Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

# Can Something This Crass Still Be Satire?

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/15/205441.php

"Ah, so you agree it makes sense to apply the filter to a DNA sequence." Certainly. Parameter bounding is easier for some important parameters. Random point mutation rates for instance. Number of possible permutations. Selection pressure. Etc. Etc. "And you agree that choosing which bit of which organism would be a challenge." Sort of. The hard part is finding tractible bits where all the variables can be bounded to everyone's (more or less) satisfaction. Current evolutionary theory, or Darwin of the Gaps as I like to call it, isn't helping much. How can the statistical mathematicians analyze the probability of flagella evolving by accident when the evolutionary biologists can't provide a detailed series of accidents by which it came about? At least with my pick for first run, the point mutation in hemoglobin that causes sickle cell anemia and immunity against malaria, we don't have to make the evolutionary biologists struggle to detail the series of mutations since there was only one mutation involved. When that's been done maybe we can find a series of five mutations with fitness advantages at each step of the way. The flagella, if an accident (which makes me giggle to think it could be an accident), must have had thousands of steps. DNA and ribosomes - millions or billions? That's so complicated it boggles the mind.DaveScot
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
DaveScot Ah, so you agree it makes sense to apply the filter to a DNA sequence. And you agree that choosing which bit of which organism would be a challenge. I can't see how you proceed from there, but it has to be worth a shot. The field is open for someone to shake the very foundations of the Darwinist edifice.Alan Fox
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
I'd like to see it done too. The problem IMO is sufficiently bounding the probabilistic resources in something as complex as a flagellum. I suggested as a warm-up exercise that it be applied to the point mutation in human hemoglobin protein that causes sickle cell anemia and at the same time gives protection against malaria. Even in this exceedingly simple case bounding the probabilistic resources will be difficult. Human and mosquito populations at the time of origination must be estimated, infection rates, lifespan differential, etc. etc. I expect that rigorous application of design detection will render an unsurprising conclusion of non-design in this case. The exercise itself would be a learning experience for applying design detection to more complex situations. Regardless of the state of design detection, the RM+NS evolutionary narrative has more holes in it than a wheel of swiss cheese.DaveScot
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
On topic, I have to agree the item is puerile.Alan Fox
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
DaveScot I think all the analogies (snowflakes, cards, balls, rocks are irrelevant. I'd like to see the EF applied to a biological system. After all isn't the claim that it proves ID rather than RM/NS. Take the E. coli flagellum. The recipe for its structure, energy supply, forward-reverse control, development after cell division is all encoded in its DNA. Presumably one can apply the EF to the DNA sequence and Bingo. Why hasn't it been done? Can it be done? Apart from you and John Davison, the few people I have noticed being banned at Panda's Thumb, were banned for obscenity. JAD used a Nazi slur(I am on record as advocating an unbanning for JAD after an apology) I believe he's banned here too.. You were banned before I knew of PT, but I think it was for egregious abuse. If you like I'll forward a request for a lifting of the ban, subject to a promise from you to adhere to the norms of civilized behaviour.Alan Fox
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
The "humor" in the author's suggestion is contingent upon knowing the anus' proper function. So, in order for this to be "funny," it must be the case that in reality anuses are not designed for books (or other things, but need not go there). Thus, ironically, the joke's humor depends on the human body being designed. He would have seen this if he did not have his head up his a**. Frankfbeckwith
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Maybe step two has some survival advantage for "the Fifth Dentist"... who knows?. Maybe step two in the procedure is a common practice for him... who knows?Daniel512
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Dave, you need to find one of those browser tools that hide your I.P. address and then post there until your heart's content.Bombadill
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Alan, Perakh simply doesn't get it. I don't know whether he's dense or dishonest but it's one of the two. A triangular snowflake fails a design inference because it has no discernable function. It exists to serve no purpose. A flagellum has a purpose. Proteins (most of them anyhow) serve a purpose. Ribosomes serve a purpose. Eyeballs serve a purpose. Snowflakes do not serve a purpose. Be a sport and relay this to Perakh since I'm banned from Panda's Thumb. The truth hurts and the administrators at Panda's Thumb couldn't take the pain I was dishing out to them. Pain such as Perakh is going to feel when he sees what a fool he is for trying to infer intelligent design in a friggin' snowflake.DaveScot
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Alan, I responded to that here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/325#comments. I'm still interested in your best judgement as to who is getting the better of the argument.taciturnus
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
For Taciturnus See http://www.pandasthumb.org/#entry-1479Alan Fox
September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
All I have to say is just keep talkin'. Davidcrandaddy
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
like i commented on the post linked here- it's nothing but a hate-filled childish rant. this is ignorance at its finest. and they wonder why the great majority of the american public don't even want to hear their arguments anymore? the arrogance, the snobbery, the know-it-all attitude, the hate-filled attacks, reasonable people are just plain tired of it.jboze3131
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
The potty mouthed moron "The Fifth Dentist" is the stereotypical kid that got beat up a lot in high school. You can just tell. He never had a girlfriend, has never been laid, is a latent homosexual, an abused child, and a social outcast in general.DaveScot
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
"That's all there is to it. You now understand the other side of the evolution debate. Good luck with your future scientific discoveries" This is not satire, this is how your average howler monkey over at panda's bum prepares himself to critique the "other side". Keep up the good work guys, and dont spare the vasaline.MGD
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
This isn't satire. I don't have a word strong enough for what it is but satire is at least somewhat funny. I take that back, I do have a word but modesty does not permit me to use it. But the truly sad thing is that it was written by someone who would probably consider themselves part of the intellectual class. Guess you really are in stage 2.Jon Jackson
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
Evidently so.Jedi Deist
September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT