tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post4883060800223708685..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Yet another nail in the Intelligent Design coffinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30692739077442479692007-05-14T13:29:00.000-04:002007-05-14T13:29:00.000-04:00I'm more interested if any of the IDiots will pick...I'm more interested if any of the IDiots will pick up on the bit of naturally-occuring neural circuitry named the "Central Pattern Generator" - will they cry about the generation of information or the relationship to the second law of thermodynamics (order is being created from disorder!) or some such?<BR/><BR/>Nice post, I thought this bit of biorobotics was very interesting.TheBrummellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973380652057861796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47313033106094749392007-05-11T04:35:00.000-04:002007-05-11T04:35:00.000-04:00put as many nails in the coffin as you want. there...put as many nails in the coffin as you want. theres nothing inside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47282620231640146302007-05-10T09:33:00.000-04:002007-05-10T09:33:00.000-04:00Yes I take your point Aureola, both ideas are comp...Yes I take your point Aureola, both ideas are complex in different ways, and can also be over simplified.<BR/><BR/>I guess I should have said evolution is more coherent than creationism. Which to me makes it self evidently simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52770461127305909082007-05-10T07:44:00.000-04:002007-05-10T07:44:00.000-04:00sj:then we shouldn't say it is "simplistic"; it is...sj:<BR/><BR/>then we shouldn't say it is "simplistic"; it is "simple", but far from "simplistic".<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for clarifying what you really meant; on this, I agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23157960025773489612007-05-10T05:43:00.000-04:002007-05-10T05:43:00.000-04:00thanks ME thats what i mean when i say more simpli...thanks ME thats what i mean when i say more simplistic.<BR/><BR/>evolution is like the universal acid of theories. (Daniel C Dennet)<BR/><BR/>it burns through all levels of complexity.<BR/><BR/>i just think that we shouldnt conceed the 'simplistic' to something that makes no sense on any level.<BR/><BR/>SJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72050488526968591562007-05-09T15:56:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:56:00.000-04:00SJ said...I think Darwins world view is more simpl...<I>SJ said...<BR/>I think Darwins world view is more simplistic than the creationists.</I><BR/><BR/>yes, and simplicity is preferred - the principal of parsimony. The creationists posit a number of elements to their explanatory model that are themselves unexplained (and are unexplainable) thereby increasing the complexity of the problem and not solving it at all - just making it worse.Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4776690749410362412007-05-09T15:24:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:24:00.000-04:00I see, SJ. The classic "I know you are, but what a...I see, SJ. The classic "I know you are, but what am I?" projection defense.<BR/><BR/>There's hardly anything more simplistic than "Goddidit", as is very clearly shown by the failure of any creationist to generate <B>any</B> testable hypothesis about how the world works.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, evolutionary biologists generate, test, and either reject or refine a huge volume of hypotheses, testing them against the ultimate touchstone.<BR/><BR/>No, <B>not</B> the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49761327419019388502007-05-09T13:03:00.000-04:002007-05-09T13:03:00.000-04:00I think Darwins world view is more simplistic than...I think Darwins world view is more simplistic than the creationists.<BR/><BR/>SJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59418567649477077392007-05-09T00:31:00.000-04:002007-05-09T00:31:00.000-04:00jThanks for the link to the Canadian article. That...j<BR/>Thanks for the link to the Canadian article. That rascal pulls no punches!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60609344737820214022007-05-08T21:54:00.000-04:002007-05-08T21:54:00.000-04:00I had ever wondered for the appear of this novelty...I had ever wondered for the appear of this novelty. <BR/><BR/>I hope creationist people one day learning to be honest with herself. From my perspective it is a matter of have the courage to break some cultural background and to cope the repulse from the others. But, come on guys there is more hope in science and you should recognize (just actually unconscious do) that it is the only way to survive for us.ICAROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11459228690588429317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81806180507924377452007-05-08T17:27:00.001-04:002007-05-08T17:27:00.001-04:00Not "I did sound", IT did sound...JNot "I did sound", IT did sound...<BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37076187645330270862007-05-08T17:27:00.000-04:002007-05-08T17:27:00.000-04:00That's true, me (sorry, forgot your name, was it K...That's true, me (sorry, forgot your name, was it Kevin?). I did sound like "speciesism", or should I say "plylumcism". Yuck.<BR/><BR/>But... if you broaden Massimo's sentence a bit and include also non-vertebrates coming out of the water, things would be more fair. It's been seen before how some processes are actually deeply shared (homologous) between beings that didn't look like it was the case. Take for example the development of the eyes. It's not <B>morphologically</B> homologous between insects and vertebrates, but the homeotic gene involved is the same -- to the point that you can swap it between mouse and fly and it still works. Or so I've heard.<BR/><BR/>So it might be the case that, even if the limb development does not look homologous between these organisms, it might still be at some deeper level of regulation or the like. We do develop segmentally up to a point after all. So <BR/>the adaptation of the neural network might have been of a similar nature in different organisms. Just speculating, of course. But that might be the case for TWO pivotal moments in animal evolution. :-)<BR/><BR/>Unrelated to this all (but nobody would read it in the old post, so here it goes), this <A HREF="http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=62d4e647-9088-47dc-8a46-6397e3a6e30d" REL="nofollow">nice little text</A> that came out in the Ottawa Citizen, about "Those fanatical atheists".<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2119467391092920532007-05-08T15:52:00.000-04:002007-05-08T15:52:00.000-04:00Very nice! My only comment is your (mis)use of the...Very nice! My only comment is your (mis)use of the word 'animal'<BR/><BR/><I>...pivotal moments in animal evolution...</I><BR/><BR/>vertebrates represent less than 4% of Animalia, and once the undescribed insects are tallied, probably less than 1%. A change to such a minor proportion of the lineage can hardly be called important to the lineage as a whole (except from a biased human/vertebrate-centric perspective - but scientists should strive to eliminate such bias).<BR/><BR/>I'd swap the word animal with 'vertebrate.' And keep on the lookout for similar misuses - they're quite common because children grow up thinking that a vertebrate, like a dog, is a typical "animal" when in fact it's a super-rare very atypical animal (as are all those animals with internal skeletons).Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44966109362825751322007-05-07T23:49:00.000-04:002007-05-07T23:49:00.000-04:00Hey, don't forget to italicize the name of the int...Hey, don't forget to italicize the name of the intelligently designed "new species" <I>Salamandra robotica</I> sp. nov.! :O)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com