Abnormal Interests

A couple points.

First of all ID accomodates common descent but doesn't stipulate it. One of the leading ID proponents, "Darwins Black Box" author biochemist Michael Behe, explicitely believes in common descent. He suggests that a unversal ancestral protist was intelligently designed and in that scenario no further design was necessary. This is commonly called "front loading". Front loading is something that's commonly used in software design - future problems are anticipated and code to deal with those problems is incorporated and remains dormant until the problem actually surfaces.

Second, the Rivista volume that contains Wells' weak linkage to ID also contains John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). PEH is 100% unadulterated ID. Davison's hypothesis presumes the entire universe was designed and that phylogenesis was a preprogrammed self-limiting terminal process just like ontogenesis. He states that chance and natural selection played virtually no role in evolution beyond producing varieties (sub-species) and that natural selection is a conservative process that serves only to preserve the status quo until enough random mutations have accumulated to drive a species into extinction. He suggests the evolution is no longer occuring beyond the sub-species level - that it has reached its terminal point with emergence of rational man.

It kind of boggles my mind that there hasn't been one peep about Davison's radical anti-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis appearing in the same edition of Rivista as Wells' centriole/turbine hypothesis. Wells' paper is an exceedingly weak invocation of ID compared to Davison's.

I'm more or less agnostic beyond being relatively certain that RM+NS has no reasonable possibility of creating the complexity in the cell. Dembski and Behe have both demonstrated what should be intuitive to anyone at all familiar with machine design or even just plain language. Complex specified information, especially in the extreme quantity found in living cells, simply does not and cannot materialize without intent. The universe is nowhere old enough or big enough for those structures to have come about through chance.

And don't let anyone tell you that sub-cellular structures only superficially resemble machines. My favorite example, ribosome/DNA is exactly analogous to innumerable robotic assemblers that are used in factories today. Instructions contained in DNA are walked in perfectly sequential von Neuman fashion like old style paper tape storage. Beginning with a start instruction, each sequential instruction directs the ribosome assembler to pick one of 20 amino acids, specified by a codon table that is virtually identical in every prokaryote and eukaryote ever examined, and adds it to a growing chain. A stop instruction is encountered and the finished product (protein) is kicked out. Programmed robotic assembly lines don't self-organize from an unorganized soup of simple components. To believe that they can is ludicrous.

Thanks for the plug Dave. That was darn generous of you considering the fact that you won't even answer my email any more. Just because a couple of strong personalities hate each others guts doesn't mean they should stop communicating or does it? Your hero, Dilliam Wembski, won't even let me view his mystic little blog any more. Esley Welsberry, whom we both despise, has banned me both from Panda's Pathetic Pollex and his own sad little personal inside necessarium. Similarly P.Z. Meyers has banned me from his tragic little personal empire. For some as yet unexplained reason I am still able to post at SciAm Perspectives and Stranger Fruit. It's a mystery.

Also Dave, thanks for finding another forum for me from which I can pontificate until they can't stand it any more and I go the way of all critics of the biggest hoax in the history of science, Darwimpian evolution.

Welcome,

Dave and John,

First, as long as you play by the rules and avoid nonsequiturs you are welcome. Second, while I am obviously an evolutionist my concern in this post was the fact that a supposedly scientific paper was announced as if it had importance beyond its merits.

I may have more to say on you comments later but now I am on my way for a short trip with my wife.

Duane

Credit where credit is due, John. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your work in evolutionary hypotheses remains the best I've seen. IMO if you had half the charisma that you have knowledge, intellect, and determination, or it was a perfect world where everyone can separate ideas from personalities, you wouldn't have to wait until your various parts have been pickled in ether for decades before you become famous. I'll continue to do what small part I can to expose your work in time for you to see it properly recognized.

Did William F. Buckley stop communicating with Gore Vidal when Vidal called him a Nazi? Of course not. Buckley responded, calling Gore a fairy or words to that effect. The sad thing about internet forums is that as soon as one's genetically predisposed world view is questioned in any way the challenger is either ignored, disemvoweled, isolated into "Davison's Soap Box" ala Esley Welsberry or "Boot Camp" ala EvC, denied viewing privilages ala Dilliam Wembski or finally, in a last ditch frantic effort to pretend he never existed, banned for life ala P.Z. Meyers, Dilliam Wembski, Esley Welsberry, "brainstorms," EvC, ARN and FringeSciences. It is so revealing and gratifying for this senile old bench scientist to be so honored. He must be doing something right.

Duane,

If one is not an evolutionist one is in denial of the overwhelming evidence of it. The only controversy with any merit IMO is the mechanism behind it. My position is that intelligence capable of genetic engineering arose at least once in the universe. That would be us - rational man. How far are we away from being able to synthesize living systems to specification or even whim? Certainly not far in geological time (imagine how much we'll know and be able to do in genetic engineering in 1000 years, or 10,000 years, if we don't cause our own extinction) and quite possibly it's only a matter of decades. Technological progress isn't a linear progression, it's a logarithmically accelerating progressin. If intelligence of that nature arose once the possibility is demonstrated. This begs the question of whether it happened more than once. Are we the first? The universe is much older and bigger than our little corner of it. If we're not the first then it becomes quite rational to suppose the illusion of design in the living systems we can dissect and reverse-engineer is no illusion at all.

Davison and I part company when it comes to the realm of possibilities in intelligent agents that could be responsible for the mystery of organic evolution. He's a determinist and deist as was Albert Einstein. I'm a lot less the Privileged Planet type and a lot more the Carl Sagan Cosmos type. I'm doggedly holding on to the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity and if I had my druthers I'd devote a lot more resources to SETI. It's good science to look for intelligence amongst the stars. It's good science to look for it in our genome too. It's unfortunate that the prevailing mindset in evolutionary biology a priori rules out intelligent design, ridiculing it with spooky labels like "supernatural" or attempting to destroy its credibility and constitutionality by equating to it biblical creationism. If its successfully equated to biblical creationism it can never receive any public funding nor be mentioned in a public school. That's just intellectual dishonesty, an unscientific way to maintain the status quo, and quite frankly those tactics disgusts me. Darwinian evolutionists decry the tactics used by the ID crowd but as far as I can tell they've been driven there because all other avenues have been shut down by a majority of top scientists that won't, as Lewontin put it, let a divine foot in the door. Did you know that 80% of the members of the National Academy of Science are positive atheists while only about 40% of lesser scientists are positive atheists?

The question of where we came from and what we're here for is one as old as homo sapiens and it's far from settled. Clearly philosophers aren't going to answer it. Hard science might eventually provide a definitive answer. That is my hope at any rate. But it isn't going to be fruitful if we don't acknowledge all the possibilities and get busy methodologically investigating them.

Thank you very much. Be sure to take care of yourself. I would hate to think I might outlive you.

Ether is not a good pickling agent. It is too volatile not to mention dangerous. Formaldehyde will do just fine for me. My carcass will be shipped off to a medical anatomy class somewhere where I can give my last bit of hands on instruction.

"On the science issue, I cannot judge except to say that the paper seems to make an unnecessary, very likely false"

How do you know it is "very likely false" without being able to judge the scientific issues? It seems your bias is showing.

"Well's outlines a testable hypothesis but intelligent design has nothing to do with it. "

It had everything to do with it. There is even an explicit non-Darwinian assumption.

" See Strange Fruit on for more on the papers scientific value. "

He didn't even read the paper.

John - Duane doesn't want us cluttering up his blog with off-topic chatter so I'll respect his wishes. I don't have anything more to say about Wells' turbocharged centrioles unless someone inquires.

Duane - I won't be offended if you delete my off topic comments. I'd do it myself if the blog interface let commenters edit/delete their own comments after the fact. Please accept my apology. And do go read Davison's papers. They're really good. Some require a fair amount of work to understand if you're not a microbiologist.

As usual I have no idea what is going on here. Did I do something stupid again?

Centrioles are nothing but non-conforming centromeres that were preprogrammed to escape from the chromosomes. How is that for an hypothesis? Not bad eh? I think I might go with it and write another paper. Isn't that what science is all about? Incidentally, there is not a word of vitriol in any paper I have ever published. Mindless venom, unrestrained loathing and personal insult are for internet blogs. When in Rome you know. Besides, Martin Luther was much worse than I could ever be:

"When I pass wind in Wittenburg they can smell it in Rome."

I've been passing evolutionary wind in Burlington Vermont for twenty-one years now and they still refuse to smell it in Cornell, Harvard and Oxford. What is a man supposed to do I wonder?

There is not a single element of my hideous personality reflected in any of the thirty odd papers that I have published so far and there never will be. Blaming my personality will not wash. Got that? Write that down.

What counts is what is preserved for eternity on the library shelves of the world. I'm there. Where are my critics? I look forward to hearing from them. Fat chance.

The notion that technology can go on increasing indefinitely is an interesting one. Technology is under two hundred years old if we measure it since the steam engine. If we compare technology with certain other of man's contributions, trends become apparent. Look at what happened to music for example. It struggled, flowered and collapsed. There hasn't been a decent opera since Puccini or a decent Broadway musical in decades. What passes for modern music is an insult to ones senses. Look what has happened to poetry and prose too for that matter. The age of great literature is behind us and nothing seems promising for the future. Isn't it quite possible that technology will soon also approach its asymptote? Perhaps it already has.

"The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."

Who said that, I forget.

Technology has objective limits dictated by what is and isn't physically possible. Art and music seem a poor analogy as they are subjective.

The chess board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of nature. - T. H. HUXLEY

The limits of the possible in technology are explored in K. Eric Drexler's seminal work in nanotechology
Engines of Creation published in 1986.

Skip up to chapter 10 "The Limits to Growth" if the terminology is familiar.

There is nothing subjective about the Arts. They are expressions of what Einstein called the "music of the spheres" exactly as science is. They are all manifestations of the same predetermined mystery. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has run its course with not a new species in historical times and not a new genus in 2 million years, at least according to Robert Broom and Julian Huxley.

Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. Just as the individual dies never to be seen again so does the species become extinct never to be restored. Both processes are irreversible.

Does anyone really seriously believe that creative evolution is still occurring? If they do let's hear from them. I am always willing to listen.

I wouldn't give you a nickel for any art or music. It's a boring waste of time. How's that for subjective? Einstein was a good physicist. That doesn't make his opinion in anything else more worthy. He and, and evidently you too, have a decidedly mystic bent. Can't you be satisfied not knowing things for which there is no proof? Maybe you should join a church of some sort so you can be with other faithful.

Einstein was also an accomplished violinist and a patron of the arts. Just because you have no appreciation for the mysterious, which is what most of the universe really is, doesn't impress me in the least. It only exposes you as a Phillistine. With a comment like the one you just made it is no wonder you get banned so much. You come off as a cultural boob and a pompous boor. But thanks for comparing me favorably with probably the greatest mind to ever grace this planet. I am delighted to share both Einstein's mysticism and his determinism. Scientific discovery, and I have made a few, is the quintessential religious experience. Science is nothing but the discovery of what was always there staring us in the face all the time. Some can see it, some can't. I also believe that everything is knowable. It is part of the original plan.

Don't take my word for it. try this on for size.

"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the noblest motive for scientific research."
Albert Einstein

As far as a cult of some sort, that is for the Darwinians and the Fundies and those internet blogs that cater to them. They are both pathetically off base. And let here be no question about it; Darwinism is definitely a religion. Einstein didn't need a formal religion and neither do I.

LOL John

Do you like have a little altar where there's a statue of Einstein with a dish in his belly where you burn incense, focus your mystic powers, make incantations, and those sorts of things? Maybe you could start a Church of Einstein. That would show those Church of Darwin guys a thing or two!

Do you have a wind-up phonograph where you play records with music of the spheres that allows you to see God creating the universe? What was God wearing when he created the universe, John? Spit it out oh special messenger from the Great Front Loader!

Do you need any special equipment to channel Einstein or does his voice just come to you spontaneously?

ROFLMAO

Spare me. Peddle your mysticism to mystics. I'm too grounded in reality. Einstein was just a guy that was good at physics and not particularly good at anything else. It's a common mistake to think that people who are geniuses at one thing are geniuses at everything.

I have a copy of the "The Quotable Einstein" and have just ordered a new edition from Barnes and Noble. Directly above my computer is a large portrait of Albert Einstein on white paper which is black light sensitive. Occasionally I turn on the black light, settle back with a drink and fantasize just like he used to do. On other walls of of my office/bedroom I have portraits of William Bateson, Robert Broom and Richard B. Goldschmidt. I am still seeking portraits of Otto Schindewolf, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse. If you or someone else could locate these for me I would be very grateful amd would make a point of acknowledging your help somehow but probably not in a published paper.

Since you insist on treating me with your inimitable condescension and thinly veiled contempt I don't see much point in further responding to you especially since you have indicated your intention to piss on my grave. I have explained to you and others why that will be quite impossible. Go join your hero Dilliam Wembski who has decided I cannot even view his egomaniacal little blog. I understand you post a lot there. Good for you. Leave me alone here please. Write that down.

Wow, I'm gone three days to a place where internet access was difficult and the number of comments submitted to Abnormal Interests more than doubles! 20 from three commenters, nineteen from 2 of them! When I get a little rested I will respond to the few comments that were on subject. I will say to Guts that my bias is indeed showing. It is after all my blog and I have seen nothing that evens starts to be a biological theory that is not closely associated with the modern synthesis.

Also, I want to thank Dave Scott for suggesting that I delete the off topic comments. I'm not sure what I will do about that but thanks for the suggestion.

One other off topic point, if you want to "pontificate," as John Davison seems to, then one should do it on ones own blog. That's why I have one.

I do not pontifcate. I present undeniable truths with conviction. That is what science is all about. If you find me offensive ban me. It's as simple as that. The ball is in the Darwinian court and always has been. They lose. So do the Bible bangers. We critics win. Get used to it. Berg, Grasse, Goldschmidt, Broom, Bateson, Schindewolf, even myself, are the winners and always have been. That is why we still are not allowed to exist. That is about to change. Trust me or not. I couldn't care less what unpublished experts think, never did and never will. The published armchair experts like Mayr, Gould, Provine and Dawkins, all glued to their endowed chairs, are the real culprits in this intellectual battle. They are the pontificators, conning everyone with what Grasse described as "Olympian assurance" that there is now and never was any purpose in the universe, that, as Gould so smugly put it - "Intelligence was an evolutionary accident." Well I know better.

Speaking of the Modern Synthesis, a perfect example of concensus science:

"There is no such thing as concensus science. If it's concensus it isn't science. If it's science it isn't concensus."
Michael Crichton

Come on David Springer. Just because you have decided not to read my email does not mean that you need to retire from the contest. I know I told you to leave me alone. Since when has that ever deterred you? I am intellectually bored and at the same time fascinated by being ignored with respect to the greatest unsolved mystery in all of science. Does anyone out there in cyberspace actually think we know something for sure about why we are here and how that came about? I don't. Let's hear from those that think otherwise.

Come on David Springer or anyone else for that matter, Just because you have decided not to read my email does not mean that you need to retire from the contest. I know I told you to leave me alone. Since when has that ever deterred you? I am intellectually bored and at the same time fascinated by being ignored with respect to the greatest unsolved mystery in all of science. Does anyone out there in cyberspace actually think we know something for sure about why we are here and how that came about? I don't. Let's hear from those that think they do.