iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

Upright BiPed's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
huffingtonpost entry

Further Thoughts on the ENCODE/Junk DNA Debates

Commented Sep 20, 2012 at 00:39:10 in Science

“A great post Dr Shapiro. I hope that Diogenes, and those others who go through these discussions with such unreasonable dogmatic cetainty, will ease up a wee bit. And let there be no mistake why this happenes over and over again - it is the protection of their metaphysics; their personal ideological positions.

You have developed a reputation among fair-minded people for being a person motivatd by evidence. I say this as someone who most likely disagrees with you in the large sense. Yet, I was embarrassed for Diogenes and Kwok for the way they spoke to your comments. It is entirely uncnecessary among intelligent people. The fact that it is done solely to protect their ideology will do nothing to preserve that ideology over time.”
A Genome-Sized Media Failure

A Genome-Sized Media Failure

Commented Sep 17, 2012 at 16:15:26 in Science

“By the way....I never said a word about virtually anything in your response to me. I figure you made all of that up to add some weight to your post - the way a farmer fattens a pig before the state fair.

If you try that tactic when you get to the linked argument, I won't spare you the embarrassment. Otherwise, I'll let your tone dictate the conversation. Fair enough? You'll get all the courtesies you deserve.”

rjop on Sep 18, 2012 at 12:44:28

“"I went to the linked argument-- typical Intelligent Design bafflegab-- and disposed of it easily"

One can easily see, your proclamation of disposal is nothing but arrogant fluff, as Upright is yet to return, not to mention you have other issues to address..”

diogeneslamp0 on Sep 18, 2012 at 11:21:16

“I went to the linked argument-- typical Intelligent Design bafflegab-- and disposed of it easily!”
A Genome-Sized Media Failure

A Genome-Sized Media Failure

Commented Sep 17, 2012 at 10:36:56 in Science

“Kwok, your comment was content free. No surprise there.

You cannot show a falsity in the material premises, nor can you show a flaw in the logic. The argument stands, and your dismissal is recoghnized for what it is - the endless last words of an commited ideologue.”

John Kwok on Sep 18, 2012 at 08:43:03

“I don't think it warrants any commentary from me. That "challenge" over at Uncommonly Dense is the latest iteration of my "pal" Bill Dembski's "fascination" with "complex specified information" which was refuted more than a decade ago by mathematician and computer scientist Jeffrey Shallit - whom Dembski may have known as a Ph. D. candidate in mathematics at the University of Chicago - and biologist Wesley Elsberry. Elsberry and Shallit have a notable refutation of it here:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

Otherwise that "challenge" reminds me of the philosophical question posed by yours truly and his college friends at creationist Henry Morris about the nature of reality - maybe we're not real, that GOD created us only a few minutes ago and is making us think we are "real" - when he debated cell biologist Ken Miller at Miller's first ever debate against a creationist, which was held at Brown University's hockey arena decades ago.

That "challenge" is merely more of the mendacious intellectual pornography I see all too often from the Discovery Institute and its allies, like those over at Uncommonly Dense.”
A Genome-Sized Media Failure

A Genome-Sized Media Failure

Commented Sep 16, 2012 at 18:22:20 in Science

“It's amusing to see materialist ideologues rock back and forth in the seats kicking their feet, as the material evidence mounts against them.

Diogenes claims evidence talks. He is warmly invited to refute the following:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/

DakkonA on Sep 21, 2012 at 19:27:37

“Your main problem with that? You use generic-sounding language, but it is clear you wrote it specifically with the current DNA/RNA/Protein system in mind, which begs the question.”

diogeneslamp0 on Sep 17, 2012 at 14:35:45

“What evidence? The ENCODE scientists have admitted that they didn't disprove the Junk DNA hypothesis. Why are you disputing the evidence?

UB, I have kicked the tail of the UDites every time I went over to UD. You want me to return and give you another thrashing?

Moreover, Intelligent Design does not predict that there should be no Junk DNA, anyway. Intelligent Design must allow for "bad design" because there's so much of it. So you could never honestly predict there'd be no Junk DNA.

Moreover, Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" disregards all structures produced by known natural laws, which Dembski calls "Chance or Necessity." Transposons and viral DNA are produced by known natural laws, so they're not intelligently designed, by your own criteria. You can't predict anything about them, one way or the other.

The fact that you're claiming ID predicts there's no Junk DNA just proves you're dishonest and cunning, and you correctly grasp how the popular media lies about science. I suppose understanding the media is a skill. You still suck at science.”

John Kwok on Sep 17, 2012 at 09:32:23

“Uncommon Descent should not be viewed as the source of any credible "scientific evidence". Instead, it is a sterling example of Intelligent Design creationist mendacious intellectual pornography found all too often at the Discovery Institute's Evolution News & Views website.”

rjop on Sep 17, 2012 at 00:11:30

“Upright B.. Thumbs up!!”
The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

Commented Sep 2, 2012 at 13:39:43 in Science

“Yes I agree, you should join the debate at the link given by Bally Hoo. You can make yourself a member of the long list of materialist who cannot falsify the data.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/

Of course, you won't do that. Its understandable.”
The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

Commented Sep 1, 2012 at 18:24:07 in Science

“Philosophy and metaphysics? Really?

The paper I linked to was wirtten by Howard Pattee PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics at NY University at Binghampton. His topic was the physics of symbol systems in biology. His physics work is completely in line with scores of other scientists including such brilliant minds as logician and mathematician, Alan Turing (Cambridge), mathematician John von Neuman (University of Berlin and Princeton), and Hungarian-born polymath Michael Polanyi (Professor of Physical Chemistry at University of Budapest). And of course we shouldn't leave out Francis Crick who discovered the structure of DNA and later wrote the adapter hypothesis for translation. Have you ever heard of those men?

No? But instead you'd like to imply tjhey are frauds masuerading as scientists, and you present a snippet you apparently didn't understand from Wikki (no less) which doesn't even mention Philosophy as your support.

What a powerful retort.”

raptoryx13 on Oct 1, 2012 at 18:19:30

“"Of course, you won't do that. Its understandable."

The "Uncommon Descent" shows no evidence, observations, or experiment results to back up its claims.

My question to you is: What is the "designer"? God? Aliens? What is it?”

raptoryx13 on Oct 1, 2012 at 18:16:23

“"I am begginning to wonder if you actually understand the papers you post."

I'm sure that YOU don't.

"All science begins with a metaphysical stance, and all science has the potential for anthropomorphic error."

Wrong.Science begins with asking a question about the natural world, and using the scientific method to find the answer which explains the scientist's original question. Metaphysics is as far away from science as it is possible to get.

"Surely you can do that, right?"

Sure--the premise that information/complexity can't result from evolution is wrong. Of course it can and does.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

"Thats fine, write it out here - show how the conclusions do not follow from the premises or how the premises are false."

Done and done. Concession accepted.

"Go ahead. I'll be happy to respond."

Awesome! Knock yourself out.”

Upright BiPed on Sep 2, 2012 at 13:39:43

“Yes I agree, you should join the debate at the link given by Bally Hoo. You can make yourself a member of the long list of materialist who cannot falsify the data.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/

Of course, you won't do that. Its understandable.”

Grayson Griffin on Sep 2, 2012 at 12:55:58

“I am begginning to wonder if you actually understand the papers you post. All science begins with a metaphysical stance, and all science has the potential for anthropomorphic error.

In the end, science is conducted by empirical demonstration, so why don't you venture on over to the link provided and show that either the logic is invalid or the premises are false? Surely you can do that, right? Or, will you have some reason you wouldn't be caught dead in such a conversation? Thats fine, write it out here - show how the conclusions do not follow from the premises or how the premises are false.

Go ahead. I'll be happy to respond.”

raptoryx13 on Sep 1, 2012 at 22:04:58

“"Philosophy and metaphysics? Really? "

Really. It certainly isn't science.

"What a powerful retort."

Thanks.”

raptoryx13 on Sep 1, 2012 at 19:55:22

“"Philosophy and metaphysics? Really?

Really.

Here's a link to a paper that has a different view of "biosemiotics":

http://utafi.academia.edu/TommiVehkavaara/Papers/267417/Why_and_how_to_naturalize_semiotic_concepts_for_biosemiotics

"Abstract.
Any attempt to develop biosemiotics either towards a new biological ground theory or towards a metaphysics
of living nature necessitates some kind of naturalization of its semiotic concepts. Instead of standard physicalistic naturalism, a certain kind of semiotic naturalism
is pursued here. The naturalized concepts are defined as referring only to the objects of our external experience. When the semiotic concepts are applied to natural phenomena in biosemiotics, there is a risk of falling into anthropomorphic errors if the semiotic concepts remain mentalistic. It is suggested that there really is an anthropomorphic error or 'hidden prototype fallacy' arising from Peirce's prototype for semiosis: the research process of an experimental scientist. The fallacy lies in the concept of the object of representation — it is questionable whether there are any objects of representation for bacteria and whether the DNA-signs have any objects. The conclusion is that Peircean semiotic concepts are naturalizable but only if they are based on some more primitive concept of representation. The causal origins of representations are not relevant, only their anticipative consequences (i.e. meaning)."

Metaphysics and philosophy applied to the material sciences. It'a another way to appeal for "intelligent design", which has been shown to be religious dogma pretending to be science.

"What a powerful retort."

Awesome--thanks.”
The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

Commented Aug 31, 2012 at 17:42:13 in Science

“rap,

"DNA isn't a literal "code""

You may want to get ahold of all the biosemioticians at the world's universities and research organizations and tell them they've all got it wrong.

http://binghamton.academia.edu/HowardPattee/Papers/894677/The_physics_of_symbols_and_the_evolution_of_semiotic_controls

raptoryx13 on Sep 1, 2012 at 13:43:14

“I've got news for you, pal. "Biosemiotics" has extremely limited explanatory power when studying actual biology. It's philosophy and metaphysics, not natural science. Here's a snippet from Wikipwdia's page on it:

"Biosemiotics uses concepts from semiotics (in the sense of C.S. Peirce as the broad logical and scientific study of dynamic sign action in humans as well as elsewhere in nature) to answer questions about the biological emergence of meaning, intentionality and a psychical world. These questions are either hard to answer or completely incoherent within a purely mechanist and physicalist framework."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics

It's subjective opinion attempting to masquerade as science.”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 15, 2012 at 14:56:34 in Science

“Opps, I just noticed that my first post has appeared after all. Sorry for any confusion.

Best Regards...”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 15, 2012 at 11:16:14 in Science

“Hello Dr Shapiro,

I’m afraid my attempt to post a two part comment failed. Part 1 seems to have become lost.

Of course you are right that there is no “correctness” measurement to be applied to the public comments made by scientists and academics. In the missing half of my post, I had offered the comments of a Philosophy of Science professor at a prestigious American university who recently stated that there is no such thing as “teleology” in regards to biological systems. This is in direct contradiction to your own *empirical* research, yet it was publically stated, and done so with absolute certainty. Of course, there will not be a rebuttal to these statements - and that was the source of my suggestion that the only thing that might correct these matters is if such (demonstrably invalid) comments are simply not tolerated (without challenge) among academics. If academic authority figures can *repeatedly* promote false ideas without suffering the shame of their academic peers, then the public will have nothing to measure the validity of those statements. I am sure we can agree, if academics are unwilling to police their public pronouncements, we certainly can’t expect the media to step up to the task.

Again, thank you for your comments. I was true pleasure speaking with you.”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 12, 2012 at 21:11:04 in Science

“(continuing)

Of course, this is why people like you stand out. But it appears that ideology in science isn’t handled any better than any other human enterprise. The only resolution to the current condition is when blatant academic misrepresentation and false statements are simply not tolerated. Of course, there is nothing within the academy to facilitate such discipline - nothing so draconian as simply not allowing specialists and authority figures to willfully perpetuate false statements without challenge. So I suppose it is up to the individual, like you.

I wish you well Dr Shapiro. Thank you for the conversation.”

Upright BiPed on Aug 15, 2012 at 14:56:34

“Opps, I just noticed that my first post has appeared after all. Sorry for any confusion.

Best Regards...”

Upright BiPed on Aug 15, 2012 at 11:16:14

“Hello Dr Shapiro,

I’m afraid my attempt to post a two part comment failed. Part 1 seems to have become lost.

Of course you are right that there is no “correctness” measurement to be applied to the public comments made by scientists and academics. In the missing half of my post, I had offered the comments of a Philosophy of Science professor at a prestigious American university who recently stated that there is no such thing as “teleology” in regards to biological systems. This is in direct contradiction to your own *empirical* research, yet it was publically stated, and done so with absolute certainty. Of course, there will not be a rebuttal to these statements - and that was the source of my suggestion that the only thing that might correct these matters is if such (demonstrably invalid) comments are simply not tolerated (without challenge) among academics. If academic authority figures can *repeatedly* promote false ideas without suffering the shame of their academic peers, then the public will have nothing to measure the validity of those statements. I am sure we can agree, if academics are unwilling to police their public pronouncements, we certainly can’t expect the media to step up to the task.

Again, thank you for your comments. I was true pleasure speaking with you.”

hp blogger James A. Shapiro on Aug 13, 2012 at 04:22:57

“Upright,

Open discussion and debate are the only options. Trying to impose any "official" standard of accuracy can easily turn into an inquisition. That is just what you are questioning. So whatever we can do to facilitate substantive debate on the issues without arbitrary preconditions is best.

As Thomas Kuhn observed, there will be cycles of revolutionary change and orthodoxy in science. You are right to point out that science is like other human activities. So the process of arriving at the best solutions will be messy and difficult. That's what we are seeing in evolution science now.”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 12, 2012 at 21:06:41 in Science

“I would love to share your optimism Dr Shapiro, but I see little evidence that it's warranted under current conditions. In the past week I was reading the comments of Philosophy of Science culture-warrior Alex Rosenberg at Duke University. He was specifically critiquing Jerry Fodor’s views on consciousness, but his comments are illustrative of the more broadly-held views on teleological matters. He stated,

“There is only one physically possible process that builds and operates purposive systems in nature: natural selection. What it does is build and operate systems that look to us purposive, goal directed, teleological. There really are not any purposes in nature and no purposive processes ether … Darwinian natural selection is the only process that could produce the appearance of purpose.”

This stands in direct contradiction to your own empirical research. Of course, the idea that natural selection would select for advantages is not the question (and never has been). But natural selection can only select what has already appeared, and therefore it cannot be the source of that appearance. The fact that a university professor can use such a deformity in logic (in order to protect the illusion of having a source of creativity) is disheartening. He stands with other academic opinion-makers such as Dawkins, Ruse, Moran, Myers, Shallit, Miller, Eugenie Scott and the entirety of the NCSE, the NSA, and the list goes on and on, as the legacy media happily perpetuates the company line.”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 12:45:03 in Science

“Dr Shapiro,

Thank you for your comments. To have someone of your capacity suggest that teleological questions are critical to the advancement of biology should be warmly received in many quarters. I agree with you that we will someday have the answers to those questions (at least) from the standpoint of the programming and operation of the autonomous cell, or as Pattee referred to it, “the paradox of semiotic control of a physical system”. The 'paradox' was his reference to the material incompatibility that exists between (energy) rate-dependent physical laws, and the rate-independent symbol systems that harness those physical laws. I am of the belief that the origin of semiotic control will continue to elude us for those well-documented reasons.

I think it forces an interesting disciplinary question. We operate from an assumption there is a natural mechanism whereby rate-independent *control* can arise from rate-dependent physical law; even as we discount the “purely philosophical and illogical” notion of random changes in control leading to functional creativity. Von Neumann demonstrated convincingly in the 1950’s that the *capacity* to control cannot arise from the controlled, and now you’ve broken ground that this notion of random changes resulting in creativity is false. At what point (as we go through these next years realizing the *operation* of the system) will it become possible for an investigator to respectfully suggest that “something else is indicated” or "something else may be required" without forfeiting his or her career and academic status?”

hp blogger James A. Shapiro on Aug 11, 2012 at 08:23:27

“Upright,

The situation today is more favorable for a major discussion of teleology in biological systems than it was a century ago, when mechanicism won out over vitalism. The vitalists had only words and no processes to offer. Today we have machines executing goal-oriented processes, where they often determine the goals themselves.

The models of neural networks and electronic information-processing make teleology less mysterious and more open to serious scientific investigation. Coupled with the ongoing collapse of "randomness generates meaning" in biological evolution, the rise of information science and allied fields gives hope for new ways of attacking very difficult problems.

It is typical in the history of science for basic problems to reappear episodically without satisfactory resolution until technology and conceptual advances provide the tools to address them successfully. I believe and hope we are at that juncture now in biology. Time will tell if my optimism is warranted.”
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness

Commented Aug 8, 2012 at 13:39:05 in Science

“Dr Shapiro, I appreciate what you are doing here, and over several years I have read virtually every paper you’ve published. I’ve come to personally appreciate you as an investigator because I rarely get the sense you feel the need to slavishly pay homage to the ideological dogmas which populate your field.

However, in your comments here you use words like “targets” and “goals” in order to explain the observed biology. Such words cannot help but indicate directionality (i.e. targets and goals have a direction; they are something sought to be obtained; a course of action taken among other possibilities; the very antithesis of a random walk). Yet you have provided no source of the targets and goals, no mechanism of origination, no capacity of measurement related to either their need or attainment (ala Pattee, von Neumann, etc). It’s as if the goals simply appear because they are useful. But what is induces “what is useful” in the system?

Calling these biological events “natural genetic engineering” seems to only beg the question. It’s certainly a satisfactory answer to say the proximate cause of control is written into the programming of the cell, but that only pushes the question back to a systematic level; it doesn’t explain how measurement and choice contingency (required to ‘obtain a goal’ among possibilities) could become instantiated in the system. And given the cell’s programming itself requires physical representations and physical protocols in order to function, yet another layer of measurement and contingency reveals itself.”

hp blogger James A. Shapiro on Aug 9, 2012 at 05:36:09

“Upright,

You have put your finger on key questions for 21st Century research. How cells make survival and proliferation decisions is a central question. Clearly, we don't have answers yet, but we will before the century is out.

As for goal-setting, that is another area we need to investigate. Something has to lie behind successful innovations, but we are hard pressed to define it, let alone explain it.

As I use the term, targeting is different from goal-setting. Targeting refers to the ability of cells to direct genetic changes to preferred locations in the genome. It is an observable phenomenon, and we have information on the molecular processes involved (e.g. DNA binding specificity, protein-protein interactions).

As I see it, our experimental approach has to be based on the recognition that cells have the capability to selectively activate and target natural genetic engineering functions. It would be surprising for cells to have the tools to engineer their genomes but not use them in an efficient way. We need to devise ways of challenging cells to engineer their genomes creatively (i.e. produce novel functionalities) and then figure out how they do so.

I wish I could give you answers, but you have asked about what we still need to learn. Establishing that teleological questions are critical will itself take a considerable effort because we need to overcome the long-held but purely philosophical (and illogical) assertion that functional creativity can result from random changes.”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 11:39:22 in Religion

“Your post goes on to make other factual and logical errors (such as your suggestion “materialism” is a fantasy, yet famed materialists like Richard Lewontin tell us that there is a “prior commitment” in science which he describes as “absolute”, and that commitment, he states, is a commitment to “materialism”) but we can set those errors aside.

Allow me to ask you a question. You were challenged to engage observable material evidence which demonstrates a semiotic state in protein synthesis. Instead of engaging that evidence, you have chosen to suggest that the argument is out-of-bounds based upon a technicality which the argument doesn’t even make (it does no more than logically conclude a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state is required to cause a semiotic state). So, here is my question: In your view of science, is evading observable physical evidence a violation of scientific practice? Is evading physical evidence a violation despite what you personally might think of that evidence?”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 14:50:52 in Religion

“== continued ==

That does not make it a technical violation of science to observe the material evidence, nor is it illogical to state that a “mechanism capable of creating the observed evidence is required to create the observed evidence”.

Thirdly, the psuedo-technical violation you speak of is tied to a reformed definition of science that simply did not exist for the great majority of time that science has existed. In other words, it’s a “new” rule imposed by materialists (starting very late in the 20th Century) solely for reasons of ideology. Despite your uninformed comments about the progress of science, science did not need to be saved from the fathers of the craft. Do you think even for a moment that Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Mendel, Kelvin, Kepler, Corpenicus, or Pastuer would agree with your definition? (They wouldn’t). Their value to science was based upon their respect for evidence, not a political/ideological need to run demarcation arguments against the potential existence of a Deity.

Fourthly, your complaint is philosophically unsound and threatens the true foundations of science. Science is supposed to be the unfettered (systematic and rational) pursuit of knowledge about the true nature of reality, but you (and those like you) have put yourself above physical evidence and have suggested that you know enough about the cosmos to say what *is* and *is not* the true nature of reality. This is a profound deformity in logic.”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 14:49:00 in Religion

“== continued ==

But this argument fails for a number of reasons. Firstly, the argument is not based on anything but material evidence (which is observable by anyone). By “material evidence”, it is meant that the argument is based solely on observations of physical matter and dynamics. This fact alone renders your complaint moot. In other words, you and I can argue all day over this and that might mean, but none of it changes the physical evidence one iota. Secondly, the conclusion of the argument makes no reference whatsoever to any “Final Cause” of the phenomena. In other words, what you fear as “supernatural” is not even a part of the argument. The conclusion is simply driven by the evidence itself; the evidence demonstrates a semiotic state, so the logical conclusion being made is (only) that a “mechanism” capable of producing a semiotic state is required by the evidence itself.

You may think of this in terms of the Big Bang theory; the physical evidence of a tremendous beginning to the universe is simply overwhelming, yet modern physics knows absolutely nothing whatsoever “in nature” that could cause it to happen. Does this fact make it potentially “supernatural”, and is it therefore off limits to discuss the cosmic background radiation or a Singularity? (Of course not). As a simple matter of logic, everything we know about “nature” can only be said to exists *in* this universe, which obviously did not even exist prior to the Big Bang.

== continued ==”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 14:45:41 in Religion

“Gunner,

It appears that your previous interlocutor gave up on you when he/she became convinced that you would not address the evidence in earnest. I conclude the same, but will offer a response in his/her place (since you ignored my response to you anyway).

First and foremost, it must be noted that you once again refused to engage the actual evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis. This is exactly what I predicted you would do in my last comments to you. Not only did you refuse to engage the observed physical evidence, but you begin your response by quoting someone else’s comment -- which was made *before* the argument was even given to them. Perhaps in a moment of thoughtful reflection, you can understand on how truly pointless their remarks are to an argument (and evidence) they had not even heard.

The remainder of your comment is a typical “demarcation” argument. You’d like to claim that the argument being made is summarily ‘off limits’ to science based upon a technicality you’d like to impose on what empirical research can (and cannot) be allowed to say. In other words, you don’t like a potential conclusion that might be rationally drawn from the evidence, so that conclusion must be eliminated by a procedural violation, as opposed to being eliminated by the evidence itself.

== continued ==”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 17:34:33 in Religion

“I am completely confident that any response you choose to make (regarding the above reponse of mine) will not address the evidence in earnest. And if it does, it will not be able to produce a distinction.

I look forward to you proving me wrong.”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 17:29:26 in Religion

“Gunner, continued:

Fairly Certain thing #1: You do not understand the physical dynamics involved in semiotic systems (such as the transfer of information).

Fairly Certain thing #2: You do not have a clear understanding of the physical dynamics actually observed in protein synthesis.

For these two items, the issues are really not that difficult to understand, and are easily assessible to anyone who desires to understand them. The link given earlier is a good place to start.

And now, the Absolutely Certain thing #3: You cannot (and will not) address the evidence in a straighforward fashion and show a distinction between a) the dynamics involved in any form of semiotic information transfer, and b) the dynamics involved in protein synthesis (genetic information transfer).

They are precisely the same and demonstrate the exact same physical entailments.

Consequently, you are left to make repeated assertions without evidence, and to do your very best to distract from the evidence at hand. And just in case it does not occur to you -- that is not empiricism, nor is it science.”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 17:26:20 in Religion

“gunner, if I may step in for a moment...

You seem to have an odd understanding of how debate works. You have been challenged to address physical evidence, but you refuse to do so. Your response has been to simply keep re-asserting that the evidence is "meaningless". Not only have you avoided the evidence, but you keep making statements like "As I have already explained". But, you have explained nothing.

Try to understand --> *an assertion is not an explanation.* It's just an assertion, that's all. To defend your view against physical evidence to the contrary requires that you actually engage that evidence as oppossed to hiding behind assertions and distractions. There is no other way to defend a position in empirical pursuits; evidence must be addressed. Do you understand?

Now, I have not been following your comments throughout this thread so I do not know if you have any developed level of understanding or scientific acumen in regards to the topic, or not. So it serves no purpose for me to beat you over the head with evidence you seem to understand even less than perhaps the general rules of engagement in debate. But just going on what I can see from your responses thusfar I can be fairly certain of two things, and absolutely positive of a third.

I will list them in a second posting to follow this one.”
huffingtonpost entry

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

Commented Jan 4, 2012 at 10:11:20 in Religion

“Hello "No BS"

I recognize the argument you linked to with Dr Larry Moran, because I am the one who wrote it. You are correct that science has almost uniformly ignored the demonstrable semiotic state in protein synthesis. The reason for this is fairly simple; it by itself, is a virtual falsification of materialism.

What scientist wants to talk about the falsification of his/her worldview? How much better to promote Christians making silly assertions like "ID is dead".

The fact remains, protein synthesis is semiotic, and requires a mechanism that can bring about a semiotic state.

Here is a working link to the argument made to Dr Moran, Dr Elizabeth Liddle, and others:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/upright-biped-replies-to-dr-moran-on-information/