news aggregator
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 16 2014,07:40)In a conversation about mitochondrial Eve, PaV decides he has a good reason to excuse himself from responding to anything wd400 might have to say:
Quote wd400:
From what I know, aren’t you about 30? That means you were what, ten years old when all this was going on, while I was in my forties. Do you want me to deny reality? Is that what you’re asking me?
It was in the papers. It was a topic of discussion. I remember it vividly. I waited expectantly for their results exactly because if there were multiple origins of “Eve” this would prove troubling. And then they were surprised when it turned out that there was only ‘one’ Eve. I remember all of this very well. We’re not in a communist state, yet; so I’m in no way going to deny reality.
Unless you’re older than forty, I’m not going to accept a word you say. Darwinists, like Communists, rewrite history to please themselves. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, wd400.
...
Also note the communism references - Tea party much, PaV?
UD link
You know someone has no reply when all they have left is ageism.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
In a conversation about mitochondrial Eve, PaV decides he has a good reason to excuse himself from responding to anything wd400 might have to say:
Quote wd400:
From what I know, aren’t you about 30? That means you were what, ten years old when all this was going on, while I was in my forties. Do you want me to deny reality? Is that what you’re asking me?
It was in the papers. It was a topic of discussion. I remember it vividly. I waited expectantly for their results exactly because if there were multiple origins of “Eve” this would prove troubling. And then they were surprised when it turned out that there was only ‘one’ Eve. I remember all of this very well. We’re not in a communist state, yet; so I’m in no way going to deny reality.
Unless you’re older than forty, I’m not going to accept a word you say. Darwinists, like Communists, rewrite history to please themselves. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, wd400.
...
Also note the communism references - Tea party much, PaV?
UD link
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2014,20:36)Gary why don't you head over to Dembski's old blog, http://uncommondescent.com/....ent....ent.com and see if you can find supporters who might promote your theory?
I could maybe send an email promising to not be tyrannical then register every 12 hours in hopes of getting in. But then again I have been very busy (hiding out) showing the Grid, Border and Place Cell model to AI and neuroscience experts, while finishing up the remaining IDLab4 work, and explaining where place avoidance experiments logically go after after neural data has been recorded and experiments need comparable data for pampered rats that like playing in an invisible shock-zone arena (not necessarily electric) for treats even though they get blasted with air or something for stepping in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is what I now have for accurate as possible description:
Quote Grid and Border Cell Attractor Network for navigation to memory mapped Places.
This is a demonstration program for the attractor network that is making it possible for the next Intelligence Design Lab critter to master the invisible moving shock zone arena test, which required a well designed hippocampus (construction began in the IDLab3) and related circuitry added to its Confidence system. It's the critter's internal world model where its path around obstacles is planned out, visualized. As in biology border cells are mixed into a population of grid cells that have a hexagonal array/lattice electrochemical field whereupon a similar network of place cells temporarily map relevant places into this spatial representation of the external environment. A cyan colored grid attracting location (food or other need) emits continuous AC waves, as in radio transmission. Waves will propagate from the grid attractor to the yellow with tan inside (critter) location that is then guided to it by the violet color vectors indicating head-direction angles to stay between for the shortest path around the border cell created barrier that blocks wave propagation, waves must propagate around it. How our brain or other cognitive system might produce and combine signals into such a spatial representation does not matter to this model. There are simply places with borders (boundary or barrier) mapped onto a hexagonal grid that behaves in a way that at each grid location is an angle vector pointing in the direction of what the critter is currently attracted to (if hungry then food locations propagate signal that changes angle vectors towards them). Borders can optionally include those of invisible hazards to avoid where beyond a certain point it gets a shock, or bumps into a transparent wall. Since this minimal code demonstration simplifies the understanding of what is most important to know in regards to how the upcoming IDLab4 works it made sense to start with this more simplified model, now ready for you to experiment with.
With it being important I keep up with a scientific revolution made of computer models like this what's up at UD is for at least right now something I should maybe not even get involved in. But they are welcome to say hi in this thread, where rules are all can talk as religiously as they want about the Theory of Intelligent Design, especially on Sunday. The more formal “science” happens in emails to scientists and forums where that would be out of place there, but fits right into this thread. This forum is for those who like to dwell on all the religious implications, so be it. What happens in this thread is an interesting way of diffusing the energy. I'm able to get away with what UD has a hard time with, that comes from trying to represent both science and religion in the same place.
The most important thing of them all right now is what is happening everywhere else, besides this thread. I have to stay focused on what already promotes itself that I'm already very caught up in the momentum of. If they want to help, then they can (metaphorically speaking) send food to the one most stuck with all the science work.
Board Mechanics
I have not seen the “Feedback” problem in a long time but now it is worse than ever:
_Topic Title_Forum_Topic Starter_Replies_Views_Last Post
_ _Uncommonly Dense Thread 5 (Pages 1 2 3 ..21 )Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet_After the Bar Closes..._stevestory_617_26380_Mar. 15 2014,02:16Last Post: Learned Hand
_ _hitesh langauge _Feedback_acfvpbugy_0_0_Mar. 15 2014,00:34Last Post: -acfvpbugy-
_ _cech leningrad's _Feedback_cfsosfsqg_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,23:45Last Post: -cfsosfsqg-
_ _Joe G.'s Tardgasm (Pages 1 2 3 ..244 )How long can it last?_After the Bar Closes..._Tom Ames_7300_868736_Mar. 14 2014,22:15Last Post: Henry J
_ _gnosticizing graupi _Feedback_outletnadou_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,21:55Last Post: -outletnadou-
_ _snarly ordway mizz _Feedback_outlethpqwr_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,21:17Last Post: -outlethpqwr-
_ _fairest vhayu gedda _Feedback_outletdadwq_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,21:17Last Post: -outletdadwq-
_ _elergie caudillo co _Feedback_outletaqtjg_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,20:59Last Post: -outletaqtjg-
_ _leaena sawbridgewor _Feedback_outletkctqr_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,20:56Last Post: -outletkctqr-
_ _A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin (Pages 1 2 3 ..326 )As big as the poop that does not look_After the Bar Closes..._keiths_9757_265454_Mar. 14 2014,20:36Last Post: stevestory
_ _perryville kalaazar _Feedback_outletncwol_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,20:04Last Post: -outletncwol-
_ _trepanned tolorance _Feedback_outletaftmx_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:55Last Post: -outletaftmx-
_ _hegglun conferernce _Feedback_outletdklvb_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:50Last Post: -outletdklvb-
_ _homies prana pokhar _Feedback_outletnxmkk_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:12Last Post: -outletnxmkk-
_ _factset breteche ma _Feedback_outleteikno_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:11Last Post: -outleteikno-
_ _morta gleamed karla _Feedback_outletwsqsr_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:10Last Post: -outletwsqsr-
_ _sarala vshorad smal _Feedback_outletocsur_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,19:07Last Post: -outletocsur-
_ _rito hoplite cholbi _Feedback_outletqldvw_0_0_Mar. 14 2014,18:50Last Post: -outletqldvw-
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Indeed, none of these Quote primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) will ever join a meeting which claims
Quote “The goal of REASONS 2014 will be to demonstrate the beautiful compatibility and synergy of the natural sciences and orthodox Christianity.”
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,23:03) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2014,21:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
Barry gave it to those three no-marks and passed Joe over. Poor Chubsy. Do it for the Lulz, Barry!
you beat me on that: Quote 117 Barry Arrington March 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm Quote GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privilegesAgreed. They now have them.
Some preview from a current comment:
Quote
116
Eric AndersonMarch 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Mapou @109:
Intelligent design has been defined by the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.” Period. That’s it.
Yes, that inference includes — by definition if something is designed — a reference to the existence of a designer, but it does not get into questions about the designer’s intent, identity, purposes, desires, motives, methods or otherwise.
These second-order questions may be interesting in their own right. And an affirmative answer to the design question may have implications for some of these second-order questions, but they are logically distinct and separate and must be recognized as such.
The fact that a forum like UD hosts various threads and contains comments and tangents, including from those who desire to delve into these second-order questions, has nothing to do with whether or not these issues should be kept carefully separate. I will be the first to acknowledge that the second-order questions are interesting, but they must not be conflated with the fundamental questions that intelligent design asks.
A tremendous amount of effort, time, energy, and spilled ink has been spent by the primary proponents of intelligent design to make sure everyone is clear on this point.
Unfortunately, as anyone familiar with the debate knows, and as UB has aptly pointed out, one of the primary ploys of anti-ID rhetoric is to conflate the question of design detection with secondary questions about the identity, intent, methods, motives, etc. of this or that putative designer.
It is therefore supremely unhelpful for anyone who is hoping to advance the debate or bring clarity to the discussion to conflate the two and claim that ID somehow includes or “merges” these second-order questions with the purely objective and scientific inquiry about whether design is detectable. It is extremely unhelpful for public perception, and it is wrong logically.
In other words: Quote So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. So, that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering, and four Colditz salads.
Indeed, none of the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) ever join a meeting which claims Quote “The goal of REASONS 2014 will be to demonstrate the beautiful compatibility and synergy of the natural sciences and orthodox Christianity.”
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2014,21:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
Barry gave it to those three no-marks and passed Joe over. Poor Chubsy. Do it for the Lulz, Barry!
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 14 2014,12:54)Doesn't look like Petrushka even knows that Joe exists.
Some people have all the luck?
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Gary why don't you head over to Dembski's old blog, http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com and see if you can find supporters who might promote your theory?
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 14 2014,19:54)Doesn't look like Petrushka even knows that Joe exists.
Let him know when you see him.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
A terrible idea:
Quote 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
Introgressive hybridization and the Galapagos finches
A branching pattern of variation was central to Darwin's concept of speciation. As one population of organisms follows one trajectory, another population may spin off in a different direction. When they are sufficiently far apart, they are considered to be separate species. The Galapagos finches have been regarded as exemplars of Darwinian transformation, even leading to the claim that one newly developed population is "behaving as a separate species". However, the most recent study, from one of the smaller islands (Floreana), concludes that the most likely cause of the disappearance of one of these species is hybridization.
"The authors suggest that hybridization may have been responsible for the disappearance of the large tree finch from Floreana, and that it may now be causing the remaining two species to fuse into one: speciation in reverse." (p.179)
Small Tree Finch (C. parvulus) from Floreana, about 4 years old. (Credit: Jeremy Robertson, source here)
Until recently, three species of tree finch were known from Floreana Island. Morphological differences noted were limited to body size and beak dimensions. Their names are the small tree finch, the medium tree finch, and the large tree finch. They are found living together in several other Galapagos islands. Now Kleindorfer and colleagues report that the large tree finch has disappeared from Floreana. The remaining two species are affected by hybridization.
"The analyses also revealed that individuals that do not fit into either population show intermediate characteristics, suggesting that they are hybrids. Consistent with the hypothesis of ongoing hybridization on the island, the authors observed females of the morphologically larger group (the medium tree finch) pairing with males of the smaller group, and they identified 15% of yearling males in 2010 as hybrids." (p.170)
Most of the researchers appear to think that their studies are probing the essence of speciation, and are providing the empirical evidence that supports the Darwinist claim that natural selection acting on inheritable variation is the key to understanding the origin of species. Peter and Rosemary Grant say that these studies are "Uniquely valuable in showing how speciation is done" (p.179). Kleindorfer et al. say that research programmes over "the past 2 decades have transformed our understanding of the ecological context of processes that underpin speciation" (p.325). With specific reference to the new findings, they write:
"The results presented here go to the heart of evolutionary biology: by what criteria do we denote species, and by what criteria do new species form or collapse? Here we present evidence that three sympatric species of Darwin's tree finches in the 1900s have collapsed, under conditions of hybridization, into two species by the 2000s. The proportion of yearling hybrid birds increased from 0% in 2005 to 14.6% in 2010, indicating a potential for elevated hybrid fitness in this system. [. . .] There is widespread agreement that the benefits of hybridization include increased genetic variance that facilitates novel evolutionary trajectories in changing environments." (p.334)
Whilst the new research is a useful contribution to knowledge, the results do not go to "the heart of evolutionary biology". The reason is that the important questions to do with diversity in the living world relate to the origin of biological information. What factors and processes are relevant to building novelty and complexity? The finches of Floreana Island are distinguished by very minor morphological differences, and the observed changes tell us nothing about the origin of new biological information.
Please can we have some realism from researchers adhering to the Darwinian paradigm. In the main, their research findings cast light on ecology but they are failing to touch the real challenges facing evolutionary biology. This assessment of their work is now appearing in mainstream peer-reviewed literature and in articles written by influential scientists. Here is a comment from Professor John Dupre, who is Director of the ESRC Center for Genomics in Society, University of Exeter.
"Further destabilizing evolutionary theory is the growing realization that many factors, not just the genome, determine an individual organism's development. Ironically, as the discovery of DNA's structure - initially lauded as the final act in the triumph of the new synthesis - led to a better understanding of genomes' functioning, it ended up weakening belief in their unique role in directing biological development. Those who long deplored the omission of development from evolutionary models - a decades-old critique made under the scientific banner of evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo") - together with the insistence that organisms' development draws on a wide variety of resources, have been vindicated.
"Recent developments in molecular biology have put the final nail in the coffin of traditional genetic determinism. For example, epigenetics - the study of heritable modifications of the genome that do not involve alterations to the genetic code - is on the rise. And the many kinds of small RNA molecules are increasingly recognized as forming a regulatory layer above the genome.
"Beyond undermining the gene-centered theories of evolution that have dominated public consciousness for several decades, these developments call for new philosophical frameworks. Traditional reductionist views of science, with their focus on "bottom-up" mechanisms, do not suffice in the quest to understand top-down and circular causality and a world of nested processes." (Source here. Related comments are here)
Of the greatest urgency is attention to educational textbooks. For too long, the Darwinists have maintained a hegemony that resists all critiques of their arguments. Typically, they present any questioning of their interpretation of the evidence as religiously motivated and anti-science. For the good of science, this situation has to change.
Species Collapse via Hybridization in Darwin's Tree Finches
Sonia Kleindorfer, Jody A. O'Connor, Rachael Y. Dudaniec, Steven A. Myers, Jeremy Robertson, and Frank J. Sulloway
The American Naturalist, Vol. 183, No. 3, March 2014, 325-341.
Abstract: Species hybridization can lead to fitness costs, species collapse, and novel evolutionary trajectories in changing environments. Hybridization is predicted to be more common when environmental conditions change rapidly. Here, we test patterns of hybridization in three sympatric tree finch species (small tree finch Camarhynchus parvulus, medium tree finch Camarhynchus pauper, and large tree finch: Camarhynchus psittacula) that are currently recognized on Floreana Island, Galapagos Archipelago. Genetic analysis of microsatellite data from contemporary samples showed two genetic populations and one hybrid cluster in both 2005 and 2010; hybrid individuals were derived from genetic population 1 (small morph) and genetic population 2 (large morph). Females of the large and rare species were more likely to pair with males of the small common species. Finch populations differed in morphology in 1852?1906 compared with 2005/2010. An unsupervised clustering method showed (a) support for three morphological clusters in the historical tree finch sample (1852?1906), which is consistent with current species recognition; (b) support for two or three morphological clusters in 2005 with some (19%) hybridization; and (c) support for just two morphological clusters in 2010 with frequent (41%) hybridization. We discuss these findings in relation to species demarcations of Camarhynchus tree finches on Floreana Island.
Speciation undone
Peter R. Grant & B. Rosemary Grant
Nature, 507, 178-179 (13 March 2014) | doi:10.1038/507178b
Hybridization can cause two species to fuse into a single population. New observations suggest that two species of Darwin's finches are hybridizing on a Galapagos island, and that a third one has disappeared through interbreeding.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2014,07:25) Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Whereas ID, on the other hand... um...
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 12 2014,07:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Demski not a good enough speaker? Doesn't he have a Sunday school class weekend child minding gig?
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:
Liars For Darwin
is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
