’t stuck in some single shape, they’re constantly moving around. I may be biased by my own work, but I’d say that these motions are the most important part of how proteins work. Which is why there are people that spend all their time looking at these “wiggle movies” as one of my friends called it this weekend.

    The second possibility is that some proteins aren’t just wiggling around, they’re normally disordered. I know some people who are working on designing antibodies that will recognize HIV and are having problems since they’re trying to get it to bind to a protein that doesn’t actually have well-defined shape to bind to. This might be the same env protein that Abbie was talking about. And this isn’t even a weird thing to see. The first sentence of one of the papers in my to-read pile is “Intrinsic protein disorder is a widespread phenomenon, characterised by a lack of stable three-dimensional structures, and is considered to play an important role in protein-protein interactions.” If you really want to educate yourself you might want to take a look here. (though like I said this is still in my to-read pile, so I won’t vouch for it’s quality)

    There’s also a third way Meyer could be wrong that seems a bit different from the way Abbie responded, and from what I’ve seen before is probably closer to Meyer’s point. That’s the fact that while some single shape for a protein may be difficult to evolve (but still easier than the ID people try and say) there’s usually lots of ways for a protein to find a way to work. As I told my students that got confused about some enzyme working in a weird counterintuitive and inefficient way – evolution doesn’t find the best way to do something, it just finds a good enough way. And there’s usually a bit of wiggle room in what’s a “good enough” way.

  48. #48 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    Don’t worry, Jay, they won’t kick you off, but they will treat you with extreme disrespect and high amounts of insulting and obscene language, and if you stay on long enough, if you stick to your guns, and if your arguments are sound, then they’ll eventually tire of you and ignore your actual points. When all else fails, ERV commenter-minions attack.

    On a related point, I was acutely embarrassed by how crappy Sally Kern’s husband’s question was. But I didn’t know who he was. Now that I know, I guess that does partially explain it.

    Finally, it was a pleasure talking face to face with Abbie last night, and she and Dr Broughton were kind enough to talk through some of their objections in more detail. I didn’t understand all of it, not by any stretch, but while parts were lost on me, parts were very interesting.

    See you tonight!

    Peace,
    Rhology

  49. #49 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    As I was leaving I heard some old bald guy call some young fella who asked him a question an asshole. Good answer sir.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that said “old bald guy” was eminent Professor Emeritus V(ic)Hutchison. A friend of mine was having a pertinent convo in the back with a Darwinian and told me that Professor Vic would occasionally interpose thoughtful half-comments like “…and b/c you’re not a biologist, you can’t understand that”. The sheer weight of the argumentative force is about to cause my spleen to hemorrhage.

  50. #50 Bob O'H
    September 29, 2009

    Was that guy who asked the first question during the QandA correct when he later blurted out that the “vast majority of DNA is Junk” ?

    For humans at least, yes. I don’t know what the estimates are now, but I recall an old figure of 90% junk. But the amount varies hugely between species.

    If more and more identified “junk” DNA turns out to be functional DNA. Will this matter to any of the anti-ID folk.

    No. We never thought that all junk DNA was useless. Even 20-30 years ago, when we knew very little about what junk DNA consisted of, the assumption was that some of it was used by the cell. We just didn’t know what for.

    The idea that all junk DNA is useless is a common misconception. For the general public, it’s understandable but for someone like Meyer, who should have studied this, and I’m sure has been corrected many times, it’s either dishonesty or selective blindness.

    Please don’t kick me off, this is my first time here and I have already learned so much from and about Darwinian Fundies.

    You’re going to be mocked for that, I’m afraid. But you’ve clearly come here trolling, so you’re not going to be taken seriously. If you want a serious discussion with us about the biology, don’t start off by attacking us.

  51. #51 Joshua White
    September 29, 2009

    READ THIS ONE!!!

    Nice paper! I think this might make a good analogy for periods of stasis and change in the fossil record. Of course that thought is probably already floating around in the literature. BRB, PUBMED fishing.

    Also here’s one to keep handy for the Junk DNA crowd.

    “Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496924?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    I fail at HTML linkage. How to do?

  52. #52 Nomen Nescio
    September 29, 2009

    Oh wait, ID does not put forward any predictions.

    then what the fuck is it good for?!

  53. #53 Joshua White
    September 29, 2009

    @ mcmillan

    Another good example are the stochastic movements that many (possible all) proteins go through when moving around to carry out their functions.

    As beautiful as the Harvard “The Inner Life of the Cell” was, it was completely unrealistic. Protein movements are a mess of jerky, spazzy jumbling around to find active sites or binding sites largely due to Brownian motion. There is no smooth snapping together. Some proteins will bind quickly, some will bump around for a while until a site is found. Sometimes they even go back a step or two! Life can be as messy as a couple of drunk virgins fumbling around in the dark.

    There is great movie demonstrating this with actin and myosin but I can’t seem to find it at the moment. Ill put it up later if I do.

    I did find this though.
    “Dynamics of Myosin-V Processivity”
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1305171

  54. #54 ragarth
    September 29, 2009

    Hey Jay,

    If you’re assuming we’re here to educate you, you’re wrong. If that happens, it’s by random chance, or the kindness of someone’s heart.

    If, you want education, post on Pharyngula. They’re much more helpful and respectful to assist you in acquiring knowledge.

  55. #55 Doc Bill
    September 29, 2009

    My dear Robert Crowther, aka Bob the Crow,

    Yo, ‘sup Crow-boy? Oh, my bad, talkin’ like an 8th grader.

    Ahem.

    Tell you what, Bob, let’s invite Larry Flynt to make copies of Hustler magazine available to your church youth group and vacation Bible school. Whaddya think about that? After all, Mr. Flynt has actually won First Amendment cases, unlike you creationists.

    Hustler magazine will definitely provide a religious experience for your church youth members and youth ministers alike. I can guarantee that attendance will be UP.

    What’s that, Bob? You don’t like Mr. Flynt or his disgusting, pornographic magazine? Are you being uncivil to Mr. Flynt? Actually, I can quite imagine how you feel about Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine.

    Well, that’s how I feel about the intellectual pornography spewed out by the Discovery Institute and you, Crowther, are my Larry Flynt.

    Civil discourse? I don’t think so.

    FO, Bob-O.

  56. #56 vhutchison
    September 29, 2009

    #49. Your limb just broke and you fell off! As an old bald guy, I did not call anyone an a-hole and the FEW discussions I had after the lecture were respectable on both sides and from what I observed that was true for the other discussions I heard.

  57. #57 vhutchison
    September 29, 2009

    Also, I did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist, etc.
    Be sure you are correct before posting such nonsense. Not being a biologist does not prevent someone from having some knowledge of the subject or from giving their opinion.

  58. #58 Brian Biggs
    September 29, 2009

    vhutchinson,

    I was talking with two gentleman and you occasionally leaned over into our circle and made comments. Once you remarked, “he [Meyer] isn’t a biologist, he doesn’t understand.” Granted, I don’t have any sort of recording of you doing it; but it stuck out clearly in my mind and I am certain of you saying it.

  59. #59 rrt
    September 29, 2009

    Nomen Nescio @52:

    Actually, if I read jay right that was an attempt at sarcasm. I think he thinks ID predicts most or all junk DNA is functional.

    I’ve never really understood the creationist obsession with junk DNA. Yeah, “God don’t make no junk,” but that doesn’t mean they’d have to find clear functions for it. They could just wave it off as having some ineffable purpose beyond our puny human understanding. It would only be the umpteenth time apologists did that.

    Perhaps it has to do with the standard desire to claim errors in evolutionary biology as evidece for creationism, but that also seems so silly. As others have said, it’s those danged evilutionists who suspected not all junk DNA was junk from the start, and who did a lot of hard work trying to find out what it did or didn’t do. Creationists didn’t do a damn thing but whine about how the evilutionists were squeezing their god too much by filling the gaps THEY’D put him in.

    it seems remarkably hubristic for a creationist to assert that it would be unintelligent for a Designer to allow or design junk DNA. But then, it seems remarkably hubristic for them to try to prove their god’s existence in the first place.

  60. #60 StGJM
    September 29, 2009

    I agree with Vic on that point at least.

    Discussion after the event WAS very respectful. I was glad to talk to several CFI members without even once having to debate the John Edwards-likeness or even the punchability of Meyers’ face. Thank you all for promoting this conversation in a professional manner.

    I hope that you won’t treat the anomalous hostile individuals on both sides as representatives for the whole.

  61. #61 E.V.
    September 29, 2009

    Um, Jay… the word you were looking for is “hear” not “here” and “half” not “have” and it’s “I‘ve got to go to bed.” You seem to think you’re just a wiki article or two from figuring this all out, but let me let you in on a little secret… you’re too ignorant to know you’re ignorant.

  62. #62 rx7ward
    September 29, 2009

    “Dembskifag”

    Tyler, what does this mean?

    “As opposed to the twat on stage?”

    Paul, that’s not very enlightened, nor is it funny …

    Sorry to be such a pedant, but seriously guys, your (unexamined?) prejudices are showing, and isn’t very pretty.

  63. #63 Nomen Nescio
    September 29, 2009

    Actually, if I read jay right that was an attempt at sarcasm. I think he thinks ID predicts most or all junk DNA is functional.

    i considered that for a moment, too. but then i thought, “how would ID make a prediction?”, as well as “would most ID proponents think it significant if such a prediction turned out wrong?”, and decided folks who can’t easily be satirized should not really be allowed the use of sarcasm, that being too sharp and pointy a thing for them to be safe with it.

  64. #64 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    rrt @59,

    In my experience, DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it. Physician, heal thyself.

    You said “gaps”, and that’s funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with “vestigial” structures. This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps. Everyone’s got their ‘gaps’, so just leave it alone, seriously. The sooner everyone does so, the further the conversation can advance.

    Finally, it seems remarkably hubristic for a Darwinian to assert that it would be unintelligent for a Designer to allow or design junk DNA. But then, it seems remarkably hubristic for them to try to prove that evolution from common descent is the best explanation in the first place.

  65. #65 Blake Stacey
    September 29, 2009

    Tyler DiPietro (#6):

    Ugh. Probably the most annoying thing about IDiots like Meyer is that they use the word “information” when what they’re actually using is just the most elementary probability. But information just sounds so much more technical and sciencey!

    Indeed. What Dembski calls “information”, anyone with an education would recognize as just probability measured on a logarithmic scale.

    rx7ward (#62):

    “Dembskifag”

    Tyler, what does this mean?

    In some regions of the Internet, “fag” is a term of general disapproval, indicating a large degree of disdain. “Dembskifag” translates, roughly, to “Dembski the blithering idiot with delusions of grandeur and a moral vacuum where his heart should be”.

    “As opposed to the twat on stage?”

    Paul, that’s not very enlightened, nor is it funny …

    Actually, it’s very funny.

    Sorry to be such a pedant, but seriously guys, your (unexamined?) prejudices are showing, and isn’t very pretty.

    It’s not pre-judice, it’s post-judice. We’ve been watching creationists deliver the same, gobsmackingly stupid bilge for years, vainly hoping that one day, they’d understand something. No such luck. All we get are endless recyclings of the same long-since debunked canards.

  66. #66 rrt
    September 29, 2009

    Heh. True enough, Nomen… :)

  67. #67 John Phillips, FCD
    September 29, 2009

    Brian Biggs, Vic stating to someone that ‘Meyers isn’t a biologist and (Meyers) doesn’t understand’, which is patently true, is not the same as Vic dismissing someone who asked him a question for not being a biologist and doesn’t understand. The latter is what our good old and not so honest friend Rhology appeared to be claiming, or lets be generous and assume that Rhology simply misunderstood what his friend said or his friend misunderstood who Vic was talking about. For even you said he was talking about Meyers. Though it does get hard giving Rhology the benefit of the doubt after a time, due to the number of times he always manages to get the wrong, i.e. negative, end of the stick when relating or narrating almost anything about ‘Darwinians’.

  68. #68 John Phillips, FCD
    September 29, 2009

    @Jay, do yourself a favour and look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you.

  69. #69 rrt
    September 29, 2009

    rho:

    It’s true that I’ve seen some evilutionists overselling the “ALL junk DNA is junk” thing, but that still was a misrepresentation of the state of the science.

    But the point stands. Junk DNA and vestigial structures, though not essential, can be evidence for evolution in general and specific possible evolutionary mechanisms and histories. We bring up junk DNA because it contradicts specific conceptions of a Creator most commonly used by creationists. I explicitly chastised those creationists for doing so. Of course junk DNA doesn’t disprove god! …unless you’ve defined your god in such a way as it would. And I do believe a number of theologies warn against doing precisely this.

    If the creationists were more like you, arguing for a Creator who had no problem with junk DNA being junk and vestigial organs being vestigial, I wouldn’t be using junk DNA as a weapon.

  70. #70 Brian Biggs
    September 29, 2009

    John Phillips,

    You are assuming Vic meant A and B, rather than A ergo B. The latter seems more likely given the context of the discussion; either way, he is certainly linking not being a biologist with not understanding. In the context of the discussion it seemed to be a very derogatory and dismissive comment.

    I did not originally intend to bring this comment up on this blog; however, that changed after Vic wrote: “Also, I did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist, etc.”

  71. #71 Kristjan Wager
    September 29, 2009

    @Jay, do yourself a favour and look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you.

    He doesn’t even have to look it up – I’ve written a nice blogpost on the subject which he can read. He just need to click here. Who knows, he might even learn something.

  72. #72 John Phillips, FCD
    September 29, 2009

    Brian Biggs, I see that I shall have to apply the same generosity to you as I do to Rhology. Good to know, especially as I went by your own words of what Vic said. I.e. that Vic did not use the words in relation to the person asking him a question, Rhology’s claim, but about Meyers. But hey, by now we are used to Rhology twisting in the wind so you are welcome to join him and add to the hilarity.

  73. #73 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    John Phillips, FCD @67 –
    –our good old and not so honest friend Rhology

    Ah, well let me add to my list from comment #48:

    they will treat you with extreme disrespect and high amounts of insulting and obscene language, and if you stay on long enough, if you stick to your guns, and if your arguments are sound, then they’ll eventually tire of you and ignore your actual points and engage in unjustified character assassination.

    Got an example of my being dishonest? Direct quotes will suffice, and misunderstanding when I engage in argumenta ad absurdum doesn’t count.
    Sheesh.

  74. #74 John Phillips, FCD
    September 29, 2009

    Rhology, it is only character assassination when not true. Your post here about what Vic said and to who is testament enough. As to any other examples, the wealth of times you have been corrected on this blog and yet keep on trotting out the same old, same old, a bit like Meyers in fact. That is either dishonest, or see post 68 and 71, which is the other option to dishonesty.

  75. #75 Brian Biggs
    September 29, 2009

    John Phillips,

    I see that I shall have to apply the same generosity to you as I do to Rhology.

    Are you then including me in your accusation of “twisting in the wind”?

    I have no problem with Vic clarifying what he meant. I am certainly glad he thinks that “[n]ot being a biologist does not prevent someone from having some knowledge of the subject.” However, when the comment was made, that was not the impression given. Then, to go on and say that he “did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist” doesn’t seem very genuine.

    However, you seem to be fine with Vic’s comment and upset when Rhology didn’t get the quote exactly right from a story relayed to him, giving a different impression. I find it likely that I will have to show generosity to you…

  76. #76 pough
    September 29, 2009

    If you’re going to write like a 8th grade boy trying impress the locker room crowd at least get your facts straight.

    That’s an excellent point. You can’t really have one without the other, can you? It just doesn’t work.

    Seriously, dude: Huh?

  77. #77 rx7ward
    September 29, 2009

    “… ‘fag’ is a term of general disapproval, indicating a large degree of disdain”

    Blake, do you approve of this usage? What if the preferred term was n*gg*r instead of fag?

    “Actually, it’s very funny”

    Um, right. ‘Cause sexism is sooo hilarious … Do you call people you dislike cunt and bitch also? How about “stupid cow of a woman”? Is that too much?

    “It’s not pre-judice, it’s post-judice”

    Thanks for the correction. I should have said “bigotry” in place of “prejudice” I suppose.

  78. #78 Joshua White
    September 29, 2009

    Rhology said,

    You said “gaps”, and that’s funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with “vestigial” structures.This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps. Everyone’s got their ‘gaps’, so just leave it alone, seriously.

    I’m calling you out.

    1. If you look at my post at #51 I link to a paper where MILLIONS of base pairs of DNA are deleted from mice with no effect at all. (A) Explain it using your creationist worldview. (B) Your hypothesis must be based on observable phenomena that demonstrates an explanation for part A clearly. In other words NO making shit up. ALL scientific explanations are based on observations, which are then tested by experiment.

    2. (A) Explain to me your understanding of the “God of the gaps” fallacy, and what vestigial structures are because your statement leaves me to believe that you have no idea what it means. (B) After the explanations demonstrate why the creationist and evolution supporters both have gaps, why they are the same using specific examples, and why the example of vestigial structures are not problems for creationism.

    Just talking crap demonstrates nothing. Show us you are capable of more. If you only answer the parts with an “(A)” after them, that counts as just talking crap. All of the “(B)” items are where you do your work. You have an argument. Like everyone else in the world with an argument the burden of proof is on you.

  79. #79 Ethan Siegel
    September 29, 2009

    ERV is awesome for posts like this. The lack of critical thought deserves to be called out like this, and I think you did an excellent job live-blogging it. Cool read; thanks!

  80. #80 ERV
    September 29, 2009

    lol thanks, Ethan, but I havent really done much but laugh at Meyer :P Honestly, if he was a Creationist fourth grader in 1996, I would have thought he did a real nice job. But hes, like, a grown up. So I got lots of fun ideas for educational posts via Meyers stupidity, eg the importance of RNA structures, evolution of RNA populations, etc.

    Also, Jay, yes, Meyer did mention ‘retroviruses’. In a later answer, ‘correcting himself’, in response to our laughter at his initial comment about Alu/ERVs/pseudogenes at 8.22. The guy has a superficial understanding of biology. If he were just some dude, Id just smile, politely correct him, and forget about it. But hes not. He stood up there and presented himself as an ‘expert’ and made an ass of himself.

  81. #81 Tyler DiPietro
    September 29, 2009

    “You said “gaps”, and that’s funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with “vestigial” structures. This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps.”

    No, it isn’t Darwinism of the gaps. Darwinism of the gaps would imply that one is making an argument from ignorance. However, there is significant positive evidence that most DNA in the genome is junk.

    Perhaps you disagree. Scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. If you want to refute it you could start by answering T. Ryan Gregories challenge: what possible reason is there for an onion to have a larger genome than a human?

  82. #82 Mobius
    September 29, 2009

    ERV said:

    What a waste of time.

    Big surprise…NOT.

  83. #83 kendallcorner
    September 29, 2009

    man. I thought that was tonight. I was thinking of sitting in the back and laughing in strange places. oh well the museum is still free tonight

    There are so many comments here I feel like this one will get overlooked, but I watched the linked ‘stolen’ video, and it reminded me of one question I always had learning biology which was something to the effect of ‘how do the little things in the cell know where to go and when?’ Now I’m a chemical engineer and creeping flow affected by attractions between molecules explains pretty much everything for me, but how does one explain that to a non-engineer/biologist type person?

    Also, if anyone knows of an excellent and straight forward evolution explanation/book/learning tool, I would love you if you told me about it, because I keep getting the “but we are just too intricate and amazing! How could that just appear?” defense and all I can say is “wow, you really don’t understand evolution at all.” I’m not a very good at teaching apparently.

  84. #84 Ritchie Annand
    September 29, 2009

    Dembski and Meyer have earned disdain. To complain about the tone and even the lack of immediate full-bore addressing of their “new” arguments is to pretend Dembski and Meyer somehow deserve respect anew each and every time they open their mouths, as though they had not mightily crapped over science and education in past, as though they had not fomented disrespect, as though every encounter should be a tabula rasa cleared of every iota of bad faith they engendered.

    Respect is earned. To complain about the lack of it when respect has already been legitimately lost is disingenuous. Misplaced concern will not earn respect, and reacting to that with even more concern will not earn it back.

    With that off my chest, ERV, is there anyone or any place that has a few more details on Meyer’s presentation? I’m just interested in particular in what he’s been repeating, and how much is right out of things like AiG’s playbook of late.

  85. #85 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    Joshua White @78 –
    OK, sure.
    A) Fine, that would be evidence in favor of THAT SECTION of DNA having no function. So what?
    B) ALL scientific explanations are based on observations, which are then tested by experiment.

    Oh, like claiming that unicellular organisms have become kiwis and people, then claiming “that’s science”? Right.
    I’m more interested in logic.

    Explain to me your understanding of the “God of the gaps” fallacy, and what vestigial structures are

    God of the gaps is a critique leveled against ID-ers and creationists by evolutionists, mostly, wherein they claim that God simply fills in a lack in current understanding, with the expectation that it will one day be understood by natural processes, like claiming Thor is responsible for thunder when in fact it’s masses of air colliding.
    Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. (source)

    Now, a question for you. Please describe what “Darwinism of the gaps” means. Why might I have used that term?

    why the example of vestigial structures are not problems for creationism.

    B/c some of them have been found to have function, and b/c there’s less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them. *I* don’t bring it up; Darwinians do, and I respond.
    Also, Joshua, take a deep breath. This is just a combox. It’s not the end of the world, nor is it Pharyngula, K?

    Tyler @81,
    However, there is significant positive evidence that most DNA in the genome is junk.

    OK, but the common Darwinian claim is “junk DNA disproves design”. If you want to qualify that, feel free. I prefer advancing the conversation to repeating the same tired things over and over.

    what possible reason is there for an onion to have a larger genome than a human?

    No idea. God didn’t grace me with that knowledge.
    Now, so what?

  86. #86 Tyler DiPietro
    September 29, 2009

    “OK, but the common Darwinian claim is “junk DNA disproves design”.”

    “Design” in general is not a testable hypothesis, especially when you design it to deliberately avoid testability (as you are wont to do). However, what it does disprove is efficient design.

    “If you want to qualify that, feel free. I prefer advancing the conversation to repeating the same tired things over and over.”

    Then you can focus on one particular question. The fact that most DNA in the genome is junk is a well established proposition. If you don’t want to contest that but rather want to contest the implications of that fact, then feel free.

  87. #87 rrt
    September 29, 2009

    Kendallcorner:

    I’d start explaining it by NOT showing them that video, in original or copyright-infringement flavor. Gorgeous, yes, and even useful, but as others have said, very, very misleading in how clean and smooth it makes the biochemistry look. I’m not expert enough to make many suggestions on good teaching tools, but it calls to mind a (possibly apocryphal but still gets the basic idea) discussion I once heard of how some insects, like roaches, run. Rather than a carefully choreographed, precisely-controlled movement of legs that might require a more complicated brain and muscular system, supposedly it was much more a bunch of clumsy, sloppy flailing that was much cheaper yet still generally tended to push the critter forward. The point being that as long as a given mechanism TENDS to move molecules in a certain direction, it may be good enough, and may deliver better bang for the buck than a more precise system. You run into this sort of cost-benefit issue in, say, military equipment. Yes, THIS infantry rifle performs 10% better than the one we have, but it costs twice as much and we can better use the resources elsewhere.

    As for books, Dawkins’ latest (“The Greatest Show on Earth”) is good, but there are also many others. I’m partial to Sean Carroll’s “The Making of the Fittest” and “Endless Forms Most Beautiful,” in that order, since they’re covering the more recent stuff in Evo-Devo, and it’s fascinating. But more narrowly focused, while many others are broad.

  88. #88 Tyler DiPietro
    September 29, 2009

    “B/c some of them have been found to have function…”

    This already betrays your gross misunderstanding of the definition of “vestigial”. It isn’t predicated on something having no function, but that it has arrived at obsolescence given it’s original function. The human tailbone is a good illustrative example.

    No doubt now you’ll simply continue your usual pattern of reverting to claiming that such a thing doesn’t disprove design anyway, so you don’t care. You’ll have to forgive the rest of us for finding your casual disregard for the facts to be problematic.

  89. #89 386sx
    September 29, 2009

    In my experience, DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it. Physician, heal thyself.

    This time around it was the ID creationists who brought it up though. I’m guessing this is one of the rare exceptions to your experience of “DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it.” Probably doesn’t happen very often.

  90. #90 Rhology
    September 29, 2009

    it has arrived at obsolescence given it’s original function.

    Kinda begs the question.

  91. #91 Tyler DiPietro
    September 29, 2009

    “Kinda begs the question.”

    Explain how. Remember that “begs the question” means to assume one’s conclusion within one’s premises.

  92. #92 Ritchie Annand
    September 29, 2009

    Kinda begs the question.

    Not unless you’re already committed to objecting to “original function” on creationist grounds, in which case it can be expounded that “original function” refers to additional functionality of homologous features or structures in living things of closer taxonomy… even if you want to refer to that taxonomy in Linnaeus-inspired terms instead of modern evolutionary terms.

    Things that look like the coccyx and have developmental growth and genomic activation like the coccyx turn into full-grown tails in other primates and indeed many other mammals. The fact that they are important for muscle attachment sites does not obscure the fact that they are fused and immobile.

    I can’t help but take your “there’s less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them” comment to mean some flavor of “God can do whatever he wants”. Perhaps it hasn’t been made clear that vestigiality comes not just from casual design evaluations (e.g. scientist X says “I wouldn’t do it that way”), but patterns of functionality that also follow taxonomic and developmental patterns.

    What you seem to be to be essentially saying, then, is that the patterns are irrelevant, because they can be explained by some conscious whim to which you are not privy.

    The only problem is, removing limitations vastly increases the number explanations that are in accord with the evidence. Hence some of the parody “alternate explanations” that people come up with. However sarcastic, they illustrate a point.

    In that sense, saying “I can explain that” in a positive correlative sense is not so useful.

    What is useful is something that can take the risk and lay down limits, and that the limits turn out to be respected. Taxonomic and genomic patterns can do this – we can say that if a living creature gets sorted taxonomically based on a certain set of traits, then other traits have a very high probability of clustering in the same way.

    Dembski and Meyer know the visible power of limits. Unfortunately for them, their limits are merely exclusive instead of also inclusive and worse, based on poorly-applied statistics and/or logic and bad models of evolution.

    (Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, for example, had regularity, chance and design as separate slots, when the phenomena demanded combinations be allowed as well. His No Free Lunch modeled evolution as a teleological process with random children and no feedback.)

  93. #93 Ritchie Annand
    September 29, 2009

    Ugh, typos:

    “seem to be to be” -> “seem to me to be”

    Also “the fact that they are fused and immobile” needs an “in great apes, including humans” at the end of it.

  94. #94 Tyler DiPietro
    September 29, 2009

    I can’t help but take your “there’s less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them” comment to mean some flavor of “God can do whatever he wants”.

    It’s also a mathematically absurd statement. Assuming a uniformly distributed sample space of outcomes, God doing any one thing is equally likely. If that sample space is infinite, the probability of any one explanation is zero, since 1/n goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

    At least we have an example of Rhology making a statement that can be definitively proven true or false, such is progress I guess.

  95. #95 Ritchie Annand
    September 29, 2009

    Assuming a uniformly distributed sample space of outcomes, God doing any one thing is equally likely.

    In all fairness here, I’m pretty sure that creationists aren’t operating on the uniformly distributed sample space hypothesis :)

    Even taking into account infinite possibilities, they could claim from their starting premises that it is merely the case that nothing is forbidden.

    My complaint is that having a hypothesis that could ‘explain’ absolutely anything, no matter what it turned out to be, is not a virtue. It is in that sense exactly equivalent in terms of explanatory power to not knowing, and any attempts to explain anything specific within that framework become just-so stories by default, as we witness with little snippets you see like “God loves variety” and “mutations come from sin”.

  96. #96 brian
    September 29, 2009

    The evolutionists here don’t know the difference between complexity, specificity, and specified complexity. By your own scientists admission life is just a “happy accident” and the increasing complexity of life is simply a lucky toss of the dice. Statements like these reveal the ignorance about how the cell works, and the effects of randomness on the genome. Assuming pure chance is responsible for the enormous differences between plants, animals, and all other life is to consciously blind yourself to the facts revealed in the fossil record, and in the cell itself.

  97. #97 Ritchie Annand
    September 29, 2009

    The brians here don’t seem to know the difference between random chance, contingency and cumulative variation. By their own misinterpretations of what scientists say, life is purely, exactly random, and scientists must use that to ignore the laws of chemistry, feedback from the environment, and have “fitness landscapes” that never change and are just infinite cubes with a fine pink fuzz of near-zero probability at every point.

    These imaginary scientists also imbue chance with the ability to violate chance, because if there’s just chance, then it can never form anything that’s not random. Therefore, the brians must believe, this chance-violating Chance is like the scientists’ God.

    Wow, this game is fun! Any more tropes that I can play with?

  98. #98 justfinethanks
    September 29, 2009

    the increasing complexity of life is simply a lucky toss of the dice.

    There are zero scientists who think this. ZERO. And I defy you to name one. If the kind of evolution that scientists ACTUALLY argue for was anything like your and other creationists misunderstanding of it, I probably wouldn’t accept it either.

  99. #99 TBnsuch
    September 29, 2009

    The answer to one of the questions in my microbial pathogenicity class was ERVs. Nailed that one. Thanks Abbie!

  100. #100 ERV
    September 29, 2009

    TBnsuch– Microbial pathogenicity?? Oh no, are you sure it wasnt supposed to be prophage??? LOL! Prophages are like ERVs, but in bacteria, and they often code for virulence factors… Oh no! LOL!!!!

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.