Why 'Deniers' are Always Wrong – Models can't be falsified

Richard Wright says:
August 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Why am I not surprised that among the many things you don’t know is that RNA and lipid bubbles, like cell membranes, self-assemble, and that RNA can function both as a repository of genetic information and as an enzyme to catalyze and synthesize biochemical reactions?
The organic compounds which are the precursors to and constituents of RNA and lipids exist throughout the solar system. One meteorite contains dozens of amino acids and peptides (of which polypeptides, ie proteins, are composed), many of which don’t occur naturally on earth now that organisms are around to metabolize them.

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2014 at 1:21 am
…
We do NOT ” know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space.”
Indeed don’t we know rather the opposite? Since OLR seen by sats varies in lockstep with surface temperatures, it is the default conclusion that any “additional” heat is radiated away more or less immediately

In my opinion ‘Den1ers are Always Wrong’ TM, because anthropocalypticians throughout human history have perceived skepticism as a attack against The Noble Cause. Fortunately the modern times have the biggest enemy of anthropocalypse – fundamental rights.

Regarding the meanings of “knowledge” and “information,” Claude Shannon left us with a widely accepted mathematical definition of “information.” It is a concept in the probabilistic logic. This is the logic that is formed by that generalization from the classical logic in which the rule that every proposition is true or false is replaced by the rule that every proposition has a probability of being true. In this logic, an inference has the unique measure that is called its “entropy.” The entropy is the missing information in this inference for a deductive conclusion per event.
“Knowledge” lacks a widely accepted mathematical description. However, it matches the description of the mathematical function that is called the “mutual information.” The mutual information is the information that is not missing for a deductive conclusion per event. The mutual information varies inversely with the entropy. At the peak, the entropy is nil and the mutual information is called “perfect information.”

sturgishooper says:
August 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Why am I not surprised that among the many things you don’t know is that RNA and lipid bubbles, like cell membranes, self-assemble, and that RNA can function both as a repository of genetic information and as an enzyme to catalyze and synthesize biochemical reactions?
The organic compounds which are the precursors to and constituents of RNA and lipids exist throughout the solar system. One meteorite contains dozens of amino acids and peptides (of which polypeptides, ie proteins, are composed), many of which don’t occur naturally on earth now that organisms are around to metabolize them.

To compared a self-assembled bubble of lipids to a cell membrane is like comparing a collections of wires and semi-conducters to a computer. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9898/).
The nucleotides of RNA do not self-assemble in water, not to any useful degree. Experimenters talk of RNA-like molecules, proto-RNA,nucleotides which have been modified or activated but, no, RNA nucleotides do not self-assemble. And try synthesizing the nucleotides themselves. Lots of conjecture.
Are the amino acids found in meteorites a racemic mix or are they all left-handed, the only kind used by life? Anyone ever succeeded in producing only the left-handed kind or separating them out by any natural mechanism?
Regardless of the dogmatic proclamations of some, scientists have no idea how life arose. It’s really simple, go make like in the laboratory, if you know how. Synthesize the left handed amino acids and nucleotides. Throw them into a beaker with phospholipids and water and see if something comes walking out. Take all of the conjecture and proposed mechanisms and try them. Produce life. Make the DNA, RNA and proteins. Watch the DNA naturally encode itself with the instructions to create proteins and turn them on and off, to replicate itself, create the cellular membrane and all of the structures of the cell. Use all of the meteorites, crystals, clays and ice that you want.
I know, I know. It’s all just lies that I’m spewing. Scientists create life in the laboratory everyday. We read about the new life forms in the daily paper. And computers also self-assemble and create their own programming.

richardscourtney says:
August 17, 2014 at 1:00 am
Thankyou, that does explain your confusion: i.e. you fail to understand the difference between ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’.

I didn’t mean to imply that DNA or cells were self-aware when talking of “knowledge”. I was trying to make the correlation between knowledge and information, that information does not just create itself. DNA is a code that contains the instructions to build the cell, govern it’s operation and replication. Codes are created by intelligent beings and represent their knowledge.

Contrary to your assertion, this is also demonstrated by computer programs. Copying errors may alter the behaviour of a copied program. If this is noticed by the program’s user then the copied version will be destroyed (i.e. natural selection) but if it is not noticed then the error may be transcribed into other copies of the program (i.e. natural selection).

Absolutely copying errors alter the behavior of the program and you are right to say they are destroyed or the original programming is restored if discovered. The reason is because the random alteration is detrimental. Anyone who deals with codes goes to great length to preserve their accuracy and prevent alteration. Send a coded nuclear launch message to a nuclear submarine and you ahd better hope the message comes through unaltered.

Richard Wright says:
August 17, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Random alterations are not always detrimental. Why can’t you get this?
Take the human population for an example. Every human is born with a few mutations, and acquires more during his or her life, some of which occur in sperm and egg cells. Those in sperm are especially effective in providing genetic variation to the human population, which is why old fathers are an important source of new material upon which human evolution can work.
Not all seven billion humans will reproduce, of course, so let’s just look at the, say, five billion who might do so or have already done so. On average, each of them (us) might have about five (probably more) mutations. Those which were lethal to start meant their bearers weren’t born. So we’re talking maybe 25 billion mutations. Deleterious ones are masked by the matching genes on the other chromosome from the other parent, which is another advantage of sexual reproduction (one reasons why males are less “fit” than females, when the risks of child-bearing are detrended).
So, if just one mutation in a million is favorable (it’s actually more), then people walking around today are going to pass on 25 million beneficial mutations.
Maybe if you had ever taken a course in genetics or any other biological subject you wouldn’t humiliate yourself so hilariously. But I doubt it, so benighted is your brain by its false belief system.

sturgishooper says:
August 17, 2014 at 6:44 pm
You are incapable of challenging the “world view” of biologists because you are totally ignorant of the science. It’s not hatred. It’s contempt for the presumption of a total ignoramus presuming to repeat ID lies without having done even a tiny smidgen of the work needed to understand what in the hell you’re talking about.
If only you had studied biology, you’d see why your lunatic ravings are held in such utter contempt.

You know nothing about me yet proclaim with dogmatic certainty that I have never studied biology or been gainfully employed as a scientist. But you are completely wrong about this. I hope you are more objective in your own scientific pursuits. There is really no point in carrying this on because your are seemingly unable to respond without resorting to insults. Best of luck.

Richard Wright says:
August 17, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Your clueless comments show that you obviously have never studied biology, or if you have, that it didn’t sink in.

Curious George says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm
milodon: I agree with your position – with some variations. I can’t see how an “intelligent design” can be shown false; it is flexible enough to survive any attack by mere facts. So are climate models.
——————-
Au contraire. It’s easy to show ID ludicrously false. This Wiki summary of the Dover trial leaves out certain trenchant points, such as the demonstration that “ID” literature had crudely reworked earlier creationist tracts and that Behe, originator of the ID scam to try to sneak creationism into the public schools by the back door, was forced to admit that natural selection and other evolutionary processes most certainly do produce new species, genera, families, orders, etc.
“In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe’s cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”[43] and that his definition of ‘theory’ as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[44] Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that “the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond” and that “it’s entirely possible that something that couldn’t be produced in the lab in two years… could be produced over three and half billion years.”[43][45][46]
“Many of Behe’s critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe’s statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe’s testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:
“Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.”[47]
“As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.”[47]
“First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.”[48]
“What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.”[49]
“We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”[50]
“ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that ‘irreducibly complex’ systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.”[51]
“Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor ‘missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,’ what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.”[52]
“Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.”[53]
“In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”[54]
“With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.”[55]
“Jones would later say that Eric Rothschild’s cross examination of Behe was “as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook.”[56][57]”

@ur momisugly sturgishooper says: August 17, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Trolls need to be fed. If they get no food, they go somewhere else to get it. The only reason the blog is ‘stunk up’ is because you keep feeding them. The stink comes from both sides. Drop it and move on.