With unclear results. You be the judge. Here is the comment stream:
Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.
As for the Biologic Institute, they list 4 publications from 2014, 2 of them in Bio-Complexity: in the same time period I published 8 papers. That’s really not a lot for the investment put in: there are 5 people listed as working at the Biologic Institute: 3 of them are on one paper from this year, the other 3 papers are by members with affiliations elsewhere. Over the last couple of years the results seem similar. Frankly, any research institute should be able to do better than 1 paper for every 5 scientific staff.
Note: Commenters have weighed in on various claims made by various other commenters, but the News desk was principally interested in the claim about lack of productivity. We’d heard elsewhere that the rate at Biologic Institute was not unreasonably slow, given the constraints of private funding and targeted hostility. So…
Bob O’H at 3, I ran your comments by a researcher who said, “If Bob O H is part of a large group, and gets his name appended to all papers produced by that group he could have 8 papers. No single researcher can turn out that many at a time by himself. Not in biology.”
On the other hand, you could be unusually productive. You may perhaps be willing to provide a list of the papers.
In any event, it seems that the Biologic Institute list contains only some of the publications of some of the fellows (“a selected list”) – presumably the ones of most general interest to readers and supporters.
News – my list of papers is here. Most of it is done in collaboration, but I’m only one person, whereas the Biologic Institute is much larger than me. I’d also point out that the BI is “a large group”, so I’d expect it to be producing many more papers than I do.
If the list is only of select publications, can you get a complete list of publications from them?
So the knowledgeable person was requested to look at the linked list, and got back.
Bob O’H at 16: I ran your list by someone who knows a bit of the background of BI, and their response was:
He’s ducking the issue. He has many more than 5 collaborators. I can’t even say how many without looking up the papers themselves (when there are more than three they get listed as et al). So he needs to compare apples to apples. At the BI, 2 papers are divided by 5 people to his 8 papers divided by at least 23 people.
If he wants to count apples.
We’ll see what he comes up with next.
Of course he doesn’t want to count apples! He wants to discredit and obliterate the Biologic Institute.
Like many of Darwin’s followers, he tends to inflate his own cred and disparage that of others. Here’s a prediction in no danger of being disconfirmed: No matter what happens in the coming years, that’ll continue. And there are always “aren’t I good?” girls, anxious to applaud.
As you can tell, it’s a slow news weekend. Luck of the dates this year. Got some good stuff coming up very soon though.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I’d like to congratulate Bob on his publication record.
Example of one of his papers…
Still measuring faces in Germany
Does this methodology work better than Craniology?
Turned out so well for Hitler and eugenics. Certainly good way to krank out a paper I guess.
Fortunately a short, stout, often depressed, cigar-smoking Churchill and wheelchair bound Roosevelt defeated the socialist, eugenics-crazed fanatic of Germany. An ironic twist of fate.
I’d like to postulate young, good looking people get more lead roles in Hollywood by measuring their faces from headshots.
Can I get a research grant?
news:
We’d heard elsewhere that the rate at Biologic Institute was not unreasonably slow, given the constraints of private funding and targeted hostility.
So excuses aside, the claim that ID has contributed to scientific knowledge is false, at least with regard to published papers.
Some very interesting papers — the one about Finnish faces especially.
Okay, I’m a newser, not a scientist. Are you people telling me that the guy’s job is measuring faces?
Well, let’s face it … 😉
I don’t know what velikovskys is talking about. The question raised, and discussed, concerned relative speed of paper production, not impact.
We can certainly discuss impact. One constraint is that there are a number of ways of measuring it.
We can count on Darwin’s followers to disagree with any measurement that demonstrates impact.
So we can measure it, but not include them in the conversation at the same time.
Incidentally, the eugenics gibe at 2 risks Godwin’s law unless Bob O’H confirms that his intent is eugenic in character. Perhaps he will tell us later.
#5 News… a bit of sarcasm ; -) duly noted.
ID – Intelligent Design as operational science has been contributing to science 24 hours a day around the world for thousands of years. From shepherd’s breeding sheep to Mendel, to today’s latest engineers of cellular technology.
One does not need to believe in Darwinian religious history(Tree of Life) to perform operational genetics or design new cellular functions, hearts, organs or to study regenerative medicine. The Design Heuristic is the more profitable, productive paradigm going forward…
Design, Design, Design
news:
I don’t know what velikovskys is talking about. The question raised, and discussed, concerned relative speed of paper production, not impact.
And the reason that that speed is important is it’s relation to the impact ID has had which is Bob’s point which you included in your post.
” Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.”
Datcg:
One does not need to believe in Darwinian religious history(Tree of Life) to perform operational genetics or design new cellular functions, hearts, organs or to study regenerative medicine. The Design Heuristic is the more profitable, productive paradigm going forward…
Except for the fact there is no design heuristic without knowledge of what is designed,how the design is implemented and some knowledge of the capabilities of the designer.
I don’t think Bob was “preening” himself — he didn’t present himself as being unusually productive. He just asked where the impact was, and it seems to be absent.
First, it’s not difficult to check my papers: the link I gave has links to all of them. I had 33 collaborators. The BI lists 13 people on their page, and these are all capable of collaborating with other researchers (and indeed on the 4 papers listed for the BI in 2014 there are 11 authors, 5 of whom aren’t listed as members of the BI). Now, I don’t think I’m especially productive: perhaps more so than most at my level of seniority, but also perhaps less. However, the BI has 5 members listed as working at the BI, plus 8 more associates members. So they have 13 times as many people as me, including 3 senior staff. I would expect them to be producing more papers than I am in a year: there is so much more man-power and financing (I just get my salary and a couple of thousand euros for travel).
it was pointed out that the BI might not be listing all of its papers. If not I’d hope someone would be able to produce a complete list, so we can get a better comparison. I hope for the Disco Institute’s sake that the list on the BI’s pages isn’t complete: if my institute had been as productive as that we would have been shut down.
We have picked up and are using their ideas.
Also if ID is right then with respect to biological organisms there is more than matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. I would think that would be very important, vital even, to biology.
velikovskys:
True and ID’s methodology helps in making that determination.
That is patently false. We still don’t know how the Antikythera Mechanism was designed and built. And we know someone was capable of designing and building it because it exists and can be examined.
In regards to science itself, Darwinism is useless as a heuristic in science,
,,,besides Darwinism being useless as a heuristic in science, Darwinism has been a major roadblock to scientific discovery. No where is this ‘roadblock’ to scientific progress more clear than the claim by Darwinists, despite much experimental evidence to the contrary, that most of the genome is junk.
The following paper is a prime example of Darwinian dogmatism trying to derail objective, experimental, science.
So according to the preceding paper that was published by Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, a massive study which found widespread functionality for practically 100% of the supposed ‘junk’ DNA, (by direct experimentation no less), functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only ‘conservation of sequence’ in a presupposed evolutionary lineage determines what is functional in the genome???,
Thus, apparently, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true from the outset will the preceding Darwinists be willing to accept that a given sequence of ‘junk’ DNA in the gemone may be functional!,,
Experimental evidence apparently takes a back seat to Darwinian presuppositions in ‘Darwinian science ‘for them!
What they are doing is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your premise’ and is in fact completely antithetical to the whole scientific endeavor.
The most trusted theories in science, such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, got to their exalted status by passing rigorous experimental challenge.
Darwinists, on the other hand, as is made evident with the Junk DNA fiasco, try to protect their theory from any rigorous experimental challenge.
I would have never believed that ‘science’, as it is practiced by Darwinists, could become so perverted if I had not seen the episode play out myself.
Whereas, the presupposition of Intelligent Design, instead of being a roadblock to scientific research as Darwinism currently is, provides a fruitful catalyst for scientific discovery. Especially in regards to biological research:
And Intelligent Design, instead of trying to make experimental evidence secondary to theory as Darwinism does, invites attempts to try to falsify its primary claim by experiment (as other robust theories of science do):
Moreover, Darwinian reasoning, to the extent it has influenced (i.e. impacted) the policies of any government, has had a tremendously horrible impact on society at large.
In fact, although everybody with an ounce of common sense knows that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was objectively evil, Darwinists, in their materialistic worldview, lack the ethical moorings necessary to condemn the holocaust as objectively evil:
Well, what have you got to say for yourselves, Darwinists? After BA77’s demolition of your Darwinian fantasising.
Bob O’H at 11 is doubtless superior to his colleagues and an inspiration to us all. Happy New Year all!
bornagain77 (quoting): Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.
Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.
Axel: Well, what have you got to say for yourselves, Darwinists? After BA77?s demolition of your Darwinian fantasising.
We stopped reading after the first example, which was a misfire.
Darwin’s Doubt is #1 in the Paleontology category at Amazon. I’d say that ID books are making quite an impact. No?
as to Zach’s claim, (which is directly contrary to the claim that Dr. Skell himself gave):
Actually antibiotic resistant bacteria, contrary to what Zach falsely believes to be true, and although touted as proof for Darwinian evolution for decades, turns out to be proof of Intelligent Design.
First and foremost, antibiotic resistance is gained by the bacteria by the bacteria degrading a preexisting molecular function instead of ever evolving a new molecular function:
This degradation of preexisting molecular function in antibiotic resistant bacteria is clearly seen in the ‘fitness cost’ to the bacteriaa:
In fact, contrary to Darwinian claims, antibiotic resistance is found to be ‘hard wired’ into bacteria:
Thus, contrary to Zach’s claim, and contrary to what is popularly believed, antibiotic resistance offers no support for Darwinian claims (since no new molecular functions are generated in gaining resistance) and in fact antibiotic resistance offers evidence for Intelligent Design since antibiotic resistance is found to be ‘hard wired’ into bacteria for as far back in time as has thus far been measured.
Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are NOT intimately connected to Darwinian nor neo-Darwinian evolution.
You should have known better than to try to put one over on BA77, Zack ! Let that be a lesson to you… And all you Darwinian evolutionaries.
bornagain77: antibiotic resistance offers no support for Darwinian claims (since no new molecular functions are generated in gaining resistance)
New “molecular functions” are not required for evolution to occur. What made you think that?
In any case, the development of modern antibiotics is very dependent evolutionary theory because of the evolution of drug-resistant bacterial strains.
Zach, I don’t play equivocation games with the word ‘evolution’. Breaking preexisting molecular functions in order to gain an advantage is certainly not the evidence you need to substantiate your claim that molecules can randomly turn into man.
It would be nice for you to be honest and admit at least that much! But alas, I given up hope that you ever will be honest with anything, not even something as simple as that!
Moreover, the development of new antibiotic drugs, and other drugs that fight infection, is far more dependent on accurately measuring, and utilizing, the ‘LIMITS’ for what unguided material processes can do (such as Dr. Behe has done in his book ‘The Edge Of Evolution’), than it has ever been dependent on the unsubstantiated atheistic belief that all life arose via unguided material processes.
Here is research of a promising new antibiotic that could, singly, or perhaps in combination with other antibiotics, surpass Dr. Behe’s 2 protein-protein binding site limit, i.e. ‘The Edge of Evolution’:
Of related note to developing an antibiotic that is beyond Dr. Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’, ‘drug cocktails’ seem to surpass the 2 protein-protein binding site limit that Dr. Behe found for the ‘edge of evolution’
Moreover, the multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’, being beyond what unguided material processes can accomplish, that Dr. Behe has elucidated:
Thus contrary to what you may believe Zach, effective drugs are effective precisely because the drug(s) take advantage of what unguided material processes CANNOT accomplish, not because of what unguided material processes are falsely imagined to accomplish in the unfettered imagination of Darwinists.
Of note: since I know you like to waste hours and hours trying to argue over pointless facts, I will respond no more to you regarding this thread.
The bottom line appears to be:
* The BI, a significant source (the only source) of ID ‘research’ produces a grand total of 4 papers per year.
That’s it. The new paradigm that is taking over evolution and revolutionizing Science produces 4 papers per year. 4 papers per year. In the whole world, 4 papers per year.
On another thread I asked again and again: what has ID produced, and got blather, obfuscation, and oil-soaked flaming straw-man red herrings.
So we are left with … 4 papers per year.
More interesting than the BI’s publication records are their findings they didn’t publish: Ann Gauger reported on the Wistar II conference that evolutionary processes do indeed work to make bacteria overcome experimental constraints set by her.
Oh, I just realised I should respond to this:
This is false. One of the things that intrigues me about ID is that its researcher want it to be a science, so we should be able to watch them build it up from its proto-science beginnings. I would expect the Biologic Institute to be a part of that, and I’m actually supportive of it endeavouring to do that (even though I’m not an ID supporter).
I’m actually disappointed by the Biologic Institute and its output. Far from wanting it obliterated, I actually want it to be stronger, and to be doing and publishing more research, of a high quality.
In any case, the development of modern antibiotics is very dependent baraminology because of the evolution of drug-resistant bacterial strains and the bacteria are still bacteria.
bornagain77: I don’t play equivocation games with the word ‘evolution’.
Good. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. That’s how the term is used. There is a huge amount of literature on the subject, such as Luria–Delbrück 1943.
bornagain77: Breaking preexisting molecular functions in order to gain an advantage is certainly not the evidence you need to substantiate your claim that molecules can randomly turn into man.
That wasn’t the claim, but that the development of modern antibiotics depends on an understanding of how bacteria evolve. Please try to keep track of the conversation.
Moreover, not all resistance mechanism involve “breaking” something. Some resistance works by attacking the antibiotic, for instance. Or by pumping the antibiotic out of the cell.
Zachriel,
In post 29, you state “bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics”. In the sense that “bacteria change and show variety, some of which changes and variations are resistant to antibiotics”, this is a truism that no one on either side of this conversation denies.
However, in post 18, in response to ba77’s claim that antibiotic resistance in bacteria receives no insights from Darwinian evolution, you said “Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.” Now, either you were attempting to contradict him by equating change in bacteria to Darwinian evolution, or you were making a pointless aside.
This is why ba77 told you he doesn’t play equivocation games with the words “evolution” and “evolve” – you obviously do. Research into the “evolution” of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is unrelated to, and doesn’t benefit from, whether “Evolution” is an accurate description of the historical development of life from a single common ancestor.
It’s interesting how much of the debate over ID is interconnected.
If ID is science, then it cannot be a “god of the gaps” argument. But ID is a “god of the gaps” argument, therefore it cannot be science.
Perhaps the argument is better stated:
Science deals in testable hypotheses.
Unguided evolution ideas as yet do not include testable hypotheses.
Unguided evolution is not yet science.
OTOH Intelligent Design posits testable entailments, ie something that can actually be tested and either be confirmed or falsified.
Bacteria evolving into bacteria is what is posited by baraminology. Geez, do try to keep up.
Bob O’H:
Right now the IDists who are also researchers just want to be able to conduct scientific research and be able to reach a design inference if that is what the evidence leads to, which it does.
One of the things that intrigues me about unguided evolution is that its researchers want it to be a science, so we should be able to watch them build it up from its proto-science beginnings. And we are still waiting.
Mung @31 –
In some ways that encapsulates the problem i have with ID. At the moment it looks nothing more than a “god of the gaps” argument. To some extent that’s OK: you have to start somewhere. But the next step has to go beyond that, and to start making positive predictions about the designs it detects (e.g. what sorts of thing are designed, or who is the designer). ID, though, never gets that far.
drc466: In post 29, you state “bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics”. In the sense that “bacteria change and show variety, some of which changes and variations are resistant to antibiotics”, this is a truism that no one on either side of this conversation denies.
That’s what we mean by evolution, more particularly, Darwinian evolution is the selection of inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, which certainly applies in the case of bacterial antibiotic resistance.
drc466: However, in post 18, in response to ba77?s claim that antibiotic resistance in bacteria receives no insights from Darwinian evolution, you said “Turns out the development of antibiotics and the evolution of bacteria are intimately connected.” Now, either you were attempting to contradict him by equating change in bacteria to Darwinian evolution, or you were making a pointless aside.
Yes, Darwinian evolution, meaning evolution by natural selection.
Bob, ID includes testable entailments. And the designer is a separate question.
I really don’t understand this griping about collaborators. Of course Bob has many collaborators. The vast majority of studies these days are collaborations.
Why do the people of the BI collaborate.many people here are quick to point out how many researchers are ID friendly. And many point to publications all the time that are supposedly pro ID. Heck, there are folks that claim virtually all of Sys Bio is ID research. Maybe the question that should be answered is not the scant output of research papers but the inability to collaborate other than in this terribly incestuous way.
Looks like BI is right on target. You know what famous scientist JBS Haldane said about it:
“Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
-J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
Which is sometimes rephrased as 5 stages of a scientific theory:Total Nonsense. 2) Dangerous Nonsense. 3) Perversely false; 4) Trivially true; 5) Obviously correct.
I think we are now debated BI papers as (4). In a few short months, we may even make it to (5).
Looks like BI is right on target. You know what famous scientist JBS Haldane said about it:
“Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
-J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
Which is sometimes rephrased as 5 stages of a scientific theory: 1)Total Nonsense; 2) Dangerous Nonsense; 3) Perversely false; 4) Trivially true; 5) Obviously correct.
I think we are now debating the BI papers as if they were (4). In a few short months, we may even make it to (5), and all this talk of “productivity” will be moot. And mute. Mutatis mutandis.
Zachriel doesn’t understand evolution:
No, Zachriel, natural selection eliminates, it does not select. THat is basic stuff and Zachriel gets it wrong.
Natural selection has proven to be impotent, which means evolution by natural selection is impotent.
How about instead of a few short months we give it a year and see if we are at 5) by then. And as for your assessment, I would think that the majority of researchers still considers the BI papers to be stuck at 1).
Even if Haldane’s progression were true, ID being around 1–3 doesn’t mean it will progress to 5. Homeopathy, ESP and astrology have all been in the 1–3 zone for some time and I doubt any will progress. As Carl Sagan said.