|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/20/2008 1:01:00 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The letters editor said that Science was "not likely to publish creationist letters." This is not a complete denial. Just a recognition that most creationist fulmination really adds very little to actual scientific discussion.
It's not necessarily a complete denial, but it does suggest unfair discrimination.
quote:
But there's a more important problem with your statement. The letters editor is only the gatekeeper for the letters section.
It's difficult to absolutely prove unfair discrimination, but there is substantial evidence for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/20/2008 1:02:08 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
The stongest non-strawman criticisms are already part of the science curriculum-if not at elementary or secondary, then at college and graduate levels.
If this were the case then there is no need for so many evolutionists to lobby to have criticisms and opposing views censored. That's just what they did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/20/2008 1:52:53 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That's not to say the second committee wasn't bias. The fact that the first committee was bias and tried to cover it up supports the overall bias of the secular community and there is substantial evidence that he was discriminated against.
What evidence is that? Are they covering up all of this grant money he has brought in? Are they hiding the number of graduate students he has graduated? Are they hiding the research he has done while at ISU?
None of these things exist. The lack of productivity is sufficient grounds to deny tenure.
But maybe I should take a page from the creo playbook. The next job I get I will do nothing. No work at all. And I will also tell them that I am a creationist. When it comes time for me to get a promotion and they deny me that promotion I will claim it is because of my creaitonist views. Does that sound about right, Betta?
quote:
Not true
Are you saying that a professor in the Astronomy and Physics department that does not graduate students, gets a paltry sum in grant money, and does not have an active research program should be granted tenure? Are you serious? Is this really what you believe? A simple yes or no will do.
quote:
I have given plenty of evidence to show that the secular community is bias. There is no reason to believe the timing was a coincidence. There was nothing wrong with his research before it was known that his research supported YEC. After, they rejected it and made up arbitrary reasons. There is no evidence otherwise.
There is no evidence to substantiate your claims. The conclusion of 12 reviewers was that Gentry's work was faltering, and he (like the other 50% of grant applicants) was denied funding.
quote:
Gentry did, and he got no problems receiving grants before it was known his research may support YEC.
But Behe has not, right? How can you claim discrimination against Behe when he isn't even doing research, submitting papers, submitting abstracts to meetings, or applying for grants?
quote:
Yes it does. It reflects the culture of members of the secular community to ensure that only their views be tax funded.
And in keeping with being stewards of that tax money they should only give tenure to those who are able to get grant money, graduate students, and have active research programs.
quote:
More lies or delusion.
Coming from the master of lies and delusions I should be proud.
quote:
The difference is that string theory doesn't necessarily contradict naturalism.
Cdesign proponentists say the same thing about ID.
quote:
ID is falsifiable, UCD is not.
I bet you mumble that in your sleep, don't you.
quote:
It has already been shown that the reasons were insufficient to deny him.
Insuffecient? Are you kidding me? He pulled in less than 10% of the grant money that his peers did. He does not have an active research program. He is not graduating students. He is not collaborating with his peers. Why in the world would they grant this man tenure? Why? If these are not sufficient grounds for tenure denial, then what is?
quote:
ID is good science,
Then show us this good ID science. Show us ID peer reviewed papers. Show us ID grant proposals. Where is this good science?
quote:
They blacklisted him from tenure.
If you Gonzalez really wants to prove this then he should solve all of the defencies listed as the reasons for his denial of tenure. That list includes things he should be doing anyway as a professor at a research university. If he is denied tenure after fixing these problems then I will gladly agree that he has been blacklisted. Denying tenure for being unproductive is sufficient grounds for denial of tenure, and only someone blinded by their own self-importance would think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 10:08:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Aside from the fact that there is substantial evidence that anyone who questions evolution is dishonestly discriminated against (as I have already shown), I wanted to comment on another uncommon descent thread (but, for some reason, my comments haven't made it through, at least not yet).
quote:
Dogmatic Darwinists are working overtime to bully the Governor into vetoing the act, going so far as to enlist activists from other countries to urge American’s to tell Governor Jindal to oppose the act.
Pressure on Gov. Jindal to support/deny academic freedom
________________________________________________
My comment
quote:
I’m glad that you people are finally paying more attention to what many committed naturalists do in order to suppress academic freedom and open inquiry. This kind of misbehavior is exactly how UCD and other naturalistic philosophies acquired the status they have. They never used science to acquire this status, they used politics (something that ID advocates and Creationists have been avoiding for a very long time), and it’s time we fight back.
...
Another thing we should do is encourage newspapers, local, regional, national, and international TV and radio news stations to cover the issues fairly and to allow prominent ID advocates , creationists, and critics of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies an equal opportunity to discuss such topics on their news stations. Topics to discuss include the unfair discrimination that scientists who questions evolution receive and reasons that criticisms and opposing views of naturalistic philosophies should be discussed in classrooms. It seems like the media is often unfair to those that may question naturalism, often misguiding the people with misinformation. The reason for this is probably (at least in part) due to darwinian lobbying of the media influencing what they say. We need to be more proactive in ensuring that all sides of the issues are covered fairly.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 10:18:25 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 12:32:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Aside from the fact that there is substantial evidence that anyone who questions evolution is dishonestly discriminated against (as I have already shown),
That's a lie, as I have shown.
If Gonzalez's lack of research, lack of graduated students, lack of grant money, and lack of time at the telescope are not grounds for denyin tenure then what are sufficient grounds for denying tenure? Answer the question.
quote:
Dogmatic Darwinists are working overtime to bully the Governor into vetoing the act, going so far as to enlist activists from other countries to urge American’s to tell Governor Jindal to oppose the act.
Teaching bad science is not academic freedom. It is academic suicide. When you learn the difference get back to me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 12:36:38 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
That's a lie, as I have shown.
No you have not, and you know better.
quote:
If Gonzalez's lack of research, lack of graduated students, lack of grant money, and lack of time at the telescope are not grounds for denyin tenure then what are sufficient grounds for denying tenure? Answer the question.
Gonzalez outperformed all his peers and there was convincing E - Mails suggesting that he was banned because of his position for ID.
quote:
Teaching bad science is not academic freedom. It is academic suicide. When you learn the difference get back to me.
ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. The only lie here is the notion that UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are scientific. Heck, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies aren't even scientific enough to stand up to criticisms and opposing views in public schools. Instead, committed naturalists resort to dishonest tactics to ensure that only their viewpoints get funded with tax dollars while all other viewpoints don't. Without tax dollars, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies would never survive. For instance they, "enlist activists from other countries to urge American’s to tell Governor Jindal to oppose the act." This is not a scientific method of combating something that may threaten naturalism. It's a dishonest method. You seem smart enough to know this. UCD did not reach the status that it has by any scientific means, it did so by dishonest ones. To say that dishonest discrimination against scientists that question naturalism doesn't exist is a lie or a delusion.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 12:58:29 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 12:38:10 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
For some reason, I can login to my account on Uncommondescent but when I post, it doesn't even make it to the awaiting moderator approval screen. I never got this problem before. Their spam filter is weird, I think they should get someone else to host their site (besides Wordpress).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 1:01:49 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Gonzalez outperformed all his peers
Gonzalez garnered less than 10% of the grant money that his peers garnered. He clearly underperformed. He didn't graduate students, his peers did. He didn't have a research project at ISU. His peers did. Gonzalez was not signing up for telescope time, his peers were. He clearly underperformed.
quote:
and there was convincing E - Mails suggesting that he was banned because of his position for ID.
That doesn't matter when it is made clear that the denial of tenure was firmly grounded in Gonzalez's underperformance.
quote:
ID is falsifiable, UCD is not.
Scientists are using the theory of evolution in their research. No one is using ID. If ID is good science then show us the research that ID is producing, the papers, and the grants. Until you do so you have zero evidence that ID is good science and that it should be taught. That is the criteria for every single theory taught, it has to be viable in the research lab.
This cartoon may help enlighten you as to the underhanded actions of the ID crowd.
http://www.nmsr.org/idtoon-1.GIF
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 1:17:56 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
That doesn't matter when it is made clear that the denial of tenure was firmly grounded in Gonzalez's underperformance.
The E - Mails told a different story. Like I said, Gonzalez published more than his peers at ISU and his work was cited more than them too.
quote:
Scientists are using the theory of evolution in their research.
No, scientists do research that does not require UCD and then evolutionists attribute the results to evolution (as has been shown in the case of comparative genetics). Or, different evolutionists predict opposite things (ie: one predicts dinosaurs would have feathers, another predicts they won't) and whoever gets it right gets remembered. It's basically a hit and miss thing, different people make a bunch of predictions and someone is bound to get it right (since they try to cover the whole scope of possibilities). TOE is useless, it makes no predictions, and it's unfalsifiable. I might as well use a horror scope to make predictions, even a horror scope gets it right sometimes. Darwin was wrong about a lot, evolutionists predicted that "Junk DNA" would be useless and ID advocates have long said it would be useful, and now we are find out more and more that it's useful. Then evolutionists change their position.
quote:
If ID is good science then show us the research that ID is producing, the papers, and the grants.
I've already provided links to the research. The difference is ID and creationism gets funded by private fundings while UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are so unscientific that they can't survive without tax dollars.
Besides, how many research grants are required to prove that the moon exists? The secular community does not need to pour tons of tax dollars into trying to prove that the moon exists, so why do they need to pour all these tax dollars into trying to prove the validity of UCD? The reason is because UCD is not valid. The research does not support it so they need to spend all these tax dollars into trying to figure out how something evolved with the assumption that it did evolve when the evidence strongly suggests that it did not evolve. How many scientific research papers do you see that try to prove the existence of the moon? If evolution were as sound as evolutionists claim it is, then they wouldn't need all these tax dollars to promote it (and write tons of research papers trying to show that it's true. I don't see tons of research papers trying to show the existence of the moon to be valid).
quote:
Until you do so you have zero evidence that ID is good science and that it should be taught. That is the criteria for every single theory taught, it has to be viable in the research lab.
Until the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against those that may question naturalism while funding their nonsense with tax dollars then there is no reason for me to take anything they say seriously.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 1:30:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 1:45:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The E - Mails told a different story. Like I said, Gonzalez published more than his peers at ISU and his work was cited more than them too.
His publications were from work done at other universities, not at ISU. The tenure committee only looks at work done at ISU. This has been explained multiple times. When are you going to listen? Or will you continue to ignore inconvenient facts?
Did those emails state that the committee was ignoring grants and research that Gonzalez had done at ISU? No, because there was nothing to ignore. After three years at ISU Gonzalez was told that he needed more grant money, and he was told the same thing every year after that. Gonzalez ADMITTED THIS. HE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT UP TO SNUFF.
quote:
No, scientists do research that does not require UCD and then evolutionists attribute the results to evolution (as has been shown in the case of comparative genetics).
It has not been shown in the case of comparative genomics. Evolutionary distance is a REQUIREMENT of the analysis. Comparative genomics and phylogenomics are a direct application of the theory of evolution. Another inconvenient fact that you ignore.
quote:
Or, different evolutionists predict opposite things (ie: one predicts dinosaurs would have feathers, another predicts they won't) and whoever gets it right gets remembered.
There are dinosaurs living right now that have feathers. They are called birds.
quote:
I've already provided links to the research.
You provided a link to the Biologica Institute whose published paper uses evolution. That is not ID research.
quote:
Besides, how many research grants are required to prove that the moon exists?
You have lost the high ground once more. You now admit that research is not important. ID really is a science stopper.
quote:
Until the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against those that may question naturalism while funding their nonsense with tax dollars then there is no reason for me to take anything they say seriously.
Once again you avoid the very apparent lack of ID science. Great job.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:02:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
It has not been shown in the case of comparative genomics.
Yes it has.
quote:
Evolutionary distance is a REQUIREMENT of the analysis.
It's an assumption, not a requirement.
quote:
Comparative genomics and phylogenomics are a direct application of the theory of evolution.
I do not need evolutionary assumptions to compare various genomes. Again, you are demonstrating how evolution freeloads off of real science.
quote:
There are dinosaurs living right now that have feathers. They are called birds.
You can label them dinosaurs but it doesn't mean they descended from non - birds. You still ignored the fact that some evolutionists predicted non - bird dinosaurs had feathers and others predicted they didn't (and those who are right get remembered) showing that evolution really has no predictive power.
quote:
You have lost the high ground once more. You now admit that research is not important. ID really is a science stopper.
I did not say that research is not important, I said that we don't need much research to prove the existence of the moon. In the case of evolution, because there is no evidence for it, many tax dollars are required to try to defend it.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 2:12:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:07:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Yes it has.
Then show me. How does phylogenomics work without a phylogeny? Show me.
quote:
It's an assumption, not a requirement.
No, evolutionary distance is used to differentiate between synteny and genetic drift. Without evolutionary distance you can not detect synteny.
quote:
I do not need evolutionary assumptions to compare various genomes.
You need a phylogeny to do phylogenomics. You need evolution to construct the phylogeny. How much more obvious does it have to get?
quote:
You can label them dinosaurs but it doesn't mean they descended from non - birds.
They descended from other dinosaurs, and they are still dinosaurs (theropod dinosaurs to be exact). We also find non-avian theropod dinosaurs with feathers. A lot of them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:08:42 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Yes it has.
Then show me. How does phylogenomics work without a phylogeny? Show me.
Just because we can classify organisms doesn't mean that these classifications represent their relationships.
quote:
You provided a link to the Biologica Institute whose published paper uses evolution. That is not ID research.
They do ID based research.
quote:
No, evolutionary distance is used to differentiate between synteny and genetic drift. Without evolutionary distance you can not detect synteny.
Evolutionary distance is assumed.
quote:
You need a phylogeny to do phylogenomics. You need evolution to construct the phylogeny. How much more obvious does it have to get?
Again, just because we can classify organisms and proclaim that the classification system represents their evolutionary relationship does not mean they share a common ancestor (and it does not mean that our proclaimed classification system represents their ancestry). Again, more examples of the bad logic used by evolutionists to promote their viewpoints. This is exactly why evolutionists insist on only having their views funded by tax dollars. There is no real evidence for UCD so evolutionists use their own models as evidence. Models do not constitute evidence and evolutionists know that evolution just couldn't survive in the face of criticism and opposing views.
quote:
They descended from other dinosaurs, and they are still dinosaurs (theropod dinosaurs to be exact). We also find non-avian theropod dinosaurs with feathers. A lot of them.
Even if true, so?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 2:36:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:09:22 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They did ID based research.
Show me. How did they apply ID?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:27:06 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Show me. How did they apply ID?
Jhud has gone over it several times on these forums in the past and you can read up on it on their website. I'm sure if I go over it you will simply ignore it, like you seem to ignore everything else. You keep ignoring the fact that UCD is unfalsifiable, you keep ignoring the fact that ID is falsifiable, you keep ignoring the fact that evolution has had a history of making wrong predictions and people have had a history of making right predictions based on the notion that we were designed, you keep ignoring the fact that different evolutionists make opposing predictions to cover the entire pool of possible predictions (ie: some predicted dinosaurs would have feathers, others predicted they won't, it turns out they did, so the ones who made incorrect predictions get forgotten), and you keep ignoring the fact that scientists who question naturalism are dishonestly discriminated against.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 2:40:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:37:30 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Jhud has gone over it several times on these forums in the past and you can read up on it on their website. I'm sure if I go over it you will simply ignore it, like you seem to ignore everything else.
So you are running away from this claim too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 2:49:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Aside from the fact that I have linked to (privately funded) ID based research (UCD can't survive without public fundings), I found this interesting
quote:
Core ID and ID-compatible hypotheses have various predictions. For example, there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA and genetic nature of the platypus, the predictions about designer drugs, long-term preservation mechanisms for conserving information that is not currently implemented, and retroviruses being capable of being used to implement designed changes. At this time the scientific research we have so far does not provide conclusive positive evidence for some of these predictions, although there are tantalizing glimpses that such predictions may become known to be true.
ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanisms Identified?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 2:55:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 3:02:01 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Aside from the fact that I have linked to (privately funded) ID based research (UCD can't survive without public fundings), I found this interesting
quote:
Core ID and ID-compatible hypotheses have various predictions. For example, there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA and genetic nature of the platypus, the predictions about designer drugs, long-term preservation mechanisms for conserving information that is not currently implemented, and retroviruses being capable of being used to implement designed changes. At this time the scientific research we have so far does not provide conclusive positive evidence for some of these predictions, although there are tantalizing glimpses that such predictions may become known to be true.
ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanisms Identified?
Where is the research? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where have they put these hypotheses to the test in an experimental setting? How are these hypotheses testable?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 3:08:07 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Where are the peer reviewed papers?
Well, for example, evolutionists used to think that "Junk DNA" was useless and now we're finding out more and more that it's useful (as ID has always predicted). Creationists have their own peer review journals (but, as science even admits, if you mean peer review journals like nature and science, they are likely to discriminate against ID and Creationionism on the basis that they question naturalism).
quote:
How are these hypotheses testable?
You apparently didn't even read it.
quote:
Where is the research?
I already gave you a link to (privately funded) ID research, but you keep ignoring it.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Empirical_ID_research
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 3:18:07 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 4:06:14 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Where are the peer reviewed papers?
Well, for example, evolutionists used to think that "Junk DNA" was useless and now we're finding out more and more that it's useful (as ID has always predicted).
No, I am talking about ID research. Where is it? Quit running away from your claims.
quote:
Creationists have their own peer review journals
That is analogous to me stepping outside and claiming I have my own atmosphere. There is no such thing as "their own peer review". Either these papers are reviewed by the best scientists in the field or they are not.
quote:
(but, as science even admits, if you mean peer review journals like nature and science, they are likely to discriminate against ID and Creationionism on the basis that they question naturalism).
As noted by someone before, the response you have quoted relates to the "Letters" section, not the "Reports" section. But you are right, they are unlikely to print peer reviewed ID work for one very good reason: it doesn't exist.
quote:
You apparently didn't even read it.
Then show me up. How are these hypotheses testable in the lab.
quote:
I already gave you a link to (privately funded) ID research, but you keep ignoring it.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Empirical_ID_research
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
All I keep finding are papers on evolution.
quote:
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
"Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success"
Abstract: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs on average as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure. Combinatorics shows that even a moderately sized search requires problem-specific information to be successful. Three measures to characterize the information required for successful search are (1) endogenous information, which measures the difficulty of finding a target using random search; (2) exogenous information, which measures the difficulty that remains in finding a target once a search takes advantage of problem-specific information; and (3) active information, which, as the difference between endogenous and exogenous information, measures the contribution of problem-specific information for successfully finding a target. This paper develops a methodology based on these information measures to gauge the effectiveness with which problem-specific information facilitates successful search. It then applies this methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search.
http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/CostOfSuccess.html
quote:
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
"The Information Cost of No Free Lunch"
Abstract: The No Free Lunch Theorem (NFLT) is a great leveler of search algorithms, showing that on average no search outperforms any other. Yet in practice searches do outperform others. In consequence, some have questioned the significance of the NFLT to the performance of search algorithms. To properly assess the significance of the NFLT for search, one must understand the precise sources of information that affect search performance. Our purpose in this paper is to elucidate the NFLT by introducing an elementary theoretical framework for identifying and measuring the information utilized in search. The theory we develop shows that the NFLT can be used to measure, in bits, the fundamental difficulty of search, known as endogenous information. This quantity in turn enables us to measure, in bits, the effects of prescribed implicit knowledge for assisting a search, known as active information. Such knowledge often concerns search space structure as well as proximity to and identity of target. Active information\ can be explicitly teleological or can result implicitly from knowledge of the search space structure. The evolutionary simulations Avida and ev are shown to contain large amounts of active information.
What ID research am I missing here? There isn't any here either,
[qjuote]Jonathan Wells
Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
Abstract. A microtubule-dependent polar ejection force that pushes chromosomes away from spindle poles during prometaphase is observed in animal cells but not in the cells of higher plants. Elongating microtubules and kinesin-like motor molecules have been proposed as possible causes, but neither accounts for all the data. In the hypothesis proposed here a polar ejection force is generated by centrioles, which are found in animals but not in higher plants. Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles. A rise in intracellular calcium at the onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive force that contributes to the chromosomal instability characteristic of most cancer cells.
Hmf, where is it? Be specific. Show me where ID is specifically applied.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/21/2008 6:35:26 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, I am talking about ID research. Where is it? Quit running away from your claims.
Already given.
quote:
That is analogous to me stepping outside and claiming I have my own atmosphere. There is no such thing as "their own peer review". Either these papers are reviewed by the best scientists in the field or they are not.
The "best" is a subjective word. As I have already demonstrated, the secular community unfairly discriminates against creationists and ID advocates.
quote:
As noted by someone before, the response you have quoted relates to the "Letters" section, not the "Reports" section. But you are right, they are unlikely to print peer reviewed ID work for one very good reason: it doesn't exist.
They are unlikely to print it because it contradicts naturalism. That's why they refused to print Humphry's work, admitting that they are unlikely to print creationist work. It's not that Creationists and ID advocates don't want to do research (they do privately funded research while evolution must rely on public fundings), it's that those who are in charge of public fundings dishonestly discriminate against anything that may question naturalism.
quote:
Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
The fact of the matter is that people questioning naturalism have tried to publish their work, but anything that may question naturalism automatically gets discriminated against. The secular community denies grants to those who may question naturalism, but they only grant tax money to researchers who do not. This dishonesty needs to stop.
quote:
Then show me up. How are these hypotheses testable in the lab.
Read it.
quote:
All I keep finding are papers on evolution.
No, they are ID research.
quote:
Hmf, where is it? Be specific. Show me where ID is specifically applied.
You already quoted it (but you choose to ignore it). For instance
quote:
Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines.
They are applying ID to their research.
You also keep ignoring the fact that UCD is unfalsifiable and ID is falsifiable. ID makes predictions, UCD does not. ID predicts that IC and SC structures like the flagellum (or the DNA for it) will not emerge independently of design or independently of existing IC and SC structures. This is falsifiable. UCD makes no predictions. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD. Feel free to keep ignoring though.
I mean, the best evidence for UCD you can come up with is poor circular reasoning. They base alleged phylogeny/relationships on evolutionary assumptions and then they base UCD assumptions on alleged phylogenetic relationships. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD, the fact is that UCD is unfalsifiable. ID, OTOH, is falsifiable.
Show me evolution producing new organs, organ systems, limbs, flagella, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA for them. These things look designed, they contain characteristics of things we design. We try to design and build cells in a lab (though we don't yet have the technology to do so), we don't ever see nature produce IC and SC systems independent design or independent such systems. Why should I believe nature somehow produced them independent of design? Just because you can classify them into some classification system? Show me nature producing these systems independent design and independent the existence of these systems or else I have no reason to believe that they are a product of evolution.
quote:
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
Again, just like in the case of Gentry, they discriminated against Humphry only after they knew he was a creationist. They are far less likely to publish the work of a creationist, they unfairly discriminate against creationists. Even science admits discrimination. Then they publish the work of someone else who basically came up with similar conclusions. You keep choosing to ignore the evidence but I think you are smart enough to know that the secular community dishonestly discriminates against scientists that may question naturalism.
Back with the case of Gentry
quote:
When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.
(link above).
Again, only after it was known Gentry was a creationist did Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminate Gentry's connection with them. There does exist unfair discrimination against those that may question naturalism and it still exists (they try to make it less obvious now, though I'm sure those at ISU that sent E - Mails to one another strongly implying that Gonzalez's ID position was the reason for his denial and then publicly denying it didn't intend that their E - Mails would go public. I'm sure now they would try harder to ensure that they don't get caught in the future). It needs to stop.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/21/2008 8:00:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/22/2008 10:10:28 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Already given.
Pick your favorite article and show me how ID is applied. The back and forth "is not" is not conducive to discussion.
quote:
They are unlikely to print it because it contradicts naturalism.
If it contradicts the scientific method then it isn't science.
quote:
That's why they refused to print Humphry's work, admitting that they are unlikely to print creationist work.
No, they said they are unlikely to print creationist LETTERS. Letters are not research articles.
quote:
The fact of the matter is that people questioning naturalism . . .
Unless you can show how to insert the supernatural into science your argument doesn't mean much.
quote:
Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines.
How does this help them do their research?
quote:
I mean, the best evidence for UCD you can come up with is poor circular reasoning.
So the fact that you and I share the same codon usage is not due to UCD? The fact that we share the same ERV insertions at the same spots in our genome is not due to UCD?
quote:
They base alleged phylogeny/relationships on evolutionary assumptions and then they base UCD assumptions on alleged phylogenetic relationships.
These well supported assumptions turn out to be useful for predicting gene function, as shown in the field of phylogenomics. Again, evolution is being applied successfully.
quote:
Show me evolution producing new organs, organ systems, limbs, flagella, body plans, appendages, etc...
Why are you changing the subject? This is about ID. Where has anyone observed this supposed intelligent design producing new organs, organ systems, limbs, flagella, body plans, appendages, etc. . .
If you require it for one theory you must also require for another.
quote:
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions.
Humphreys' "Bumps in the Big Bang" is based on a letter which he submitted to Nature, and was rejected. He complained elsewhere that this was a sign of prejudice against creationism, on the grounds that a similar letter from "evolutionists" was published shortly thereafter. But the other letter actually reported on the results of observations, and Humphreys had no observations to report in his letter. In fact, nothing Humphreys has to say in that piece is original. It was all old news, which is why it was never accepted by Nature.
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1147.html
quote:
Again, only after it was known Gentry was a creationist did Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminate Gentry's connection with them.
Like I said earlier, it might be a good idea if I claim to be a creationist. That way I can do whatever I want and claim discrimination if I get fired.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts - 6/26/2008 1:16:38 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Pick your favorite article and show me how ID is applied. The back and forth "is not" is not conducive to discussion.
Already shown.
quote:
If it contradicts the scientific method then it isn't science.
Again, UCD is unfalsifiable. ID is falsifiable.
quote:
No, they said they are unlikely to print creationist LETTERS. Letters are not research articles.
and they are unlikely to print any research that may question naturalism. They unfairly discriminate.
quote:
Unless you can show how to insert the supernatural into science your argument doesn't mean much.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
