59 Replies to “Download the Cornell papers free here:

  1. 1
    Joe says:

    The link doesn’t seem to work- perhaps they have already stopped us…

  2. 2
    julianbre says:

    Still works fine Joe. Right click on pdf’s and save as.

  3. 3
    owendw says:

    I feel like I just made off with the whole cookie jar – but thanks for enabling me anyway.

  4. 4
    Joealtle says:

    It was too complicated for Joe, you obviously should have made it much simpler.
    Its ok Joe, get ’em next time.

  5. 5
    Joe says:

    Must be a browser issue- all I get is a message that says I cannot be connected to that webpage

  6. 6
    turell says:

    Joe: If you have a windows firewall allow incoming Domain messages and private profile messages to get the Cornell documents

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Joe pop me a line by email. KF

  8. 8
    nightlight says:

    How come it is free?

  9. 9
    Joe says:

    Chrome worked- thanks- and IE worked if I went to the home page and entered the DOI minus the #t-toc

  10. 10
    turell says:

    You have to change the properties in windows firewall to allow domain and private profiles

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    The Membrane Code: A Carrier of Essential Biological Information That Is Not Specified by DNA and Is Inherited Apart from It – Jonathan Wells – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: ,,In 1985 Ronald Schnaar wrote, “There appears to be a code on the surface of each cell that specifies its function and directs its interactions with other cells, a code in some ways comparable to the genetic code carried on the DNA molecules inside each cell.” The “letters” of the cell surface code to which Schnaar was referring are sugar molecules. A few monosaccharide building blocks can produce the enormous diversity of “words” needed to identify the many different kinds of cells in a complex organism, Schnaar explained, because “each building block can assume several different positions. It is as if an A could serve as four different letters, depending on whether it was standing upright, turned upside down, or laid on either of its sides. In fact, seven simple sugars can be rearranged to form hundreds of thousands of unique words, most of which have no more than five letters. (This alphabet is even more efficient than the genetic code: the four nucleic acids that constitute DNA — guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine — can be connected only front to back, like roller coaster cars.) So, not only are sugars in the right place to serve as the alphabet for the cell-surface code, they have the requisite structural flexibility too.” Schnaar concluded, “It may be that as much control over the cell’s fate, and as much of the language of life’s unfolding, reside on the cell’s surface as in its nucleus” [63].,,
    Membrane patterns in ciliates are known to be heritable independently of the information in DNA sequences, and there is evidence that some cytoskeletal and membrane patterns in the cells of multicellular organisms can also be inherited apart from the DNA. Taken together, the data suggest that embryo development is not controlled by DNA alone, and thus that DNA mutations are not sufficient to provide raw materials for evolution.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0021

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Related notes: Glycans: What Makes Them So Special? – The Complexity Of Glycans – short video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXez_OyNBQA

    Glycans: Where Are They and What Do They Do? – short video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZ61TxnxKo

    This Non Scientific Claim Regularly Appears in Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Papers – Cornelius Hunter – April 2012
    Excerpt: ,,,Indeed these polysaccharides, or glycans, would become rather uncooperative with evolution. As one recent paper explained, glycans show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,” for they “occur in a discontinuous and puzzling distribution across evolutionary lineages.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....larly.html

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].

    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012
    Excerpt: The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25.
    http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    ‘It’s becoming extremely problematic to explain how the genome could arise and how these multiple levels of overlapping information could arise, since our best computer programmers can’t even conceive of overlapping codes. The genome dwarfs all of the computer information technology that man has developed. So I think that it is very problematic to imagine how you can achieve that through random changes in the code.,,, and there is no Junk DNA in these codes. More and More the genome looks likes a super-super set of programs.,, More and more it looks like top down design and not just bottom up chance discovery of making complex systems.’ –
    Dr. John Sanford
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....dM_s#t=31s

    Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – 10 minute video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/

    Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information – Jonathan Wells – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism – the genotype-phenotype mapping – cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152].
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0009

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:3
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    LECRAE-IT’S YOUR WORLD – song

    Excerpt lyrics – He uses intelligent design
    Like eloquence confined
    Life elements assigned by
    Elohim my God
    He left his fingerprints
    You thinking that our origins are coincidence
    Our symmetry alone makes
    Evolution look ridiculous
    And since our complexity is more than irreducible
    The fact our design had a designer is irrefutable
    I use science too to make a statement like this
    The existence of an atheist proves God exists
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS5fYvyy5Y8

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64961.html

  14. 14
    Graham2 says:

    Slightly OT: In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information

    This seems to have sunk without trace. Does anyone know anything about it ?

  15. 15
    Graham2 says:

    Oh. never mind.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Conference proceedings, at Amazon. KF

  17. 17
    Graham2 says:

    My point was that there is some confusion about exactly what is the connection with Cornell University. It seems as though they rented a room from the school of Hotel Administration or something.

  18. 18

    Graham2 @17:

    Fair question. It would be interesting to know what, if any, involvement Cornell had. Not that it matters to the substance of the materials, but it would be good to not assume more university involvement than warranted.

  19. 19
    DiEb says:

    2011 Cornell Conference on Biological Information sounds better than 2011 Gathering on Biological Information in the Statler Auditorium of the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University. The former may be legally correct (or has anyone from the university made a complaint yet?), but it makes it easy for critics of Intelligent Design to accuse the proponents of the theory to be willfully misleading, even without reading the proceedings.

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Who cares about any connection to Cornell? It’s the DATA and EVIDENCE, not the place, that is important.

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    Hey DiEB-

    Critics of evolutionism take it for granted that proponents of evolutionism will always be willfully misleading. 😛

  22. 22
    DiEb says:

    Who cares about any connection to Cornell?

    “Download the Cornell papers free here”
    “Yes, the Cornell conference did happen and yes you are free to read the papers”
    Cornell Conference on Biological Information: Proceedings Now Available”

    As for the DATA and EVIDENCE, I’m currently trying to make head or tails of the section “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search”: at the moment, I’m not impressed…

  23. 23
    lifepsy says:

    lol, evolutionists already out of the gate with their petty diatribes. DiEb why even pretend you’re going to objectively assess the arguments in those papers?

  24. 24

    The only connection to Cornell is that the room was rented from the School of Hotel Administration. No department at Cornell, nor the administration as a whole, had anything to do with sponsoring the event. Indeed, several departments have gone on record as decrying the apparently deliberate attempts by the organizers to characterize the event as somehow an “official” Cornell function. The point here is not that the data or evidence matters, but rather that the organizers of the event have deliberately misrepresented the event as somehow being a “Cornell event” rather than an event that happened “at Cornell.” If the only thing that matters is the data and the evidence, why even mention that the event took place at Cornell? Doing so under these conditions tends to confirm peoples’ suspicions that the organizers and supporters of this event are lying about its connections with the university, and therefore that they may also be lying about their work.

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    DiEB:

    As for the DATA and EVIDENCE, I’m currently trying to make head or tails of the section “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search”: at the moment, I’m not impressed…

    LoL! No one but the choir is impressed with evolutionism…

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Allen McNeill:

    If the only thing that matters is the data and the evidence, why even mention that the event took place at Cornell?

    Because it did take place at Cornell, duh.

    Doing so under these conditions tends to confirm peoples’ suspicions that the organizers and supporters of this event are lying about its connections with the university, and therefore that they may also be lying about their work.

    Wow, that sounds a lot like baby whining, Allen.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    I have been looking, and I find that there is progress with especially the Marks-Dembski research programme. Inasmuch as this is a mathematical modelling analysis linked to widely understood concepts of phase or configuration spaces, this can be easily confirmed not to be “lying.” As to saying that an event occurred at Cornell is a misrepresentation — and remember this is a dialogue of various sides to the matter not an endorsement of any one side of a controversial question, my inclination on too much observation is that there would have been some other thing found as a hook to object to while not dealing with the merits. In addition, it seems to me that there is a clear agenda of marginalisation that lies behind many of such objections. To my knowledge going back to student days and beyond [Urbana 67 I think it was played a key role in the history of the Charismatic renewal in Jamaica thus the wider Caribbean, for instance . . . ], it seems that it is a common practice to name conferences after where they are, without inference of endorsement, e.g. the Inter Varsity US conference has been “Urbana” for decades, without meaning that UOI Urbana endorses IVCF. The 1993 Palo Altos [sp?] meeting of early thinkers on design theory comes to mind as a similar parallel. Objecting to the venue being part of the name, suggests to me an underlying deep seated hostility that is implicitly calling for locking-out, i.e. censorship; this is not like there being an Al Qaeda conference at Cornell, so knock it off. Then, let us lay the side issue to one side and deal with the matter on its merits. Why not start with the Dembski-Marks paper? KF

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Wiki on the Urbana conference:

    >> Urbana is a major Christian missions conference sponsored by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship for college students. This event is designed to inform Christian students about current issues around the world that missionaries face, to declare the biblical mandate for cross-cultural missions, and motivate them to participate in missions. The first Urbana was held in 1946 in Toronto, and since then, it has generally been held every three years. From 1948–2003, Urbana took place at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with the primary venue after 1963 being the Assembly Hall, the school’s basketball arena. Because of insufficient space at the University of Illinois campus, Urbana 06 was moved to St. Louis, Missouri, at The Americas Center and the Edward Jones Dome. Urbana 09 and 12 were held at the same location. >>

    In short even after it is not at Urbana anymore it is Urbana!

    KF

  29. 29
    DiEb says:

    So, let’s refer to it as the Ithaca Conference on Biological Information

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    “Cornell” is just an identifier for the conference. Ya see there have been other pro-ID conferences…

  31. 31
    scordova says:

    Allen!

    Thanks for visiting every now and then. Many regrets that we’re on opposite sides of this discussion. Were it not for the ID debates, I’m sure you and I would have many pleasant exchanges.

    I hope you and yours are well.

    sincere regards,
    Sal

  32. 32
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @Dieb:

    Usage of the location the conference was held in the official or inofficial title of the conference is pretty common.
    And no one claimed that Cornell sponsored this event. So what is your problem?

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    Considering they claim association with logic(!) and truth(!), Joe, it seems rather comical that they should suffer a bout of the vapours, in case any lustre from that Ivy league university, founded, of course, as I expect all of them were, by a Christian, and, necessarily, a Creationist, should rub off on the conference!

    Yes, life is just one damn thing after another, Forrest! And that box of chocolates and its assortment of flavours just keeps on getting bigger ‘n bigger.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    LoL! Most people couldn’t name any Ivy League schools beyond Hahvahd and Yale. And they think “Cornell” is some type of dishware, cookware, GMO corn or even a small callus on the foot.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    Axel, Actually Cornell is the exception. KF

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. MacNeill, it seems someone wrote a book with you in mind:

    What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should) [Kindle Edition] – Stephen Joseph Williams
    http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-.....B0084Y3Q14

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    Not according to Wiki, KF, though we know it can be wilfully wrong.

    Yes, he was ejected from the Quakers for marrying outside their church, and, understandably in the circumstances, he ensured that it was to be non-sectarian. But I can see no indication that he renounced or lost his faith, as a result. As regards church attendance, if his wife was a church-goer, he might well have attended her church, at least, from time to time.

    Although that is speculation, it would not be an unwarranted assumption, it seems to me, in view of the ethos of ‘respectability’ businessmen of the day sought by adhering to the conventions of polite society; and for a while afterwards, if it comes to that.

    ‘Respectability’ has always played a key role in the upper reaches of power. Although New Age, rather than Christian, I believe – unless it’s changed in recent decades – the Freemasons are hot on divorce – in the sense of being against it.

    I noticed recently Machiavelli made mention of the importance of respectability in the upper reaches of power, in one of his ‘oeuvres’. But I can’t sue him for plagiarism.

  38. 38
    Axel says:

    Thought your diminutive form of the demotic rendering of ‘cornell’, in your #33, as a ‘SMALL callus on the foot’, a refinement that added greatly to the humour, Joe.

  39. 39
    Axel says:

    ‘The information age has begotten turmoil. It seems that the more information we have, the less peace the average person has. To many, an impression has developed that modern science has disproven the existence of the metaphysical realm, and doomed us to a sterile, pointless wandering in the wilderness of minutiae.’ … from the ‘book description’ on the page advertising the book, What your atheist professor,’ etc

    I found that absolutely hilarious to read, Philip. Especially the second sentence, which seems to characterize the atheist. The metaphysics points in one direction, and they simply don’t want to know.

    Well, an atheist, quite a popular chap, who used to post on here not long ago, loved metaphysics or some strange arcane version of it no-one else was privy to.

    His posts seemed to consist of concatenations of endless, highly erudite sophistries. I know he drove Philip mad, because characteristically of many of you, he tried to understand his convoluted disquisitions. You would never think of him as an eristic debater – he was too charming about it all – yet he always had an answer, which I’m sure no-one understood, or they’d have been able to nail him on some point.

    But to revert to that hilarious quote from the book you recommended (which I must buy), there is, in fact, a thoroughly deliberate, ‘louche’ rationale behind it all, namely, and in a nut-shell, Chomsky’s ‘manufactured consent’. They need to confuse the public, but not their own atheist myrmidons in white coats, holding test-tubes, with a packed lunch and a thermos of tea on the bench, etc… (Sorry about the ‘thermos’ business. I can’t help myself any more, if I can slip the word in somewhere).

    They thrive on conflicting nonsense, which they ‘sense’, they have this ‘hunch’, this ‘intuition’, is ‘counter-intuitive’. I kid you not. Multiworlds? ‘Bring ’em on!’ Stuff they can really get their teeth into, you know?

    I have a ‘hunch’, call it an ‘intuition’, if you like, that they’re as close to being brain dead, as makes scant difference. Can’t put my finger on any actual reason for thinking so, of course….

  40. 40
  41. 41

    And yes, Cornell was founded by a Quaker from upstate New York (his old homestead is a short drive/long walk from my hometown) and is indeed the only Ivy League university (perhaps the only world-class university, currently rated #14 in the world) to not be originally associated with or funded by a particular religious sect. There are Quaker colleges (Bryn Mawr, Earlham, Guilford, Haverford, Swarthmore, Wilmington, etc.) but Cornell is not one of them.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Well please do hold forth Dr. MacNeill and if, in being one who considers himself a ‘Child of Light’, you are indeed trying to say you are not really an atheist in the strict sense of the PZ Myers breed, then confess freely and openly for all to hear how you believe God, or perhaps a universal spirit, to have created the universe and all life in it. I for one would welcome such a deep confession,,, but alas I’m reserved in believing your sincerity in all this and suspect that this is merely another PR gimmick on your part,,, especially seeing that your ‘friends’ linked on your website are atheist (many hard core). Go figure.

    2 Corinthians 11:14
    And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

  43. 43
    Timaeus says:

    Allen MacNeill @ 24:

    You are being silly. “Cornell conference” is just handy shorthand for “the ID conference that took place at Cornell University.” It’s no different from referring to the “Pajaro Dunes conference” which got ID started (which doesn’t imply that the management of the Pajaro Dunes resort endorses ID, but only that the conference took place there).

    What would you have ID people employ for a handy historical reference to the conference amongst themselves: “The conference on biological information that took place in 2011 at a conference center that just happened to be on the campus of an Ivy League university in New York State which we don’t want to name for fear of seeming to appeal to that university’s prestige”? That would be just stupid. You’re being oversensitive.

    What’s eating you, Allen? I thought you were more sensible than this. Does it perhaps rankle you that a highly respected Cornell geneticist was involved in the conference?

    Would you have been equally upset if Carl Sagan had organized a conference in the same room, under the same terms, the theme of which was that everything “from molecules to man” can be explained by blind chance and necessity, and if after the conference was over, the people attending it referred to it as their “Cornell conference”? I suspect you would look the other way. Just as the faculty at Iowa State would look the other way if any of their astronomers wrote popular science books endorsing a meaningless universe in which there was no God, but denied tenure to one of their number who wrote a popular book arguing for cosmic design — even though that astronomer had a citation record exceeding anyone else’s in his department.

    Darwinists worry about the most trivial things, and have the most ludicrous double standard when it comes to propriety. There’s nothing wrong with the label “Cornell conference” as an in-house label for ID people referring back to the event.

    I think you have bigger things to worry about, Allen. Like the fact that Shapiro, the Altenberg group, etc., are shredding your beloved neo-Darwinism into little pieces. I suggest you concentrate on making some original contributions to evolutionary biology, rather than complaining about the name some ID folks used for their conference.

    Oh, and by the way, before you suggest that the people at the Cornell conference might be “lying about their work” I would suggest that you *read* their work, which is now available online, and will soon be published in book form.

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    I stand corrected. Interesting.

  45. 45
    Alan Fox says:

    An acquaintance of a friend here, a retired ex-pat, is fond of mentioning his former occupation thus:

    I used to teach at Oxford

    The person in question in fact taught in a preparatory school (a private school for young children to the age of 11) in the Oxford conurbation.

    Acceptable shorthand? Disingenuous? I leave it to the reader to decide.

    PS @ Sal. You sound like you are stalking Allen MacNeill. 😉

  46. 46
    Timaeus says:

    Alan Fox:

    Apples and oranges.

    “I used to teach at Oxford” — when stated without qualification — will be taken to mean, by the average English-speaker, “I used to teach at Oxford University.” Therefore, if the person does not explain the context, the person is deliberately misleading.

    “In a paper read at the Cornell conference” — when stated without qualification — will be taken to mean “In a paper read at a conference which took place at Cornell University.” It does not automatically mean “In a paper read at a conference *run by* Cornell University.” Anyone who knows how universities operate understands that universities often let out their space for conferences of all kinds, conferences organized by people who in many cases have nothing to do with the university. So there is no dishonesty in the phrase itself.

    Of course, someone could say or imply that a particular conference was sponsored by or initiated by Cornell University when it wasn’t, and that would be misleading. But merely to refer to “the Cornell conference” on an ID web site, to inform people who were there (or who missed it) that the papers are now available, is not misleading. It’s simply a handy quick reference.

  47. 47
    Gregory says:

    Right, and its not like the IDM wouldn’t try to buy academic credibility that it doesn’t have, is it? 😉 And of course *nobody* thinks the DI is not actually a PR machine, fitted with lawyers, disguised in ‘scientific’ clothing, do they? 😛 😉

    To me, it’s funny that Michael Behe openly admits (even in jest) that his own mother doesn’t believe him when it comes to the IDism he is pushing in public, let alone that he is required to give a disclaimer that his local Lehigh Department rejects IDT.

    So, are they not supposed to refer to it as the “DI Summer Seminars” (which show Lee Strobel’s film “The Case for Christ” at its events), but rather as the “Seattle Pacific” gatherings, y’know, that Protestant Liberal Arts University?

    The pants are too big for what the DI tries to wear.

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: What I find ever so revealing about the studious avoidance of substance in the thread, multiplied by the sort of poisonous projections that are so obviously not demanded by the facts, is that the problem with design theory is not so much that it is trying to buy credibility but that — absent the datum lines, marginalisations, career bustings and the like of the reigning evolutionary materialist orthodoxy — it is seriously credible. Hence the poison, polarise and shut up/down at any cost, scorched earth tactics that are ever so common. KF

    PS: Worse, there is a certain undeniably distinguished Cornell prof in the conference . . . who happens to be a Young Earth Creationist.

  49. 49
    Joe says:

    OT-

    I noticed on Allan McNeill’s blog there was another poll conducted pertaining to evolution and creation.

    Why is it that these polls NEVER ask the right questions?

    The question should NOT be “do you accept the theory of evolution blah, blah blah. The question should be “do you accept taht accumulations of genetic accidents can produce not only the diversity of life but also the diversity of molecular machinery found in living organisms?” And if you answer “yes” please provide a testable hypothesis for such a claim.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    Joe: Good point, we need to highlight a lot more like this. I am sick of strawman caricatures. KF

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    I guess it’s too much to expect that the pollsters actually be educated in the thing they are trying to poll.

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note: Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Articles and the “Insurrection” Against Journal Impact Factors
    – Casey Luskin – June 13, 2013
    Excerpt: Last month the journal Science published a news article, “In ‘Insurrection,’ Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal Impact Factors,” noting that:
    “More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual’s work. They say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where the studies are published.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73181.html

    i.e. Such an obvious point should have been needless to say, but truthfulness always trumps prestige in science. Are any Darwinists listening?

  53. 53
    Timaeus says:

    Gregory:

    So you *are* still watching Uncommon Descent! That means that you must be aware of my exposure of your false statement in #73 of:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-from-cnn/

    Yet you haven’t issued a retraction. Are you incapable of admitting a factual error?

    I’ll look for your answer in the appropriate place.

  54. 54
    Gregory says:

    timaeus, like I said there:

    “In voice or on video/TV, you wouldn’t last 5 minutes as an opponent, timaeus; your game would be up as hollow talk.”

    And you simply won’t rise to the challenge because you are scared to speak in public, to defend IDism with your person, not just in black-and-white on an ID-friendly blog. Your rhetoric is see-through, timaeus, but you think you are wearing clothes when you speak amongst nodding ideologues.

    The reality is, you suffer from IDist Expelled Syndrome. Please seek professional help. You might still recover.

    Repeat:

    Right, and its not like the IDM wouldn’t try to buy academic credibility that it doesn’t have, is it? 😉 And of course *nobody* thinks the DI is not actually a PR machine, fitted with lawyers, disguised in ‘scientific’ clothing, do they? 😛 😉

    One has to repeat such things to timaeus because he doesn’t *hear* very well (it might be a physical problem).

    That kind of story in the blockquote above apparently isn’t available in timaeus’ (non-IDM) cave-world, hiding from the light of society, untenured, outcast as he is.

  55. 55
    Timaeus says:

    Gregory at 47:

    Which of the papers from the Cornell conference have you read?

    In which of them do you find religious premises, arguments, or conclusions?

    In which of them do you find anything other than pure scientific discussion?

    With which of them do you have scientific disagreement?

    And if you haven’t read any of the papers and aren’t interested in discussing their contents, why are you participating on a thread about the papers delivered at the Cornell conference?

  56. 56
    Gregory says:

    timaeus, your claim of ‘pure scientific discussion’ is a joke, it’s a fraud. It is laughable because you personally don’t even defend IDT as a ‘purely scientific theory’. You just spin rhetoric in defense of a theory that is obviously *very personal* to you, though you deny this at any opportunity.

    I chimed in here (while maintaining my general leave) because of the totally absurd defense you made, which too clearly displayed Expelled Syndrome in action as yet another sad instance of ‘big-little-tent IDM reality.

    #24 is spot-on in the first sentences, even if I might (and probably do) disagree with the author’s worldview.

    That you are so oblivious as to ignore the politics of the attempt to gain academic credibility by the IDM, even though you claimed that you write in the field of politics (!, last published 2006) as a western religious scholar, is frankly astounding. No academically oriented person should follow the lead of your example, as from what I’ve seen.

    I’ll probably have to repeat it a hundred times:
    “In voice or on video/TV, you wouldn’t last 5 minutes as an opponent, timaeus; your game would be up as hollow talk.”

    Expelled Syndrome as of yet, timaeus, does not seem to have inspired in you the courage to face a neutral playing field. Such is behaviour typical of defenders of the ideology that is now know as IDism.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Gauger just highlighted one of the proceedings papers on BI’s website:

    Explaining Innovation By Ann Gauger – June 13, 2013
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....innovation

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Explaining Innovation By Ann Gauger – June 13, 2013
    Excerpt: It is widely believed that the first cells were much simpler than cells today. Estimates for the size of the smallest possible genome range from 250 to 400 genes. This hypothetical minimal genome would have included the genes necessary for cell division, replication, transcription, and translation, but not the genes necessary for making amino acids, nucleotides, vitamins, and many other metabolites, because it is also widely assumed that at least in the beginning, cells would have acquired these metabolites from the environment. So even if granted the existence of a first minimal cell, the challenge remains to explain how subsequent cells might have evolved the ability to make things like amino acids and vitamins for themselves, as nutrients disappeared.
    In a recently published open access paper called, “Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design,” Doug Axe and I reviewed how well neo-Darwinism has met this challenge.,,,
    ,,,Summary: What’s needed to explain metabolic innovation is foresight, investment, reapplication of old concepts as well as development of new ones, and the purposeful top-down organization of parts to serve the function of the whole. Not the kind of thing an unintelligent process can deliver, is it?
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....innovation

  59. 59
    Timaeus says:

    Gregory:

    I just read your 54 and 56 above.

    They fail to respond to my request in 53 above.

    Are you going to admit that you made a gross factual error in the other thread, or are you going to follow your usual practice of simply dropping discussions where you have been convicted of error, and hoping no one will notice?

    Gregory, there is a difference between intellectual life and political life. The politician’s maxim is “Never publically admit error.” The true philosopher’s or scholar’s maxim is: “Always publically admit error as soon as you are aware of it.”

    It’s evident that you follow the way of the politician rather than the way of the philosopher or scholar.

    I will not respond to you here again, but will look for your admission of error on the Warfare thread, and your response to my other refutations on the Chomsky thread.

Leave a Reply