In a message dated 10/9/2000 12:11:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >FMAJ: Can you provide us with the steps involved in the evolution of an
> intelligently designed system?
>
> >DNAunion: Sure, but I suppose you mean a biolgoical IC system
> specifically. I can provide you with great detail - or point you to where
> there is great detail - of practically every step in the design and
> creation of a novel protein: that is step-be-step intelligent design of
> biological macromolecules. If you are interested, there is (or at least
> was) a journal called "Protein Engineering": it you can't find that, just
> do searches at www.ScienceMag.org or BMN (biomednet) etc.
>
> >FMAJ: Looking forward to some calculations
>
> DNAunion: Don't need calculations when the researchers themselves explain
> every step in their design of a novel protein! I already gave you some
> general references above, and a specific reference to a Science article in
> another post. Do some research yourself for once. If I am going to do your
> work and teach you, I expect to be paid in some manner.
>
So you cannot reproduce their arguments? Your arguments that I should do your
footwork are hardly convincing.
> >FMAJ: Evolution is harldy that poorly defined.
>
> >DNAunion: So provide for us the single, accurate, and universally-accepted
> definition of evolution.
>
> >FMAJ: Species are somewhat arbitrarily defined but that does not make
> these terms useless. They have very distinct definitions in various areas.
>
> >DNAunion: So does intelligence. What's your point?
>
Are they used consistently where consistency is needed?
> >FMAJ: One has to avoid equivocation. That this can happen with terms like
> evolution only strengthen my warnings.
>
> DNAunion: But you said earlier that "evolution is hardly that poorly
> defined". Here you seem to accept my statement that it is, in the sense
> that there is no single, accurate, universally-accepted definition of
> evolution. Whaz up wi' dat?
Nothing. Just that equivocation is easily committed.
>
> >FMAJ: Does ID include natural selection as an intelligent designer as
> follows from the thesis?
>
> >DNAunion: As far as I know, that conclusion is Elsberry's only (with
> people like you just parroting it over and over ad nauseum): that
> conclusion has not been stated by Dembski and/or Behe, and it goes against
> Darwin's definition of NATURAL selection (if there truly is INTELLIGENCE
> and DESIGN involved).
>
So show that Wesley's argument is wrong. But that's something you are
refusing to do. Why should it be stated by Dembski or Behe? Wesley'sa rgument
stands on it's own strength or weaknesses. Show the weaknesses..
> >FMAJ: Of course not. Wesley's conclusion shows that there are some real
> problems with ID. That Dembski and Behe have not reached that conclusion is
> irrelevant.
>
> DNAunion: Of course it is relevant. Why? Because you need to begin labeling
> anti-ID conclusions and anti-ID statements as just that, and not as ID
> conclusions or statements. If you are quoting and referencing Elseberry,
> then it is he whose position you are stating, not Behe's and Dembski's: do
> you understand that yet?
>
Sure. So show that Wesley is wrong. I have been clear that I am using
Wesley's position. So where did he go wrong?
> >FMAJ: Wesley's conclusions stand or fall on their own merrit.
>
> DNAunion: Of course - but his conclusions are not necessarily 100%
> compatible with the statements of Dembski and Behe, especially since
> Elseberry reaches conclusions that Behe and Dembski do not. That is why you
> need to start attributing your material correctly.
>
I attribute my materials correctly. Shame on you dear.
> …
>
> > DNAunion: By the way, Darwin stated the term SPECIES was "wishy washy"
> (i.e., disputable). So shouldn't his theory of the origin of SPECIES - note
> the word - have been discarded immediately?
>
> >FMAJ: Non sequitor.
>
> >DNAunion: Yes, Mr. Stuck Record.
>
No rebuttal.
> >FMAJ: But just out of curiosity, what did Darwin say and where?
>
> >DNAunion: Find it yourself!
>
> >FMAJ:So not only a non sequitur but also an unsupported assertion.
>
> DNAunion: No, you're just too damned lazy to read Darwin's book yourself. I
> suggest you do so as you seem not to know a thing he said in it (and you
> keep asking me to teach you for free).
>
Ad hominem following a non sequitor and unsupported assertion. You surely are
piling them up today.
> >DNAunion: You asked me elsewhere to support what I said Darwin said about
> natural selection, I took 15 minutes or so finding the passage in the book
> where he discussed it, then another 10 or so typing and correcting typos in
> my text: and what did you do? Clipped it out, replaced it with something
> like [irrelevant] (or was it your new catch phrase, "non sequitor"?). What
> I said about Darwin's statements (that the term species is ill-defined) is
> correct - it is in his book: you go find it.
>
> >FFMAJ: Avoidance duely noted.
>
> DNAunion: Your laziness, ignorance, and acceptance of your level of
> ignorance are duly noted.
>
Ad hominems duely noted.
> >FMAJ: Two unsupported assertions now.
>
> DNAunion: Nope, facts that I refuse to do your homework for, as you have
> already proven yourself to be an "unappreciative" person (I already went to
> some lengths to support one of my statements for you, and you spent two to
> misclassify it as irrelevant, when it dealt directly with the topic at
> hand).
>
Non sequitor. I should not have to do your homework.
> Whether I support my statements or not is immaterial to whether or not they
> are facts - they are. If you want to
Unsupported assertion. They are only fact if you can support them.
reduce your level of ignorance, go buy the book and read it. Or, send me a
"pay to the bearer" instrument for $20 and I
> will be glad to spend the time looking up the material that supports my last
> statement. So which is it: are you too lazy to learn or to cheap to expand
> your knowledge?
>
Nice ad hominem dear.
> >FMAJ: The steps needed to build a web are determined by strict rules and
> details that are followed. Such rules are also well captured in algorithms.
> Simple algorithms can generate some quite intricate "designs".
>
> For instance
>
> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm
>
> "The Fibonacci series is a sequence of numbers where each number is the sum
> of the two previous numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... It is called after the
> thirteenth-century Florentine mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci who first
> defined it. A surprising fact is that the Fibonacci series can be found in
> the arrangement of leaves on the stem of higher plants. In the great
> majority of plants with spiral arrangement, the arrangement conforms to
> Fibonacci numbers [6]. Now this looks a perfect case of design [10]. Is it
> indeed a case of design according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter? Is it a
> contingent system? "
>
> >DNAunion: Where are the probability calculations? He is referencing
> Dembski's EF right? For example, how long is the Fibonacci sequence
> followed in the arrangement of leaves - 1, 1, 2, 3 or is it 1, 1, 2, 3, 5
> or does it go on for a total of 100 or 1000 numbers in the sequence? What
> is the probability of that sequence arising by purely random chance? Is
> there any REASON that the sequence MUST occur - are there vast many other
> "live" options that are excluded?
>
> >FMAJ: Do you understand the meaning of the question mark? How would one go
> about deriving probabilities? How is Dembski's EF applied outside the realm
> of some very simple examples?
>
> DNAunion: Okay, so you were just posturing, full of hot air, and making no
> point when you said "Simple algorithms can generate some quite intricate
> "designs"" and then presented the quote to back it up. I understand now.
>
Simple algorithms do generate intricate designs as I showed. Nice ad hominems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 01:29:28 EDT