Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time to Give It Up [Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity]
Seed Magazine ^ | 4/10/06 | Britt Peterson

Posted on 04/11/2006 5:11:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker

New research chips away at the "irreducible complexity" argument behind intelligent design.

Lehigh biochemistry professor Michael Behe and his cronies in the intelligent design community have attempted to poke holes in evolutionary theory using an idea dubbed "irreducible complexity"—the notion that complex systems with interdependent parts could not have evolved through Darwinian trial and error and must be the work of a creator, since the absence of any single part makes the whole system void. However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

"We weren't motivated by irreducible complexity," said Joe Thornton, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the paper. "How complexity evolved is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology per se, and it's once we saw our results that we realized the implications for the social debate."

Thornton's team has been studying one example of a complex system in which each part defines the function of the other: the partnerships between hormones and the proteins on cell walls, or receptors, that bind them. The researchers looked specifically at the hormone aldosterone, which controls behavior and kidney function, and its receptor.

"[This pairing] is a great model for the problem of the evolution of complexity," said Thornton. "How do these multi-part systems—where the function of one part depends on the other part—evolve?"

Thornton and his co-investigators used computational methods to deduce the gene structure of a long-gone ancestor of aldosterone's receptor. They then synthesized the receptor in the lab. After recovering the ancient receptor—which they estimate to be a 450-million-year-old receptor that would have been present in the ancestor of all jawed vertebrates—Thornton's team tested modern day hormones that would activate it. Although aldosterone did not evolve until many millions of years after the extinction of the ancient hormone receptor, Thornton found that it and the ancient receptor were compatible.

This cross-generational partnership is made possible, Thornton explained, by the similarity in form between aldosterone and the ancient hormone that once partnered with the receptor.

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

The principal at work in the evolution of complex systems is molecular exploitation: when an individual component casts around for other materials that might work together with it, even though those elements might have evolved as parts of other systems.

"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.

While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.

"Such studies solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument," wrote Christoph Adami, of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, in an introduction to the Science paper. "Those 'alternate' ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested. Consequently, whatever debate remains must be characterized as purely political."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; complexity; crevolist; design; evolution; intelligent; irreducible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: ConsentofGoverned
"well thats why I posted the question-and as a natural insecicide no that does not hold up- "

What's your explanation? That God made opium so that people could get high?
51 posted on 04/11/2006 7:26:00 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I write software for a living. My code runs instrumentation that "observes" and "measures". I get it. But my clients would know if I were "fudging" my results because my results can be "measured" and "observed" i.e. validated through numerous other methods.

Validation of computer modeling simply cannot be done unless the models move from the computer into the "real world" so that the models can be validated. That simply has never happened in the use of modeling to study evolutionary processes.

52 posted on 04/11/2006 7:28:42 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"What's your explanation? That God made opium so that people could get high?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..............
pretty mundane response, no I was thinking of the pain it and it's congeners relieves in millions of badly injured and the terminal patients i deal with daily, I hope you will never need it's kindness, but chances are you will.
53 posted on 04/11/2006 7:29:30 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Fastest doubling time on record is 8 minutes, Bacillus stearothermophilus. "Typical" bacteria are usually around 1 hour doubling time. Fast eucaryotes double typically once a day.
54 posted on 04/11/2006 7:37:34 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
I didn't think one was needed, but I guess on these threads.. sheesh ;)

If you were posting in jest, my apologies.

On some threads its hard to tell.

55 posted on 04/11/2006 7:37:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ndt
So where did these self-programming programs come from? Outer space?
56 posted on 04/11/2006 7:40:24 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Getready; VadeRetro

You can have him VR. It'd take me a year to straighten out this mess.


57 posted on 04/11/2006 7:40:49 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
"pretty mundane response, no I was thinking of the pain it and it's congeners relieves in millions of badly injured and the terminal patients i deal with daily, I hope you will never need it's kindness, but chances are you will."

Not mundane, as you did not specify what you thought it's alleged purpose would be.

Your answer still assumes, a priori, without any evidence, that everything we see in the natural world is there for US. It's a very arrogant position.
58 posted on 04/11/2006 7:42:08 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Well, after reading that story, I am totally convinced we and the rest of the universe are here by chance.


59 posted on 04/11/2006 7:43:13 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

"...and must be the work of a creator, since the absence of any single part makes the whole system void."


That's one extremely large assumption. How, exactly, does the absence of a single part voiding the system prove the existence of a creator?


60 posted on 04/11/2006 7:43:29 PM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

The horrible truth is that the game must go on, even if it comes down to, "Hit the ball, drag God."

When the load becomes too much to bear, we'll finally either leave the load behind or give up the game altogether.


61 posted on 04/11/2006 7:46:35 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Your answer still assumes, a priori, without any evidence, that everything we see in the natural world is there for US. It's a very arrogant position."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.......
Yep arrogant is my middle name. but then I do not claim to understand the origin of the species and the chemistry of life..I only understand the tools I use daily and the objective results of modern drugs..the fact that plants produce chemicals that have beneficial results in humans is a blessing and mystery to me. The a priori part is that I use them (plant alakloids) the question remains why does the poppy produce psychoactive compounds?
62 posted on 04/11/2006 7:49:19 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Darwin's vanity led him to trump Wallace and his credentials allowed it.


63 posted on 04/11/2006 7:49:47 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
"So where did these self-programming programs come from? Outer space?"

That would be the equivalent of the question "what is origin of life". Evolution does not cover that.

Life works within it's framework and evolutionary algorithms work within theirs.
64 posted on 04/11/2006 7:49:57 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Bacteria was discovered in 1683. It divides every 20 to 30 minutes. In those millions of generations has it EVER been observed to mutate into another kind of bacteria, or a two celled creature?

E.coli may mutate but it stays E.coli, it doesn't change. Humans have several mutations (hair, skin, and eye color for example), but they remain human.

We didn't build the car out of dirt. We mined the ore, smelted it, refined it, manufactured it, shipped it, and assembled it with thousands of other pieces of metal, rubber, and glass. I don't think you could say that a car evolved simply because it stared from dirt and became more complex as time went on.

It would appear that there is more evidence for Intelligent Design than evolution.
65 posted on 04/11/2006 7:53:36 PM PDT by GooberHead (Those who don't demand their rights don't have any. - US Supreme Court)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ndt

To torture Carlin's humor, "Where did all the stuff come from?"


66 posted on 04/11/2006 7:54:00 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
" Yep arrogant is my middle name."

OK.

" but then I do not claim to understand the origin of the species and the chemistry of life.."

Sure you do, though I don't know what *the species* is.

"I only understand the tools I use daily and the objective results of modern drugs..the fact that plants produce chemicals that have beneficial results in humans is a blessing and mystery to me."

No it isn't; you assume everything has some human benefit.

"The a priori part is that I use them (plant alakloids)"

No, that's the a posteriori part.

"the question remains why does the poppy produce psychoactive compounds?"

To think it is for us is the height of arrogance.
67 posted on 04/11/2006 7:54:40 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ndt
"That would be the equivalent of the question "what is origin of life". Evolution does not cover that."

Huh?

I thought the Godfather of Evolution, Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled "The ORIGIN of the Species".

Are you pro-evos backtracking from that, too?

68 posted on 04/11/2006 7:55:13 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
come come my coyoteman, your namesake would never be caught in such a trap..as you know the extrapolation of skull morphology is subjective at it's root. with out vital DNA your use of jigsaw puzzle pieces resulted in fakes more times than not. Piltown man strike a bell..many of the skulls in the series were not even found on the same continent. may be of children or mutations of same species or adults vs children..too much we do not know about this attempt to use fossil records inappropriately.

Cranial morphology: I did quite a bit of that in grad school. Of course its subjective, but if you are suggesting that none of the observations are accurate or that anything subjective is automatically wrong, I would have to strongly disagree. I would request that you back up your conjecture.

DNA: Actually, DNA affirms common descent and a lot of the critical details of evolutionary theory. Darwin could have been proved wrong, but he was not.

"resulted in fakes more times than not:" Not a true statement.

"Piltown man strike a bell:" I am familiar with the Piltdown hoax. Most anthropologists dismissed it because it did not fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. They were correct.

"many of the skulls in the series were not even found on the same continent:" So? Early man got around, just like we do. But most were found in Africa.

"may be of children or mutations of same species or adults vs children:" Or may not be. Study some of the fossils before you opine. Do you really think that we can't tell a child cranium from that of an adult? The Taung cranium was a child, Mrs. Ples was an adult (see the text which follows; I have actually studied casts of both specimens, so this is not all second-hand).

"too much we do not know about this attempt to use fossil records inappropriately:" Not a true statement.

I find your responses most unconvincing. You clearly have not studied evolution as much as you have opposed it.

In the specimens below, not the cranial morphology and the differences between a child and an adult.

If you have any questions, let me know.


Fossil: Taung Child

Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)

Gender: Unknown (1)

Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)

Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)

Interpretation:

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27



Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

69 posted on 04/11/2006 7:55:53 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
"Darwin's vanity led him to trump Wallace and his credentials allowed it."

It wasn't his vanity, it was the fact that he had formulated natural selection a few decades before Wallace, and the fact that his version was better than Wallace's. Wallace didn't consider competition among the individuals of a species; Darwin did.
70 posted on 04/11/2006 7:58:40 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GooberHead
In those millions of generations has it EVER been observed to mutate into another kind of bacteria, or a two celled creature?

See the chart in post #5 and the photographs in post #39.

71 posted on 04/11/2006 8:05:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
To all
I actually find stuff like this

"In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. Will the subatomic world help reveal the elusive nature of the primes?
"
to be a more plausible argument for ID then anything I have currently read written by Dembinski, Behe or others.
I admit its not really scientific evidence BUT its one of those things that makes one go 'what the...?'

Again I think ID should be discussed and debated. It should rise or fall on its own merits. I don't see anything yet that would make me call it science. (It doesn't belong in the average high school science class. Perhaps a high school philosophy of science class. ). It most certainly is metaphysics which is a perfectly legitimate field of human inquiry !
72 posted on 04/11/2006 8:06:28 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
I didn't think one was needed, but I guess on these threads.. sheesh ;)

If you leave off the < /s> on these threads, you should expect the Spanish Inquisition.

73 posted on 04/11/2006 8:07:03 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Sounds kinda bold to say it "solidly refutes" ID.

How are they certain they synthesized the receptor in the lab correctly?

What do they base this "synthesis" on?

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.

While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.

And this doesnt sound to "solid" to be considered undeniably reliable.
It sounds like they think they know what goes on and create the needed results filling the gaps with the supposed theory.

74 posted on 04/11/2006 8:07:50 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Nice reply, tuang child well how do we know it was a child? by teeth you say, how do we know it was bipedal by teeth you say, how do we know it's age by faunal and geo data we can guess its an estimate ..supposition built on more supposition..lets be honest..this specimen like most of the others is based on guesses and estimates do we know the life span of this subject? no it may well have been middle age for it's species. do we have dna from it? no
does it appear to be tool using?? we do not known..modern man appears in the late ice age, but how long before was he here?? let's just say we can deduce much from our data but proof of evolution from taung child to modern man well that takes a leap of faith not science.
75 posted on 04/11/2006 8:11:23 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
"thought the Godfather of Evolution, Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled "The ORIGIN of the Species"

The Theory of Evolution covers how one species changes into another (origin of a new species from an existing one), not how life began.

" Are you pro-evos backtracking from that, too?"

It's not a backtrack, thats what the TOE has always covered.

There is obviously a point where the TOE would need to merge into some sort of a "theory of origin of life", but that is still a very open question.
76 posted on 04/11/2006 8:11:47 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Congratulations! Your request for a ping to this thread has been selected as pingworthy by Patrick Henry.


77 posted on 04/11/2006 8:29:49 PM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

The argument continues. And, the results indicated in the original article seem to be a bit shy of proving anything. It's like discovering that a 1 inch No. 8 bolt and a 2 inch No. 8 bolt both fit them same nut. The trouble with Darwin is that it requires magic to make things work. Life magically starts in some part of the world, and then certain changes magically take place to make it successively more complex until we have a specie that can contemplate and partially understand the process. How much more natural is it to believe that intelligence drove the process instead of magic. But (some) scientists proclaim that magic is more "scientific" than intelligence. The thing created decides that it has no use for the creator and proclaims that there is no creator. Yet the thing created still exists, and by that fact demonstrates the existence of the creator.
78 posted on 04/11/2006 8:29:59 PM PDT by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Patrick, One could almost think an evolutionist perpetrated the "irreducible complexity" idea, just so another could come along and declare it a myth.


79 posted on 04/11/2006 8:35:14 PM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
Nice reply, tuang child well how do we know it was a child? by teeth you say, how do we know it was bipedal by teeth you say, how do we know it's age by faunal and geo data we can guess its an estimate ..supposition built on more supposition..lets be honest..this specimen like most of the others is based on guesses and estimates do we know the life span of this subject? no it may well have been middle age for it's species. do we have dna from it?

no

does it appear to be tool using?? we do not known..modern man appears in the late ice age, but how long before was he here?? let's just say we can deduce much from our data but proof of evolution from taung child to modern man well that takes a leap of faith not science.

Please study some human anatomy, evolution, and related subjects and try again. There is simply too much wrong here to try to correct tonight.

Your zeal has far outstripped your knowledge of the subject.

80 posted on 04/11/2006 8:38:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
One question that has bothered my small intellect is:
the Poppy flower bud produces opium, but opium as far as I know has no function for the poppy, other than man wants it for it's narcotic effect as is mimics endorphins at a mu receptor site. Did the poppy evolve to produce opium for man or did it just produce opium for no apparent evolutionary advantage, and how does this fit in with the whole evolution selects life best suited for survival-why waste valuable energy producing opium when it has no benefit for the plant??

According to this article, it's basically an autoimmune defense enhancement mechanism:

We identified a novel metabolic system of morphine in the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.). In response to stress, morphine is quickly metabolized to bismorphine consisting of two morphine units, followed by accumulation in the cell wall. This bismorphine binds predominantly to pectins, which possess high galacturonic acid residue contents, through ionical bonds. Our newly developed method using artificial polysaccharides demonstrated that bismorphine bridges are formed between the two amino groups of bismorphine and the carboxyl groups of galacturonic acid residues, resulting in cross-linking of galacturonic acid-containing polysaccharides to each other. The ability of bismorphine to cross-link pectins is much higher than that of Ca2+, which also acts as a cross-linker of these polysaccharides. Furthermore, we confirmed that cross-linking of pectins through bismorphine bridges leads to resistance against hydrolysis by pectinases. These results indicated that production of bismorphine is a defense response of the opium poppy. Bismorphine formation is catalyzed by anionic peroxidase that pre-exists in the capsules and leaves of opium poppies. The constitutive presence of morphine, together with bismorphine-forming peroxidase, enables the opium poppy to rapidly induce the defense system.

81 posted on 04/11/2006 9:27:58 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: somniferum

Unfortunately, I have encountered creationists who honestly believed Jack Chick to be an informative source.


82 posted on 04/11/2006 9:38:12 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Actually some do.

Slight exaggeration there.

They change over time and can be [insert buzzword verb here] so that the programs get better and better at solving some particular problem, or approach closer and closer to an extremum (see also Lagrange multipliers)...

but in the strict sense, they don't write "themselves" ab initio.

Cheers!

83 posted on 04/11/2006 10:02:49 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

"Who will be eaten first?" placemark


84 posted on 04/11/2006 10:06:50 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
act as a natural insecticide of sorts, much like nicotine does for tobacco.

...depends on how much you (dis)like lawyers, see also the short mystery story The Poisoned Dow '08.

Cheers!

85 posted on 04/11/2006 10:06:51 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
This article and 'model' reminds me of that South-Park episode with the underwear stealing gnomes.
Step A: Steal Underwear
Step C: Profit!
86 posted on 04/11/2006 10:11:21 PM PDT by El Cid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
Well, after reading that story, I am totally convinced we and the rest of the universe are here by chance.

See also National Lampoon's Deteriorata:

You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.....
Deteriorata! Deteriorata!

Go placidly
Amid the noise and waste.
And remember what comfort there may be
In owning a piece thereof.

Avoid quiet and passive persons
Unless you are in need of sleep.

Ro-tate your tires.

Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
And heed well their advice,
Even though they be turkeys.

Know what to kiss.....and when!

Consider that two wrongs never make a right
But that THREE.........do.

Wherever possible, put people on hold.

Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and
disillusionment
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer main-te-nance.

Chorus

You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Remember the Pueblo.

Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mu-ti-late.

Know yourself.
If you need help, call the FBI.

Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you.
That lemon on your left, for instance.

Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.

Fall not in love therefore;
It will stick to your face.

Gracefully surrender the things of youth:
The birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan
And let not the sands of time
Get in your lunch.

Hire people with hooks.

For a good time call 606-4311;
Ask for "Candi."

Take heart amid the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.

And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

Chorus

You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore, make peace with your god
Whatever you conceive him to be---
Hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.

With all its hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal
The world continues to deteriorate.

GIVE UP!

Reprise

You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Full Disclosure: According to Dr. Demento's liner notes, Melissa Manchester sang the background vocals.

Cheers!

87 posted on 04/11/2006 10:13:49 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
To think it is for us is the height of arrogance.

It can just as easily be humbling.

"Wow! A gift...for ME?"

Cheers!

88 posted on 04/11/2006 10:15:12 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


89 posted on 04/11/2006 10:45:27 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; wallcrawlr

Don't-admit-a-problem-until-we-find-a-solution ping.


90 posted on 04/12/2006 3:20:00 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("You're not going crazy! You're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Well, that explains it. Evolution came about via computers.
91 posted on 04/12/2006 3:25:49 AM PDT by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

eat the poppy leaves and see if you get an effect you will not ..the amounts are not significant to effect any defense.


92 posted on 04/12/2006 4:00:39 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
You can have him VR. It'd take me a year to straighten out this mess.

You don't have to prove all the eggs in the omelet are bad. ;)

93 posted on 04/12/2006 5:21:35 AM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

"eat the poppy leaves and see if you get an effect you will not ..the amounts are not significant to effect any defense."

It would if we were insect size.


94 posted on 04/12/2006 5:31:42 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Validation of computer modeling simply cannot be done unless the models move from the computer into the "real world" so that the models can be validated.

You appear not to understand how ancestral phylogenetic trees are reconstructed. This is not a computer 'model', in the sense, say, of a climate model. It's a mathematical process that reconstructs the most likely common ancestor. It can be reproduced by anyone else who knows how to do such analysis.

95 posted on 04/12/2006 6:18:44 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

It is the presuppositions that are built into the program that I question. Once those are hardwired, no one questions them... they just look at the output and say it was "computer generated" and scientific.

Take a look at the Editorial in today's WSJ called, Climate of Fear. It takes this same issue out of the emotional (around here) context of evolution and clearly demonstrates it in the context of global warming - which also uses computers.

Further, it shows how a belief system can go out in search of proof - seeing "facts" through "global warming colored glasses" - and criticizing any disagreement by anyone who questions the underlying assumptions.

I urge everyone who has an interest in these types of issues to read this editorial. The author, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is a professor at MIT. Note especially the climate of fear that has been created by "objective" scientists against any scientist who dares question the same set of data and see a different rubric. How funding is withheld from those who see data differently. How academic promotions are withheld. In short, how everyone in an entire department can end up believing the same thing and advocating the same thing - even if it is not proven or simply not true. And yet at the same time, they can do all this under the guise of "science". It is a way to stifle all dissent and independent thought. And it happens every day in most fields of endeavor.

Scientists are simply humans - subject to all the emotional vaguaries of all humans.

Don't think for a moment that everything described by Dr. Lindzen doesn't equally apply to those humans who work with biological data and devote themselves to proving evolution.


96 posted on 04/12/2006 6:40:49 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Has Michael Behe responded to this? What does he have to say?


97 posted on 04/12/2006 6:53:49 AM PDT by murdoog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

There is a reason, however, that established theories can only be overturned by more inclusive theories.

An assertion that the unsolved problems of biology cannot be solved is not a theory.


98 posted on 04/12/2006 6:57:18 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

"and how does this fit in with the whole evolution selects life best suited for survival-why waste valuable energy producing opium when it has no benefit for the plant??

"

That one's easy. Opium is a poisonous alkaloid. Many plants produce poisonous alkaloids. They have evolved to protect the plant from being eaten by insects. Even the common milkweed produces poisonous alkaloids. The interesting thing is that a species of caterpillar has evolved that is not harmed by those alkaloids, so it eats milkweed exclusively.

Isn't nature amazing?


99 posted on 04/12/2006 7:00:31 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Rather than bookmark all your replies, can I just ping you?

Dang, you have forgotten more than I know about Evolution (and other stuff like Abiogenesis) than I have ever learned -- and I am up on the stuff (as much as a layperson can be)!!!

You rock, dude.


100 posted on 04/12/2006 7:02:16 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson