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

bFast:
Gary, I have been reading your post at 8, above. ‘Seems like you are saying that DI claims a theory, but doesn’t present a theory (bait & switch). Is this correct?
That's what it scientifically amounts to. In this case though the tactic is not working. Having a scientifically viable premise for a theory but no scientific model to base a theory upon is like poetic justice. There has to be useful scientific theory to explain how "intelligent cause" works or things are destined to go wrong. That is evidenced by Methodist leaders and many others ending up not liking what the Discovery Institute promotes. So even though it drains me to go on it's still much more scientifically self-punishing for the DI.GaryGaulin_{March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Groovamos I agree that what Stephen Hawking is saying is like "Automobiles are driven by the laws of physics" but it does not help to go equally overboard complaining about it being quite overimaginative. As far as the general public is concerned: to those who never read a single page of a book by any scientist and know little or nothing about ID you're one of its "science people". From my perspective it's like downing yourself. It should be easy enough for you to outdo what Stephen Hawking wrote by saying the same thing but more precise. That feeds the "scientific method" at work in this forum, has power.GaryGaulin_{March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Gary: Groovamos, complaining about poorly worded statements from “science people” is the sign of a childish whiner, not a scientist who would present testable scientific evidence to show why it’s poorly worded. Childish whiner? Like to get personal much? Is that all you guys have really, vituperation? Actually hate to break the news but having fun with this stuff, you know, big scientists with blinders on and plainly seen, pontificating on life for us regular folk so as to be able to feed our starving "brains" on their nourishment. Hardly whining, but loads fun while wining and dining. Let me put it this way. Hawking hardly slipped up here verbally. He says the same stuff in his most famous book. That the universe operates according to the "laws of science". The guy is stuck, however he plainly enjoys his role in a kind of priesthood when he is a philosophical dilettante as am I - but I can at least see what he is doing. I got halfway through the book 20 years ago and put it down. And I'm no dummy when it comes to science, just averse to the idea the the universe bows down to human ideas of what is or is not science. Or whether the universe even cares whether there is a such thing as science. But maybe the universe really is stupid, like materialists say it is while maintaining it created itself.groovamos_{March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Querius at #9:
In contrast, ID assumes that non-coding DNA has an unknown function in support of the overall design.
I would say that all in science assumed that "non-coding" DNA had an unknown function. Early on it was a major goal to discover what it is for, and how much is deactivated virus remain type "junk" that is supposed to serve no function at all or else it will still ail us. Autism was especially evidenced by changes in the non-coding regions, which also provided evidence for function the problem is that none knew what it was for. Science news that made it seem otherwise came from science writers trying to outdo each other in sensationalism, not the reality faced by those who have the job of scientifically figuring out how all that works. Meanwhile the BioLogic Institute and Center For Evolutionary Informatics was certainly not pumping out new information to explain how non-coding regions worked. Along with the green-screened lab full of antiquated equipment that was no longer used anymore the whole ID movement became a sad comedy that serious researchers paid little or no attention to. If I was there at the time of Ann's filming I would have had to ask whether they were purposely trying to make themselves all look foolish, or the plan was just the product of incredibly foolish thinking to begin with. That and others things combined to make whatever ID was said to be taken as foolishly ridiculous for such an organization to even assume without a testable model to back it up with. I do though see what others would call "junk" in the genome as treasure to help figure out what (via chromosome speciation) chromosomal Adam and Eve looked like and much much more. The seemingly useless repeats and all the rest at least takes up 3D territory space in the nucleus, helps shape its configuration. Taking it out might case no damage but it's still not exactly the same without. Especially long term, after thousands of generations of offspring. You can say that I do not see anything that deserves to be called "junk" except something gone wrong in something that otherwise is not that eventually causes genetic problems. Old memories help reflect on the past and deactivated parasites make wonderful wall trophies, where we can all be glad the little bugger's head is now on display for us (a trinity that includes the one being looked at that maybe never saw that part of itself so well before) to see through our own eyes. Even where there is plenty of "junk" at another level it's a treasure trove, yet that still qualifies as "junk" so it's a "one's junk is another's treasure" sort of thing where there are two equally valid opinions. I am sure Larry Moran and I could argue for days over what he would he would call junk but I just can't, thus arriving at different percentages where mine is expected to be much greater. This has me way on the same side of the issue that the rest of the ID movement went. But for the theory and I the amount of "junk" really does not matter and I am sure you would rather I be here writing this to you than wasting time adding to the clutter of estimates already there. Without a scientific model to explain how the non-coding regions work: what some in the ID movement assumed is just an unsupported personal opinion, not scientific evidence. As a result scientists did not take the opinions of the ID movement seriously. They instead mostly laughed or like Larry were just plain disgusted by it all. And where all that there is are assumptions the message gets boring real fast, to even those who for the most part agree. I would love to see what ID assumed to within reason become true enough for it to not have been wrong, but without a testable model to impress scientists with it's just one more of hundreds of predictions where at best ID is just one more drop in the bucket. The way the ID model has it all the "junk" that helps us at the multicellular intelligence level figure out where we have been through time was something waiting to be revealed, by science. The theory predicts that the inherent to our behavior "scientific method" is at work at our genetic level too, thinks like a scientist. It's then like too bad more "junk" was not saved, but oh well at least have that to work from. The thrill of for the first time seeing all of this about our past is first-most emergent from the genetic level intelligence that deserves the credit for figuring out how to see itself from the outside, via our eyes and brain that make it possible for that to happen. In a way something being worked on where what did get saved in the "junk" piles was being saved for a later date sort of thing, even where it happened by coincidence. In either case the model connects what we with our brain find to be treasure (by the way it shows us where we have been through time) to the genetic level that made it all possible, which for historical purposes makes all the "junk" part of the most valuable things of them all in the data. Without this connection "junk" can be defined as whatever can be removed without causing immediate harm. But where the "junk" collector is driven by the scientific method to express itself in a way that gives all that later purpose to us/it there is another way of looking at it where after billions of years success was finally achieved reading its base pairs using its multicellular level brain that then needs all of it to see where it has been through time. Anything that helps figure out our past is of value to the DNA based intelligent entity, even though it could have survived without it. Using another model that does not take intelligence being expressed upwards into consideration that is all simply discardable junk that serves no purpose at all to the DNA based entity. But where it records what we battled for viruses and other useful clues the information helps it battle against that from our level using medical doctors it's like who are we to even try to decide what is "junk" and what is not to it? In any brain past memories are important, even though we could live without them. The ID theory predicts the same applies at the genetic level, where it just so happens there is a part it could live without that is more a recollection of past events that some call "junk". Yet for our neural brain doing away with that "junk" means removing past memories and lessons learned while growing up, and we know that is not good even though we could still zombie around afterward. The cognitive based genetic model expects what has been called "junk" but it's a part of a DNA level brain where its past memories are likewise expected to be more like cherished and needed. It's not (at least yet) possible to say whether that level is in some way conscious of what it knows like we are, but that cannot be scientifically be ruled out. By theory it makes sense, even though our genetic level does not have to be conscious to be as extremely intelligent as it is. It's then a situation where Larry has to say whatever floats our boat, in that regard. It's a different way of looking at things but it's based upon David Heiserman's machine intelligence models and human cognition illustration by Arnold Trehub showing the same basics at work in our brain too. For what it's worth it's a whole new area of science where the word "junk" just does not work, don't need it. As far as science is concerned it's fair game to eliminate concepts like this that come from other models usually Darwinian that don't make sense anymore in a model for something else such as "intelligent cause". We cannot control what Larry calls "junk" but in this case we can this way control what ID has to say about it by saying nothing, ignoring it. So for me personally what "ID assumed" makes the word "junk" irrelevant to begin with, end of discussion. It's not even entertaining the concept it's making it completely gone, real quick.GaryGaulin_{March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Gary, I have been reading your post at 8, above. 'Seems like you are saying that DI claims a theory, but doesn't present a theory (bait & switch). Is this correct?bFast_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin, "The damage it has done to me personally is tragic" What do you mean? "bait-and-switch scam" What is the scam? What is the bait? What is the switch? It feels like you are trying to say something important, but exactly what I haven't figured out. I know I miss 75% of what is posted here, maybe I missed you clarifying this. However...bFast_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

GG, Both Darwinism and ID are paradigms. But which one has the greater benefit for science? There are many examples---here's one. Non-coding DNA was first assumed to be junk, a collection of "fossil" DNA left in the path of evolution. In contrast, ID assumes that non-coding DNA has an unknown function in support of the overall design. Currently, scientists are belatedly finding that more and more of this junk DNA has a function after all. Their previous label of junk suppressed scientific progress compared to a design inference. Notice that the ID paradigm applied to this example is superior to Darwinism regardless of whether there actually is a designer. -QQuerius_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Mung I'm talking about what all combined at UD is adding up to. Instead of all intelligently discussing cognitive models where a virtual critter has a self-description of itself in the world it perceives there is instead a thread to trash the scientific question of where that consciously arises in ourselves. All the hoopla over philosophy is just further avoiding of science work required to develop the scientific theory the Discovery Institute claims to be supporting the development of. Word from their best lab is that materialists should not expect a scientific model from them, which right away means that they do not have a scientific theory either. And in this thread it's the question of "Tyson wrong on duck sex?" What I am seeing is more like an adult version of schoolyard bullying of science nerds. It might attract plenty of attention but constantly throwing insults is just stone throwing behavior that even the Bible warns about being careful not get caught up in.GaryGaulin_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

GG: I would like to see a scientific argument for ID, instead of the usual religious extremism. There was nothing religious in what I wrote.Mung_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Groovamos, complaining about poorly worded statements from "science people" is the sign of a childish whiner, not a scientist who would present testable scientific evidence to show why it's poorly worded.GaryGaulin_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Hawking (on why we are here): The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to survive. We assign them a higher value. Don't you love that "science" governs everything? Why, that means that those science people are some REALLY special people. They can even tell why we are here. Yay for science people!groovamos_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Then Querius explain how "intelligent cause" works. The premise of the "theory of intelligent design" suggests that it best explains and predicts what "Darwinism" cannot. But where is this mysterious explanation? Anyone? --------------------------------------------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.GaryGaulin_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

The answer, of course, is that some species musta evolved to enjoy pain in sex, but other species musta evolved to enjoy pleasure in sex. All of which naturally "proves" evolution. Darwinism can explain anything, but successfully predicts nothing that's not already known. -QQuerius_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Mung why are you still unable to scientifically explain how "intelligent cause" works? I would like to see a scientific argument for ID, instead of the usual religious extremism. In regards to how the ID movement is now seen by mainstream religious leaders: http://www.inumc.org/postdetail/quick-to-listen-slow-to-speak-and-even-slower-to-get-angry-3699368#comment-2497031157 http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/denial-of-gc2016-booth-sparks-protest#comment-2499865149 You are only digging yourself even deeper into a situation that may lead to criminal prosecution of the Discovery Institute and its affiliates for running a bait-and-switch scam. The damage it has done to me personally is tragic, and at this point in time I believe that you and others are sick in the head and don't even care how many people are being destroyed by your deceptive tactics.GaryGaulin_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Living, thriving, organisms are not an argument against ID.Mung_{March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply