Tyson wrong on duck sex?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Rachel Feltman at the Washington Post:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, science aficionado. With over 5 million Twitter followers and two television programs, NDT probably has a wider audience than any science communicator in the world. He’s a brilliant astrophysicist and a fantastic spokesperson for all things cerebral.

Zounds. The planet just might make it through the catastrophe anyhow.

It started with this tweet:

From Feltman again:

Miriam Kramer from Mashable chimed in with ducks, because duck sex is literally the most terrifying thing on the planet and pretty much the only argument it takes to disprove intelligent design. More.

That would only be an argument against intelligent design if the system didn’t work well, but it does. Not that Kramer need offer a careful argument. The dwindling readership of formerly major media would be suspicious of any such thing. The readers know they are smarter than other folk because they know there is no design n nature. Raising s thoughtful question would endanger their Smart People status.

What the episode really shows is the extent to which Darwinian cultural thinking has become—at best—a mantra. More often, a broken record, and at worst a Wrong Answer Generator. (“Nope. Can’t be wrong. It’s Darwinian, see?”)

Well, as our tipster noted, “A lot of science writers are tweeting about duck sex now, so that’s a plus.”

Tomorrow, they will wake up and their multiverse will be as real as ever.

See also: Can sex explain evolution?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Thanks for the input there GG.... I guess that is to be expected given the recent feedback and past post checking I have done. I'll be sure to note, that for future reference I should not expect anything ground breaking from you nor anticipate an adult dialog. I don't consider you a troll though...you at least try to make a point...Trumper_{March 18, 2016
March
03
Mar
18
18
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Trumper, It's actually tempting to create such a program. Copy a bunch of self-standing paragraphs, add some metadata on subject, type (assertion, rebuttal, challenge, wild claims, examples), tone, a library of ad hominems, some categorized links, deprecating introductions, assorted questioning on the definitions of common terms, dismissive conclusions, and then assemble them in some kind of order--sorta like painting by color in words--along the line of ELIZA. Finally, personalize some of it to make it seem like it came from a real person, and then cut and paste it in and watch the fun begin! If you get cornered, blast them with personal attacks, accusations, and declare yourself the winner. Oh, I suppose you can create some sock puppets to agree with your AI and say how brilliant the AI persona is, and so on. They way you can tell you're dealing with one of these programs is that they never stay on topic for long, seriously consider what you wrote, or delve into any scientific detail. My personal rule is that as soon as they begin to resort to abuse, it means that they've conceded the argument and you can leave them to their vituperation. ;-) -QQuerius_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

GG – you seem quite astute there, considering you have offered little to further your position in the eyes of posters here…
No offense but the posters here do not have the many years of cognitive science related experience required to fairly judge a scientific model for explaining how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works. To be scientifically useful a model has to make sense and work as advertised for someone like this: http://www.camppeavy.com/ If you want an opinion from someone who matters then email Camp. He already knows about the ID Lab model and should not mind letting you know what he thinks of what I have in comparison to what you (don't) have for him to experiment with.GaryGaulin_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

-Q It is starting to look that way, I can't argue that. TTrumper_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

GG - you seem quite astute there, considering you have offered little to further your position in the eyes of posters here....yes including yourself. Hopefully you are still in deep thought about my previous post (but your last reply seems to supply everyone with ample evidence that you only grasp the simpler things). ...."Duh"... that must be how you raise the bar eh? I do have to hand it to you, you are indeed entertaining. TTrumper_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Trumper:
Since you “already know intelligence caused our design”…how is it that you “know” this?
Scientific model. Duh?GaryGaulin_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Trumper, Did you make any sense of the #35 post? It's simply a meltdown of completely random non sequitur and ad hominem attacks, a verbal ink cloud of vituperation released to cover an ignoble retreat. Are you sure it's worth it to write any further responses? Actually, there's a good chance that GG is simply an AI bot selecting paragraphs out of a library based on keywords just to waste everyone's time. I've read about a support tech doing exactly that, and I wouldn't doubt that it's been done here before. Think about it. -QQuerius_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

GG - your "scientific theory" cry is a nice fallback plan. Since you "already know intelligence caused our design"...how is it that you "know" this? I'm going to assume that you 'know' this by empirical evidences from the 100s of scientific studies done on DNA and the information coded w/in it....science will shed little light on "how" intelligence caused our design...or why. Let me help you out a bit: Lets take the scientific miracle of the Big Bang....or theory if you prefer. Scientific theory breaks down at any point before the Big Bang and the creation of time-space....it falls into conjecture and faith or educated guessing at best. Yet we mostly all agree that it occurred and approximately when because we have evidence that appears to support the existence of it. If you brush up on Godel's theorem....you'll see why answering your question is rather fool-hearty. Same can be said of me if I asked you to explain why the Big Bang occurred...scientifically you can't (if you are applying it correctly).....nothing in science can be used to measure anything before that event....we had no carbon atoms to test...radiation to decay, not even time for it, as that did not exist either. Basically it was something outside of our subset that we can't claim knowledge of or about....if we could that that would exist in our subset. and then peek at Godel's Ontological Proof ... or just save that bar for another time.Trumper_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Trumper I already know intelligence caused our design. You can stop telling me what I already know. Now raise YOUR bar a couple of notches and scientifically explain how the said "intelligence" caused our design. Show me a "scientific theory".GaryGaulin_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

GG - Let's see if we can raise the bar a couple notches on this discussion eh? I fully understand the fear that ID puts out there for most folks...that is the implication of God or a god. In reality though it does not purport to claim that, rather it points to an 'intelligence'. Now that intelligence can be far superior or sub-par...it matters not to the level of intelligence...just that the designed object has an affiliation (if you will) to that intelligence. Heck it could even be alien but it still would not matter. Design and information are detected...nothing to fear there. What intelligence caused such a design? Nothing to fear there either....unless of course your whole existence comes into question by having to wrestle with the difference between 'meaningful' and 'meaningless'.Trumper_{March 17, 2016
March
03
Mar
17
17
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

I can see that Querius proved to be shockingly deceptive. The kind of person everyone needs to stay away from. With the hundreds of hours of unscientific garbage they are in favor of forcing all students in Japan to waste time studying for homework their goal would destroy the Japanese economy too. It's scientists would have to leave the country or be subjected to daily insults about their being "materialists" practicing "scientism" and have to endure all the rest of their defamatory abuse.GaryGaulin_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Well said, Trumper. I think GG also demonstrated that he is immune to fact and logic, and is unwilling to admit to even the most obvious conclusion about Dr. Ohno's coining of the term, "junk" DNA for what most people now call non-coding DNA. Frankly, I'm shocked at his insensitivity against people of Japanese descent. Maybe he thinks that they are lower on the evolutionary tree, or maybe he's just admitting defeat by resorting to abuse of Dr. Ohno's name. At any rate, I'm not going to waste any more time. -QQuerius_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Testable model for how intelligent cause works: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/GaryGaulin_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Querius - Your post about Junk DNA should of been adequate for GG ... most of the readers got your point that a purely Darwinist view was (sadly some still) more harmful to the advancement of DNA research than what ID proponents views were/are. While materialists can't explain the origin of the information in DNA/RNA ... and Darwinism doesn't even attempt to (nor could it or is it equipped to) ID theory does this by tracing the digital code/information found in DNA backwards. If information creation is traced back to it's source we typically find intelligence behind it. Code is a perfect example of this in all it's sates. the same model is applied to DNA and thanks to ever improving biological advances we can see more and more evidence that points to the specified complexities which continue to shut the door on the egotistical faith in randomness.Trumper_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Gary,
GG: The “theory of intelligent design” requires you to explain the origin of human intelligence.
We seem to be talking past each other. In post #25 you wrote:
GG: What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?
Now, I'm trying to understand what it is that you have in mind when you speak of "a testable model for how intelligent cause works". I would like you to explain such a model to me. Therefor I'm asking you to describe a testable model for how (human) intelligent cause works in a simpler and uncontroversial case like a forum post. Unlike you (#27 #29), I don't see how my request is related to the question of the origin of human intelligence and the alleged obligations of ID.Origenes_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

But also: https://uncommondescent.com/education/philosophy-makes-kids-smarter-in-math/#comment-600565GaryGaulin_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

A forum post seems to be an apt and simple example of intelligent design.
So what? I already heard it enough times for it to be annoying to hear repeated. The "theory of intelligent design" requires you to best explain the origin of human intelligence as having an intelligent cause. I have other things to do, and I should not have to answer to you that is for you to explain to me. Enough said on that, I hope.GaryGaulin_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Gary,
GG: The premise of the theory of intelligent design requires explaining the biological intelligent cause(s) of the humans that write forum posts.
Not sure that I understand what you are saying. To be clear, I'm not asking you to explain the origin of human intelligence. I'm asking you to describe a testable model for how (human) intelligence works wrt forum posts. A forum post seems to be an apt and simple example of intelligent design. It's uncontroversial that forum posts exist and that they are intelligently designed. So again, can you describe a testable model for how (human) intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts? Please humor me. Your answer would be helpful for understanding what kind of testable model you are after.Origenes_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
Let’s start with something simpler. Can you describe a testable model for how intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts?
The premise of the theory of intelligent design requires explaining all the biological related intelligent cause(s) of the humans that write forum posts. But as a matter of fact yes collective intelligence can be detected in this forum by the science method being at work in it, while theory explains how humans work the same way. Starting with something simpler is another example of switching to something other than what the theory is supposed to explain. I should not have to answer you.GaryGaulin_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Gary Gaulin: What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?
Let's start with something simpler. Can you describe a testable model for how intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts?Origenes_{March 16, 2016
March
03
Mar
16
16
2016
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Querius:
So, am I right then about the origin of the label “junk” to describe what later became called non-coding DNA?
Regardless of what you are convinced he meant a "label" from some otherwise unknown guy is a waste of time to argue over, in the first place. These generalizations are not useful for explaining how intelligent cause works. Theory development that is supposed to be taking place goes nowhere. It's then just part of the switch, where the promise of a "scientific theory" is used as bait. From your perspective it can seem like a scientific issue but dragging others into arguments over old labels (you are best to ignore so they in time go away) is another example of how genuine scientific theory development is being avoided. I don't care what some Dr. Ohno said. His name alone spells trouble ahead. What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?GaryGaulin_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

Why Neil deGrasse Tyson Is So AnnoyingMapou_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

bFast:
GaryGaulin, I’ve been thinking about this post. Painful duck sex is presented as evidence that is contrary to what is predicted by Darwinism. However, it seems that painful duck sex, and in fact a whole lot of other heinous organism interactions (rabies comes to mind) are contrary to what is predicted by the “loving God” hypothesis, wouldn’t you say?
The hypothesis depends on how "loving God" is defined. God is not normally expected to work like Santa Claus. Since whatever pain may result has not stopped ducks from having sex either it still works. Humans would call that "hurt so good". I saw the evidence indicating that we and ducks have that in common. It's still no big deal in comparison to male honeybees who have to be more like suicidal. Duck sex or not: Darwinian theory remains true. All that is "loving" loves on.GaryGaulin_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin,
Even if you are right about how he used the word “junk” . . .
So, am I right then about the origin of the label "junk" to describe what later became called non-coding DNA?
. . . then it’s still semantic tripe to be complaining about something that was said in the early 1970’s by someone who is only famous for that.
I'm most definitely not complaining! I'm providing you with an important example of the crucial difference between asserting that something has NO function, i.e. "junk" of little value, and something of UNKNOWN function, with potentially profound value. This is not tripe. It's the difference between a Darwinian approach and an ID approach to research. Let me ask you this. Do you think it would be easier to get funding to investigate something labeled "junk" or something labeled as "a mystery that could change our understanding of genetics"?
. . . or as in disabled viral code it’s not supposed to function anymore.
What scientific evidence takes this bold assertion out of the realm of pure unscientific speculation? This is exactly what I'm talking about! This is a groundless Darwinian fantasy story. It is the opposite of science. Personally, I thought Dr. Ohno came up with two ingenious hypotheses to explain the presence of what he labeled "junk " DNA. Did you read what they were?
. . . something that was said in the early 1970’s by someone who is only famous for that.
Oh come on, that's a low blow. Why are you deprecating Dr. Ohno? He was brilliant, a pioneer in molecular evolution. It's just that he was hampered by his Darwinian preconceptions, which is my point that you're trying to evade. Don't argue. Think about it. -QQuerius_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Querius:
Yes, it was. Dr. Ohno wrote “junk” and he meant junk. Read Dr. Ohno’s paper (perhaps again), where he comes up with creative explanations of why there’s so much “junk” in human DNA.
In the second paragraph of what you linked to Dr. Ohno said:
Consequently, only a fraction of our DNA appears to function as genes.
It was later confirmed that this is true, only a fraction of our DNA functions as (protein coding) genes. The rest has other function, or as in disabled viral code it's not supposed to function anymore. Even if you are right about how he used the word "junk" then it's still semantic tripe to be complaining about something that was said in the early 1970's by someone who is only famous for that.GaryGaulin_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin,
Querius, the word “junk” is not supposed to be taken as meaning it’s all nonfunctional.
Yes, it was. Dr. Ohno wrote "junk" and he meant junk. Read Dr. Ohno's paper (perhaps again), where he comes up with creative explanations of why there's so much "junk" in human DNA. Why would Dr. Moran here defend the non-functionality of the majority of DNA so vigorously if he didn't believe that most of it was junk? Darwinism presupposes random change without innate purpose, ID presupposes design for some purpose. Darwinism is hard-pressed to explain the deterioration of the human genome, while ID considers it evidence of entropy. Darwinism is hard pressed to explain how slow reproduction rates and low populations, hence slow evolution rates have managed to keep pace with other organisms such as pathogens with vastly higher reproduction rates, population growth, and mutation rates. Darwinism has painted itself into a corner. ID considers all possibilities . . . what if genetic diversity is a product of gut bacteria, or there's perhaps direct sharing of DNA segments, or perhaps extinct organisms were what could be considered failed hybrid strains between genomes? Any of these are worth investigating as more information throws more doubt on a quaint, wooden-masted, 19th century theory that's outlived its usefulness. God may well have designed a spectrum of living things, only a few of which have managed to survive. But how was this accomplished? Even in Genesis, God didn't create all things ex nihilo, but made a progression of creation from the base to the exquisite (what did God create last?). Just some things to think about. :-) -QQuerius_{March 15, 2016
March
03
Mar
15
15
2016
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin, I've been thinking about this post. Painful duck sex is presented as evidence that is contrary to what is predicted by Darwinism. However, it seems that painful duck sex, and in fact a whole lot of other heinous organism interactions (rabies comes to mind) are contrary to what is predicted by the "loving God" hypothesis, wouldn't you say?bFast_{March 14, 2016
March
03
Mar
14
14
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Querius, the word "junk" is not supposed to be taken as meaning it's all nonfunctional. Especially with all the sensationalism hoopla that came from science writers, not researchers who were busy working on figuring out what it did. If the researchers assumed it had no function then why were so many busy searching for function? For me: How God the designer(s) works is being revealed by the scientific theory I am working on. My science is not at all hampered by the possibility of God as the designer(s). Note: As in Genesis there is an "(s)" after "designer" due to God being in the plural form and the theory explaining a trinity of coexisting intelligent entities together involved in the creation of living things and speciation.GaryGaulin_{March 14, 2016
March
03
Mar
14
14
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

GG,
I would say that all in science assumed that “non-coding” DNA had an unknown function.
But you'd be wrong. Dr. Susumu Ohno coined the term back in 1972. His original paper is a good read, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in tracing the path of discovery in this area: http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html Nevertheless, Dr. Ohno jumped to a conclusion based on his assumption of the Darwinian paradigm. Since then, the presumption of non-coding DNA as "junk" persisted and was defended vigorously in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. You might still be able to find posts from Dr. Moran's defense of the assumption here maybe a year ago. Anyway, Dr. Moran's defensive stance is a great example how the Darwinian paradigm has hindered scientific progress. As I said, the ID paradigm encourages investigation on the assumption of design, but takes no position on who or what the designer might be, if any. Unfortunately, the ideological revulsion against the possibility of God as the designer has severely hampered science in some areas. The recent hysterical reaction by the scientific community to the mistranslation of a Chinese expression is another sad case in point. -QQuerius_{March 14, 2016
March
03
Mar
14
14
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Is he brilliant? has he created his audience? NAW. These other writers saying he is ALSO are not brilliant. The curves are wrong here.Robert Byers_{March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply