|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2010 : 20:20:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
This is simply not true. You are at least a hundred years behind in this science. While it is true that thermodynamic entropy is measured heat exchange, there are many other entropies that SLOT governs. |
If they're not dealing with thermodynamics (which genetics does not), then it's not the Second Law of Thermodynamics which governs the interactions. It may be some other law which mimics or is otherwise analogous to SLOT, but it won't be SLOT.
Furthermore, calling something "entropy" doesn't necessarily mean that all the laws of thermodynamics will apply. Look at the creationists who think that there's a "Law of Conservation of Information" just because Shannon used the word "entropy" to describe some aspects of his information theory.| Schrodinger used it to study the human cell, Prigogine won a Nobel for using it to study dissipative structures in open systems. Boltzmann used it to study the arrangement of atoms in gasses. |
All irrelevant to how you are using the term.So because mutational meltdown "provides a powerful explanation for the rarity of obligate asexuality," you think it applies to all populations, including large, sexual species?| I don't see how it would. And that's not what I'm saying. In a few posts, I will unveil a university study showing deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome at roughly 1.6 mutations per generation since the split from chimps. |
I can't wait!| I'll then use Boltzmann's formula to calculate the entropy. |
So you're treating genetics as if DNA were an ideal gas? How bizarre.| Well, I suppose I see your point. But natural law DOES prohibit certain things in reality. For example, the law of gravity will prohibit you from throwing a baseball into the troposphere. |
Not if my arm is strong enough, so really it's the mechanical limitations of human biology which prohibit me from performing that act. The Law of Gravity does nothing more than describe the force acting on the ball due to gravity.| Entropy is the mathematical measurement of order/disorder due to SLOT. |
No, in thermodynamics, entropy is a measurement of energy not available to do work. In Shannon's information theory, it is the measurement of uncertainty in a received message. In ecology, entropy is the measure of biological diversity.| Genomic entropy is the measurement of this order/disorder within a genome due to beneficial/deleterious mutations. |
How is order defined with respect to a genome?| If you are referring to me, then I have nothing to prove. Quantum mechanics is already a well established field. And since I can show an observer out there in the universe via math and science that points to QM as a "god" of the universe, if you are an atheist, you can just view that God as nothing more than QM and we will have come to an understanding. |
Ah, so you're a fan of Tripler's big mistake. I see.| But, Behe showed you an ICS in a flagellum and I did in a cardio/vascular system. Highly doubtful those were made by humans. |
So what's your argument, then? My position is that natural processes are perfectly capable of creating ICS. A tree dies and falls across a deep ravine: it becomes a bridge which is an ICS. Remove the log or either side of the ditch, and the bridge goes away. An ICS doesn't indicate the presence of an intelligence. Nature is a sufficient designer.| Please provide citations which demonstrate the truth of your assertion that "colds are caught from a chill" and "the sun orbits the earth" were ever scientific consensuses. |
Colds are NOT caught from a chill and Galileo was right and the consensus was wrong when he posited that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa. You missed my point. |
No, you missed mine: you are asserting that "colds are caught from a chill" and "the sun orbits the earth" were once scientific consensuses. Before you'll be able to make your point, you will have to demonstrate that scientists ever came to a consensus about them through scientific means.
Really, my point is that your examples were stupid. There are plenty of things which once really were thought to be true by a majority of scientists in the appropriate field which were later proved wrong, but your two examples never were. Next time, you might want to try examples like the ridicule that Wegener received or even a much more-recent consensus-breaker like H. Pylorii and stomach ulcers.| Yes, he was because horizontal gene transfer caused by a viral infection is called transduction: |
You need to ignore the other methods of HGT in order to claim that Mab was talking about viral transfers, only. But, ignorance seems to be one of your strong points.| Which biological law would that be? Citations, please. |
You really are not aware that dogs and cats don't interbreed and produce offspring with their shared genes? You need a citation for that? |
Given the fact that donkeys and horses, dogs and wolves, lions and tigers all can produce living offspring "with their shared genes," I'd say that your alleged "biolgical law" has a boatload of exceptions.| You don't think a chainsaw could be used as an axe? Sure, it wouldn't work well, but trees aren't generally very difficult to damage. Given enough time, one could cut down a tree with a nail file. |
I don't care if it can be used as an axe or a decorative lamp. It will no longer function as a chainsaw. That satisfies the definition for an ICS. |
But the evolutionary objection is that nobody cares that it no longer functions as a chainsaw. It has other functions. Just like the flagella evolved from a secretory pore.The historical stuff in there is fine, but the rest is new-age nonsense. You (and Tipler) have failed to understand the QM meaning of "observation," and you (in particular) misrepresent the Double-Slit Experiments in your attempt to prop up the unevidenced suggestion that an observer must be "conscious" or "intelligent." The simple fact is that the wave functions of the photons in the DSEs always collapse, the only thing that's interesting is where they collapse.| Since no definition of "machine" that I'm familiar with requires a designer, it is irrelevant wether a flagellum is a machine or not. |
Oh, you're not familiar with a vacuum cleaner? They are all designed by somene. |
Oh, you're not familiar with a lever? If a branch falls onto a boulder (in a teeter-totter arrangement), completely by accident, it forms a simple machine without any designer whatsoever.| Indeed! All the ICS for which we know the provenance were created by humans. Are you claiming that biological ICS are human-made, too? If not, why not? |
No....LOL....I'm not. I don't think we have the technology to mass produce flagella, do we? |
So, you're going to engage in special pleading, then? Everything we see that we know has been designed by an intelligence has been designed by humans, except (in your mind) biology.| Please begin to demonstrate both parts of your premise. You haven't even started, yet. Instead, you've made a bunch of claims without evidenciary support. |
What claims? There were no claims in that paragraph, did you not see the "if I could" written in there? |
What claims? Like all of them. I wasn't talking about that particular paragraph.| It can only be the arrogance of ignorance which allows a person like you, JerryB, to pontificate like that in spite of reality. In no way is a theory nothing more than a well-tested hypothesis. |
Did I state anything differently? |
Yes, you said that a hypothesis which is well-tested and gains consensus becomes a theory. That's false.| I'm not following you at all on some of your statements. Please read what I post. |
Your confusion is not caused by my failing to read or understand anything you've written.| So in your mind, historical events can never leave any evidence to show that they occurred. Yes? |
No, that is a strawman. I never said that. |
Then why are you so focused on experimentation?Goody! I win!| ...because you are not understanding what I write. Global warming alarmists use the argument that there is a consensus that warming is occurring. That doesn't mean diddly in science because science is achieved via experimentation. |
You're mixing politics and science in this argument. AGW denialists use the political argument that some scientists deny AGW to suggest that there's a serious controversy within the science (which there isn't). The "alarmists" (as you call them) counter with the political argument that a consensus exists. Neither the consensus nor its denial have any effect upon the sound science of climate change.| I then pointed out that IF the experimentation has been done it is quite all right to form a consensus on the science. That's a different animal. |
So given all the experimentation that's been done, you're "quite all right" with the consensuses formed on AGW and evolution both, then. Glad we got that straight.
On to other comments of yours:| We find design in objects and artifacts using science, probability and mathematics. Not intuition. |
No, IDists claim to "find design in objects and artifacts using science, probability and mathematics," but have never actually done so. Nobody but IDists claim to find design in that fashion.| And it would be impossible for you to go back in time thousands of years to do any breeding experiments at all. |
How about the breeding experiments people are doing right now, and the speciation we've witnessed in nature?| You do know the definition of a sexual species: any two organisms that can interbreed and produce viable, fertile, offspring. |
That's the "biological species concept," and it isn't useful in all contexts, which is why there are other species definitions.
You cannot look at two fossils and state, OK, this sprung from this. Not and still stay within the method. |
That's why scientists don't just do that, but your straw man requires they do.| The truth is, you have done little testing at all. You rely only on morphology. |
You don't know much about paleontology, do you?| ID is not a hypothesis OR a theory. |
Then what is it?| and I'm afraid that my brand of designer has no religion anywhere in it anywhere. |
No, just a huge leap of unjustifiable logic.| A tenet of ID is to show a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations over time and any particular species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record. |
Since when is that a "tenet of ID?" Perhaps you meant to use a word other than "tenet?" No matter, I'm surprised that ID is devoted to showing the Fall story from Genesis to be true.
The trouble is that considering vertebrates, we never had any studies on this until Eyre-Walker and Keightley published their study in Nature on a comparison of the genomes of Chimp and Man over a period of about 6 million years considering homo sapiens evolutionary walk from hominids.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html
Once this was published Eyre-Walker brought our observation into the scientific method experimentally because lo and behold, the researchers did not show the genome to be evolving via increasing information over time but to be devolving by the steady increase of detrimental mutations as this information is diffused down lineages from progenitors to progeny.
In fact, the study concludes in the abstract: "Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages."
Note that these accumulating deleterious mutations are considered AFTER those that were weeded out by natural selection. |
Let's just ignore the fact that the researchers say the rate is below the "upper limit tolerable." For your alleged "tenet of ID" to hold true, you'll have to support the hypothesis that the rate will increase.Knowing what? That there are deletrious mutations in the human genome? Nobody disputes that....we can learn just how this study was accomplished having it further explained to us by professor of genetics James Crow (I believe at U of Nebraska) who served as an interpreter in this study.
HERE: http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm we read: "Eyre-Walker and Keightley have made the analysis feasible by concentrating on protein-coding regions. They measured the amino-acid changes in 46 proteins in the human ancestral line after its divergence from the chimpanzee. Among 41,471 nucleotides, they found 143 nonsynonymous substitutions -- mutations where swapping one DNA base for another changes an amino acid, and therefore the final protein made by that gene."
Now let's get into some mathematical physics. |
Why not get into some mathematical genomics?| Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system? |
No. W is the total number of microstates which are consistent with a given macrostate.| The Eyre-Walker study showed this entropy increasing at the rate of 1.6 deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome each generation... |
No, they didn't. Eyre-Walker and Keightley said nothing about entropy.| ...and our plight is to show this entropically. |
Our plight is having to listen to you mangle the science, actually.| It just so happens that W in this formula stands for statistical weight--the total number of ways that matter/energy can be arranged-- |
No, it doesn't. You're just making stuff up....and can be calculated as Feynman told us how to calculate it: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
Feynman never used Boltzmann's formula in this particular lecture but it is clear he is referring to it. So let's calculate this. Infodynamic theorists (IDists) use the same statistical method as do thermodynamicists and physicists as those "numbers of ways" are calculated using combinatorials or factorials.
The University of New South Wales, physics department has a good page on calculating entropy:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYS3410/lecture5.html
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deletariously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7 |
Complete math failure, right there.
Calculating W in that fashion tells you the statistical probability of a certain arrangement of binary possibilities given a uniform distribution (like a coin toss). Genes don't function like that, and the fact that 38% of deletrious mutations (according to Eyre-Walker and Keightley) have been selected out tells us that we're not dealing with a simple uniform distribution.
All that you've calculated here is that the "number of ways" of having a coin land heads 1.6 times out of 41471 trials is 1.71×107, which is meaningless when applied to DNA.| Now we can do Boltzmann's math: |
Which is just meaninglessness applied on top of meaninglessness.S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There ya go, entropy is increasing... |
Bwaahahahahahaha! You took a spot measurement and you're claiming it's a trend! HAHAHAHA! Look, you have $87 in your wallet, so that must mean you'll become a millionaire!| ...has increased for at least 6 million years that we know of, and there is not a shred of evidence it has ever done anything BUT that. |
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that this alleged "entropy" you've calculated has gone up or down in the last six million years. All you've given us is the value of the alleged "entropy" in 1999.| This makes it impossible that man could have evolves from a protist because the genomic entropy would have had to decrease dramatically for that type of order to occur. |
You haven't demonstrated that the entropy would need to have been either greater or less than 9.98×10-23 for us to have evolved from protists.| Of course, we could come out in joules, but nobody bothers with that anymore considering statistical entropy. |
Yeah, let's just ignore the units (which are actually joules/Kelvin, not joules) since they're inconvenient and turn your argument into mush. Let's also ignore the fact that your math is completely inappropriate to the problem class. Let's also ignore the fact that you've utterly failed to calculate the number of possible microstates that correspond to "being human," which is not the same as the total number of nucleotides per James Crow (since that would mean that any arrangement of nucleotides would create a human, which you know is false). There's so much we would have to ignore in order to agree with your argument here that we should just ignore the whole thing.
More comments from you:| You cannot show me one non-controversial transitional species in the fossil record. |
The only reason that they're controversial is because of creationists. The fact that Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil is not controversial among biologists, even if where it belongs in the tree of life is.| An adjunct to gradualism....LOL....the two are polar extremes. Gradualistic Punctuated Equilibrium? That is simply an oxymoron. |
Not if you pay attention, which you obviously are not.| You have to pick one. It happened gradually, yet poof! It also happened all at once relatively speaking? |
Major changes happened gradually. Minor ones quickly. That's what Gould was saying.| All this does for your philosophy is make you look silly and cause no one to take you serious. And you wonder why you are so controversial? |
Among scientists, evolutionary theory isn't controversial at all.| I don't see gravity physicists or chemists on here defending their sciences, why is it always you? |
We had a guy claiming that the Sun was a big iron ball with its surface heat generated by sparks.| You need to do some introspection and truly become a skeptic. |
And you need better math to become a statistician.
You can ask questions about what you don't understand......It's tough reading! |
No, it's simple reading for simple-minded people who seek simple, anthropomorphic answers to complex scientific questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 20:41:40 [Permalink]
|
| Also, a calculation of Boltzmann entropy rests on the assumption that all particles in the system are statistically independent. That's hardly the case for a genome. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 21:12:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If you could quote (with a link) the actual definition of the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps we could agree. |
Let's try this one and see if you can accept it. It says the same thing: "All spontaneous events act to increase total entropy"
http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/thermo/thermo.htm
| The thing is, in a self-organizing system, spontaneous reactions happens that can actually decrease the level of entropy. A classic example is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky- or the Briggs-Rauscher-reaction. |
Or just Sodium chloride dissolving in water. There are a few yes. But remember my original statement, or forgive me if I misstated it: With any spontaneous reaction, matter will tend to disorganize. Do you get the "tend"? This is all probability. SLOT is a tendency.
Is anyone saying that entropy cannot decrease in any system other than an isolated one? Of course, it appears that I am the only one in the forum that even knows what an isolated system is....... 
| In chemistry, yes. In biology, no. |
Bullshit. Chemistry is chemistry regardless what field you use it in....LMAO
| If energy is inputted into the system, then all bets are off. |
| No they are not. They are the result of an enery transfer of one sort or another. It can be an atomic decay, in which case the energy was released from the nucleus, or it could have been an external particle affecting the DNA, like a high-energy photon, neutron, or another ion, colliding and/or trading places. The other time when mutations happen is when the cell or bacteria divides; when the DNA is copied. This does not happen unless the organism has energy to use when it goes through mitosis. Enery drives the copying process. An abundance of chemical energy that the bacteria acquired from its surroundings, which is expended as the DNA-copying progresses. Sometimes, there is a transcription error. It is random, but since energy is constantly supplied to keep the process running... as you say "all bets are off". |
BAHAHAHAhahahaha.......Yes, you got it. Genes are radioactive and in a constant state of atomic decay...Kind of like a Geiger Counter..
I agree that we can see mutations slowly increasing in numbers in the genome. This happens at a rate of once every billion or so base pairs. Some times a bit quicker, sometimes slower.
Some times, the mutation has a negative impact on the survivability of the organism, some times it has a positive impact on the survivability. Most of the time, the mutation is neutral.
If the mutation had positive impact, that gene will help its host become the dominant ancestor of its population, and soon all organisms will share the mutated gene and be better off for it.
It's Nature's way of discarding mutations that "disorganise" the genome. |
Um....No....Maybe you didn't read the study I posted. Only 38% of harmful mutations were weeded out of the homo sapiens genome in the 6 million years since the species branched from the Chimp. This is actually science from Sussex University, not Talk Origin.
1.6 deleterious mutations have accumulated in the human genome in that same period per generation. NO beneficial ones have....Keep dreaming.
| ...and yet you insist on using SLOT where it doesn't belong. Makes me wonder how you got past graduation. |
You don't understand SLOT in the least bit either. But I will take Dave on in that one. I would doubt you have ever had a chem course in your life. We will see as the discussion progresses and I throw some math at you.
That's a misrepresentation of Gould's work.
"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time." Found here. |
This is simply the way you Darwinists like to paint it. They himmed, they hawed......Because the world saw it for what it was. Yup, there is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism. Why don't you guys just fess up and admit that, just like Gore's global warming, you are running a scam here.
| Long periods of apparent stasis. And those "sudden periods" are sudden only in a geological era perspective. A transision in the strata can easily be more than 50,000 years, which translates to thousands, or even tens of thousands of generations. |
Even though I stressed the term "relatively" sudden, you missed it. What is 50,000 years when we are looking at a period of a couple billion years??
So I only get to choose between "Magic did it" or "Someone did it with Magic"?
I reject all your alternatives, because none of them are naturalistic.
Evolution doesn't propose anything being magical, that's your fantacy. |
OMG, yes it does........POOF, birds magically morph from Dinosaurs. POOF, people magically morph from monkeys. How long to you feel it will be before pigs start spewing out litters of goldfish?
No, I'm not discussing viruses. I'm talking about one bacterium exchanging strands of DNA with another bacterium of a different genera. That's something completely different from having a virus infecting a cell with DNA.
You asked for my words on what happens, and I gave you those, with two references to peer-reviewed articles. I've jumped the hoops for you, now I'd like to see you hold up your end of the bargain. |
Meaning what? I agree with you on this.
| What an utterly stupid question to ask. If you truly studied biology, then you should know the answer already. Hint: There's a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. |
So, you think that if protists ate enough beef, they would probably grow four legs and an udder?
| The conclusion must then be that if the flagellum was designed, it must have been a human who did it. It's the only designer known to man. |
Dang right, if a flagellum is designed, the only designer I could think of would be a human. I wonder if George Bush did it?
| Aliens that evolved to Godhood, which operates on quantum level? I read your paper once, and it was so utterly unconvincing that I've already forgotten what the main thrust of it was. The only thing I recall is the double-slit experiment and that Tipler-guy who should have been a sci-fi writer and not a scientist. I also remember a blatant lack of citations. What was the point of that excercise, did you publish it anywhere? |
I think I cited every major point I made. However, did I publish it in a journal? Of course not.
I'm not a PhD in anything and don't pretend to be. Dembski has posted a few of my papers on his site, but nothing more than that.
But you (and you guys seem to all follow the pack on this site like a bunch of wolverines in heat) pretty much have your head up your ass if you think Tipler is a Sci-Fi writer. He is a mathematical physicist, chairman of the physics department at Tulane university, and everything he posited in the paper I wrote is backed up by mathematics. Can you overcome that math or show it to be inaccurate? No......You won't touch it. LOL You just give lip service in this area because it upset's your atheist belief system.
| No it's not. Different designers uses different approaches and different processes to design their stuff. We know things differ between humans, even though humans are basically the same. Nature is so radically different from humans, so why does the idea of nature designing things seems to preposterous to you? |
Do you follow the Gaia religion by any chance? You talk about nature as if it is a conscious, intelligent being. Nature is just where we live. Go talk to a tree in the morning and see how much insight you get into the economic downturn. LOL, yet you view it as the designer of all of life.
Someone robbed a convenience store in my town last night. I think it was a flower.
| No, it will function as an ordinary saw. But it will still do the job we need it to do: cutting down trees. Just not as efficiently. |
LMAO.....Yup, it will still function perfectly as a chainsaw, won't it. And as to you pulling the heart out of the monkey and it still live; of course it will. How stupid of me. The god Gaia will probably send a rose petal out from nature to morph it into a freaking whale or something.
| I need to see some citation of this. Bring me a link too a peer-reviewed journal, because I'd love to see how he pulled that off. |
My God. I'm beginning to think you people are just ignorant:
^ Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
^ Frank J. Tipler, "Achieved spacetime infinity", Nature, Vol. 325, No. 6101 (January 15, 1987), pp. 201-202, doi:10.1038/325201c0, Bibcode: 1987Natur.325..201T.
^ Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
I found about 15 more peer reviewed papers if you wanna see them.
| Maybe it wasn't the math itself that was the problem, but the underlying assumptions and premises. If one premiss in a logical construction is wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong too, even if there is not flaw in the logical construction itself. |
That's just silly. This is not a syllogism.
| When Tipler brought in the Omega Point to be the Judeo-Christian god, and claiming to be able to explain Jesus' miracles as a result of intelligent QM, I knew he was out in La-la land. |
Yes, he lost it because his research took him from a hard atheist almost overnight (relatively speaking) to a Christian. I agree, he went nuts after that first work and I buy none of the latter stuff. But the work that made him famous is a classic, it rocks, it's peer reviewed and I buy into it.
| I'd love to see you start a new thread about that. If you're convincing enough, you can still make me a believer. |
Sorry, I have no urge to make you a believer in anything. You are a hard-core ex-skeptic who has bought into the pseudoscience of Darwinism, even a bigger crock than global warming. C.S. Lewis described Darwinism as the biggest lie that has ever been foisted on mankind. You are like a Carp that has been hooked in the mouth and don't know what to do about it. IOW, these con-men took you hook, line and sinker. Shame on you. Get your head together.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 21:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Also, a calculation of Boltzmann entropy rests on the assumption that all particles in the system are statistically independent. That's hardly the case for a genome. |
Yeah, that was going to be on my list of faults one would have to ignore to accept JerryB's entropy argument, but I got tired of it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 22:11:13 [Permalink]
|
Genes aren't statistically independent? LOL...No, they communicate with one another to cause mutation conspiracies. Pssstt... You guys wanna mutate, tonight? Shh......Yeah the Warden is on vacation.
Dave, your post is next and it is the absolute most stupid post I have ever had to address on the Internet. But I will try. I'm working in real life but I will get to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 22:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
BAHAHAHAhahahaha.......Yes, you got it. Genes are radioactive and in a constant state of atomic decay...Kind of like a Geiger Counter.. |
Wow, who knew that Geiger counters were radioactive?
Actually, everyone who thinks for a little bit. Just like one might stumble across the fact that every gram of 14C in your body undergoes about seven decays per minute (14C decays expose you to about the same radiation dose as one chest X-ray every ten years), including however much 14C has been incorporated into your DNA.| This is simply the way you Darwinists like to paint it. They himmed, they hawed......Because the world saw it for what it was. Yup, there is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism. Why don't you guys just fess up and admit that, just like Gore's global warming, you are running a scam here. |
To what end (for either one)?| OMG, yes it does........POOF, birds magically morph from Dinosaurs. POOF, people magically morph from monkeys. |
Or POOF, quantum interactions become intelligent.| How long to you feel it will be before pigs start spewing out litters of goldfish? |
If modern evolutionary theory is correct, never.| Dang right, if a flagellum is designed, the only designer I could think of would be a human. I wonder if George Bush did it? |
Oh, good. Glad to see you agree that the "design" argument is silly.| Dembski has posted a few of my papers on his site... |
That's not something to be proud of.| But you (and you guys seem to all follow the pack on this site like a bunch of wolverines in heat) pretty much have your head up your ass if you think Tipler is a Sci-Fi writer. He is a mathematical physicist, chairman of the physics department at Tulane university... |
An argument from credentials, now? You do know that some very smart people have been very, very wrong. Look at Linus Pauling and vitamin C.| ...and everything he posited in the paper I wrote is backed up by mathematics. Can you overcome that math or show it to be inaccurate? No......You won't touch it. LOL You just give lip service in this area because it upset's your atheist belief system. |
His premise is not mathematical, and it's wrong. Given an incorrect premise, his mathematical argument is worthless.| Do you follow the Gaia religion by any chance? You talk about nature as if it is a conscious, intelligent being. |
Not if you pay attention to the definition of "design" being used. Design doesn't require consciousness or intelligence, and so non-conscious, non-intelligent processes are perfectly capable of design.| I found about 15 more peer reviewed papers if you wanna see them. |
You think peer-reviewed papers can't be wrong?| Maybe it wasn't the math itself that was the problem, but the underlying assumptions and premises. If one premiss in a logical construction is wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong too, even if there is not flaw in the logical construction itself. |
That's just silly. This is not a syllogism. |
You think all logical constructions are syllogisms? Wow! Hey, Ricky! This guy thinks math (which is nothing but logical constructions) is entirely syllogisms!| But the work that made him famous is a classic, it rocks, it's peer reviewed and I buy into it. |
With its broken premise and everything?| C.S. Lewis described Darwinism as the biggest lie that has ever been foisted on mankind. |
C.S. Lewis? Yeah, there's a hard-core biologist and expert in science.  | You are like a Carp that has been hooked in the mouth and don't know what to do about it. IOW, these con-men took you hook, line and sinker. Shame on you. Get your head together. |
That's an argument that cuts both ways. Look in a mirror. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 22:31:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Genes aren't statistically independent? LOL...No, they communicate with one another to cause mutation conspiracies. Pssstt... You guys wanna mutate, tonight? Shh......Yeah the Warden is on vacation. |
Anyone who has taught biology ought to know that some mutations will never be seen in living creatures without other mutations being present, because the lack of the latter would lead to inviable offspring.| Dave, your post is next and it is the absolute most stupid post I have ever had to address on the Internet. But I will try. I'm working in real life but I will get to it. |
I can't wait to see how you support your assumption of a uniform binary distribution of deletrious mutations in your "entropy" calculation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 22:37:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave, LOL.....You have the most irritating habit of answering every post on the forum. Do you think others are too stupid to answer their own posts?
Please wait until I answer YOUR post before you reply to me. OK? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 02:47:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Dave, LOL.....You have the most irritating habit of answering every post on the forum. |
Responding to your comments irritates you? How interesting.| Do you think others are too stupid to answer their own posts? |
Not at all, I think they're an extremely bright bunch. Do you think they are so sheepish as to let me speak for them?| Please wait until I answer YOUR post before you reply to me. OK? Thanks |
When you provide a forum for the discussion of your ideas, then you can set the rules. Since you were active in our forums six years ago, you should be at least a little familiar with the social norms here.
Unfortunately, a database crash between then and now has cut short my list of your unsupported assertions, but I'll repost the first 44 here and people can add more from this current thread as needed (maybe you'll addess some of them, this time around):- ID is being "accepted in main-stream America."
- ID has not already gone "through the process to be shown wrong."
- There is a science of ID.
- "...it is the only credible explanation of origins out there."
- ID isn't religion.
- Jerry is not a religionist.
- "Today, ID is science without a sliver of theology anywhere in it..."
- ID "only detects design."
- ID has something to do with Tipler's Omega Point.
- "IDists of the modern type are scientists rather than creationists."
- "Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID."
- "Biology supports ID in that genomes in sexual species tend to disorder rather than order."
- "Chemistry supports ID in that chemical equilibrium forbids racemic mixtures of amino acids from forming into levorotatory dominance."
- ID is "growing in leaps and bounds both with the public and with scientists."
- "ID predicts that objects will disorder."
- Very little has been written about ID.
- Most scientists do not know what ID is.
- There exists "an observer in this universe fully explained by science."
- The Discovery Institute represents "a small but quite vocal minority" of IDists.
- The fossil record supports ID.
- The "Omega Point" is only refuted if Tipler's math is refuted.
- "ID is science because it studies physics, biology and chemistry which is science."
- The repeated use of the word 'must' in Jerry's eight answers to "What in science supports ID?"
- Bacterial flagella are designed.
- ATP machines are designed.
- "...function is an intelligently assigned property..."
- Induction is not a part of science.
- The fossil record shows creatures "come into the record fully formed and ready to go in their environment."
- The fossil record supports "no other concept of origins."
- Dembski approaches ID from a philosophical perspective.
- Jerry approaches ID "purely scientifically."
- Sub-atomic particles have intelligence.
- CSI calculations are "done everyday somewhere."
- A tree "becomes ordered because a designer preprogrammed code that goes into a seed..."
- Jerry uses the same version of thermodynamics "taught at the universities."
- There isn't any evidence supporting the idea that the fossil record shows transitions between phyla.
- Because the only way to show that is through "breeding tests or DNA tests..."
- Genetic code is highly analogous to computer software.
- An article shows that the human genome is becoming more disordered over time.
- Configurational entropy is applicable to genetics.
- "Tons" of biology papers support ID (without mentioning it, apparently).
- "ID predicts that organisms originate fully formed and ready to go in their environment."
- Archeology, SETI, etc. all use design detection just like Jerry does.
- "Every biological process is not spontaneous, but speciations are."
Of course, you ran away the last time around, delivering an insult instead of an explanation of the math in question. I predict this will happen again, soon. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/28/2010 : 05:12:50 [Permalink]
|
Evolution of the Chainsaw
It's all evolution, you know. When the cutting chain is lost, the bar becomes vestigial but the saw itself is far from useless. Remove the bar and you have a strong two-stroke engine with a centrifugal clutch and handles. From here, the once-saw can be a maple sugar tap; a power plant for a go-cart; an ice auger; a post hole digger and so forth.
See, I can do straw men, too.
Of Dave's list above, I like # 20, especially as it is entangled with the usual silly creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils.
The fossil record supports ID.
|
The fossil record does no such thing, and here's a few of the transitionals:
This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms. See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.
|
Don't be afraid to open the link; it's not to TO. Some of us don't need to reference TO; there are many other sources, including Wikipedia.
Of that list, here's a good'n: Human Evolution.
Human evolution, or anthropogeny,[1] is the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominids, great apes and placental mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[2]
The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[3][4] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
|
What follows in the link is greater detail and worth a read.
Let's face it; ID is no more than creationism wrapped in tin foil like a Hershy's Kiss. It looks nice and shiny and good, but when you peel the foil away, as was done at Cobb County and Dover, and recently in LA, it's still the same tired, old "Goddoneit." IDcreationists don't like to say anything about God because if they do, they suddenly find themselves right back where they started; under the tattered wings of John D. Morris, another engineer, and Phillip E. Johnson who, by the bye, is a lawyer (figgers ).
In short, ID is no more than a backdoor attempt sneak creationism into science class' even though it fails at every point. Believing in some anonymous "designer" is a lot more of a stretch than accepting evolutionary science backed up by virtually all of the available evidence, whatever your theology.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/28/2010 05:17:32 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 10:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Genes aren't statistically independent? LOL...No, they communicate with one another to cause mutation conspiracies. Pssstt... You guys wanna mutate, tonight? Shh......Yeah the Warden is on vacation.
|
Here's something for you to ponder, JerryB. If genes were statistically independent then you are immediately claiming that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Oh, wait, you ARE claiming that IC exists. What gives? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 13:33:28 [Permalink]
|
| JerryB: So exactly what is your job that makes you qualified to speak on this topic? What education and experience do you have? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 13:37:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If you could quote (with a link) the actual definition of the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps we could agree. |
Let's try this one and see if you can accept it. It says the same thing: "All spontaneous events act to increase total entropy"
http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/thermo/thermo.htm |
I ask for an actual definition of the law, and you send me to a student's home-cooked pace lacking references. Hell, it even says:
"In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so its opposite, entropy, can never decrease."
Your student couldn't even get the definition of a closed system right.
I'm sorry, but we don't seem to be able to agree.
| But remember my original statement, or forgive me if I misstated it: With any spontaneous reaction, matter will tend to disorganize. Do you get the "tend"? This is all probability. SLOT is a tendency. |
No. SLOT is a natural law which describes certain properties of energy conversion in a system. Energy, thermal or mechanical, or chemical.
While I do have increasing disorder on the desks in my computer lab at home, ie stuff are piling up in an alarming rate, both papers, components, and circuit boards, the laws of thermodynamics cannot be used to describe the increasing entropy in the room. Because that's not what they were meant to do. If I open the blinds and let in some sunlight, the papers doesn't start organizing. If I open the door and set a fan blowing top speed into the room, thereby increasing the energy in the room, the papers won't start getting organised, they become even more disorganised: See, a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics!
But the world doesn't work that way. My room is not a good model for atomic and molecular interactions and movement and heat. It's a false analogy for what statistical- and chemical thermodynamics was meant to be a model of.
When you start talking about increasing entropy in genetics, or populations, you need to have a model which was made to work as a model for the subject matter. Any other equations are irrelevant. Unless you can provide evidence that they are valid and relevant, they should be dismissed.
| Is anyone saying that entropy cannot decrease in any system other than an isolated one? |
What's the point of your question?
| Of course, it appears that I am the only one in the forum that even knows what an isolated system is....... |
That would be true if no one else in the forum could read. You have already quoted the definitions of open, closed, and isolated systems, so anyone who didn't already know the definitions should know now. So what was the point of this paragraph, other than antagonising your audience?
| In chemistry, yes. In biology, no. |
Bullshit. Chemistry is chemistry regardless what field you use it in... |
Right. 1 mol cats reacts to 1 mol dogs and will release energy that increases the entropy in the china shop, and the end product will be 1 mol cats and 1 mol dogs will less potential energy than they had before the beginning of the reaction.
How many kJ were released?
Cats and dogs are made of chemicals, so obviously chemical thermodynamics have to apply!
| Genes are radioactive and in a constant state of atomic decay...Kind of like a Geiger Counter.. |
Do you dipute that DNA will mutate from radioactive decay in the DNA itself?
But that was beside the point. I was enumerating different ways that DNA mutates. Not all of them, but some of the basic ones. The point of it being that from a mutational point of view, positive, negative and neutral mutations doesn't have to have any net energy cost.
1.6 deleterious mutations have accumulated in the human genome in that same period per generation. NO beneficial ones have... |
They weren't looking for beneficial ones, so it's not surprising.
| ...and yet you insist on using SLOT where it doesn't belong. Makes me wonder how you got past graduation. |
You don't understand SLOT in the least bit either. |
So we're at a standoff? I think you're an ignorant idiot, and you think I'm one. Where do we go from here?
I suggest you provide evidence that the laws of thermodynamics apply to other systems than thermodynamic systems. Some experimentation published in peer-reviewd journals would go a long way. You did imply in a previous post that in science, experimentation is King...
That's a misrepresentation of Gould's work.
|
This is simply the way you Darwinists like to paint it. They himmed, they hawed......Because the world saw it for what it was. Yup, there is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism. Why don't you guys just fess up and admit that, just like Gore's global warming, you are running a scam here. |
You're in denial. Gould explicitly denounced that Punctuated Equilibrium were in opposition to gradualistic evolution, but you're just sticking fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la, can't hear you la-la-la-la it's a scam!"
Major fail.
So I only get to choose between "Magic did it" or "Someone did it with Magic"?
I reject all your alternatives, because none of them are naturalistic.
Evolution doesn't propose anything being magical, that's your fantacy. |
OMG, yes it does........POOF, birds magically morph from Dinosaurs. POOF, people magically morph from monkeys. How long to you feel it will be before pigs start spewing out litters of goldfish? |
You know that's not what the theory of evolution says, so there goes any pretense that was left that you were interested in an honest dicussion about Intelligent Design and evolution.
Every single person I've ever debated Intelligent Design with have been ignorant and dishonest assholes, and more or less delusional creationists. And you, Jerry haven't done anything to break that trend. A pity, really.
| I'm talking about one bacterium exchanging strands of DNA with another bacterium of a different genera. <snip> |
<snip>
I agree with you on this. |
Good. Are you then prepared to agree with me that a bacteria can import one or several different proteins from other bactera, which it didn't previously have?
| What an utterly stupid question to ask. If you truly studied biology, then you should know the answer already. Hint: There's a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. |
So, you think that if protists ate enough beef, they would probably grow four legs and an udder? |
You really aren't interested in discussing ID vs. Evolution, are you? You just came here to bullshit us and pulling our collective legs...
| I'm not a PhD in anything and don't pretend to be. Dembski has posted a few of my papers on his site, but nothing more than that. |
No one thought you were. And having Dembski posting your stuff on his site isn't much of a credit...
Credit... sounds familiar, give me a few seconds to remember. Oh yes, course credits!
You aren't by any chance taking an "Intelligent Design Course" at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are you? They give you course cerdits for trolling places like Skeptic Friends Network.
| But you (and you guys seem to all follow the pack on this site like a bunch of wolverines in heat) pretty much have your head up your ass if you think Tipler is a Sci-Fi writer. |
I never said he was. I said he should have been, like Asimov. You obviously doesn't know about Asimov, but I can tell you that he was a brilliant scientist and a brilliant sci-fi writer, because he could separate fantacy and reality and write about science without mixing in fiction. If only Tipler had done the same...
| He is a mathematical physicist, |
...and not a biologist. Why would you let a proverbial plumber into the high-voltage switchboard?
Would you let a blacksmith perform brain surgery? Hey, they both use pliers and knives in their work. Hammers and saws too.
| Can you overcome that math or show it to be inaccurate? No......You won't touch it. LOL |
You do have reading comprehension problems too. I already stated that the mathematical part of his paper could very well be without error, but if his premise is faulty, it won't matter. Garbage in - garbage out. It doesn't matter if it's a simple syllogism or a complex mathematical construction.
| Do you follow the Gaia religion by any chance? You talk about nature as if it is a conscious, intelligent being. |
No I was using a metaphor. Creationists have a tendency to not recognise metaphors. And by the looks of it, obviously you too (this isn't the first instance either).
Someone robbed a convenience store in my town last night. I think it was a flower.
|
Ah, there we have evidence. You really are delusional.
Oh, you were just joking? Sorry, I didn't read anything funny.
| No, it will function as an ordinary saw. But it will still do the job we need it to do: cutting down trees. Just not as efficiently. |
Yup, it will still function perfectly as a chainsaw, won't it. |
No, I said "saw". You really do have a reading comprehension problem. Perhaps English isn't your native language.
A flagella without the whip doesn't work as a flagella since its missing tha part that makes it a flagella. No mystery there. But the part without the whip has been found to serve a purpose in another organsism. Just like the chainsaw cutting down trees in your hand, and the chainsaw-without-spark-plug is cutting down trees in my hand.
And you know... The coolest thing of all? I can acquire a spark plug to my chainsaw from Dave by lateral gene transfer!
| I need to see some citation of this. Bring me a link too a peer-reviewed journal, because I'd love to see how he pulled that off. |
My God. I'm beginning to think you people are just ignorant: |
I saw that list of yours on wikipedia. But that wasn't what I asked for. I don't have access to any of those journals, I hoped that you had a link to some online material, like that Florida student web page you poster earlier who almost nearly had the thermodynamic laws defined.
Yes, he lost it because his research took him from a hard atheist almost overnight (relatively speaking) to a Christian. I agree, he went nuts after that first work and I buy none of the latter stuff. But the work that made him famous is a classic, it rocks, it's peer reviewed and I buy into it. |
(emphasis mine)
...his critics be damned?
Now that you know that Tiplers paper has critics (genuine critics, not people like us here on SFN but names of "heavy hitters"), like George Ellis and Michael Shermer (I haven't read their criticisms of Tipler), will you read those or continue to believe that everything is dandy?
Sorry, I have no urge to make you a believer in anything. You are a hard-core ex-skeptic who has bought into the pseudoscience of Darwinism, even a bigger crock than global warming. C.S. Lewis described Darwinism as the biggest lie that has ever been foisted on mankind. You are like a Carp that has been hooked in the mouth and don't know what to do about it. IOW, these con-men took you hook, line and sinker. Shame on you. Get your head together. |
Wow, I'm speechless. Couldn't you have been a little more insulting? 
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 14:10:11 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, Doc, it was a chemistry professor's college website we were sent to, and six of the fifteen links on this particular page actually work. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 14:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, Doc, it was a chemistry professor's college website we were sent to, and six of the fifteen links on this particular page actually work.
|
Sorry. Yes, I see that now. Weird that he would have the definitions of closed and isolated systems wrong, when he should have known better. I asked for definitions of the laws, but got "Thermodynamics: Who Wrote the Laws?"
Absent is any mention of work by scientists which proves that the laws of thermodynamics apply to biological systems.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
