#52034: coturnix — 12/05  at  07:26 AM
Rotten tomatoes and eggs, thrown at them in downtown Seattle! Sounds like fun!

#52047: — 12/05  at  08:59 AM
I am shocked! Shocked!, I say, to find that the DI has been acting with less than full integrity.

You should note that this "expert" report is not an official part of the trial proceedings since the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center had their falling out and Meyer and other "expert" witnesses withdrew from the trial.

#52085: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  10:52 AM
Paul wrote:

"Sarkar's work in no way supports their contention, as Sarkar himself would know."

There is Sarkar's work, and there is Sarkar's interpretation of his work. Scientific work is often in two parts, the data itself and the interpretation the researcher puts on the data.
It seems to me that people reading the paper ought to be able to draw different conclusions from the data than the person who did the research.
I have read the papers by John Walker (a nobel laureate) on the subject of molecular motors and I am convinced that his discoveries are prima facie evidence for intelligent design. He does not agree with my interpretation. But I am perfectly within my rights to interpret his data in a different way, if I so choose.
Meyer is also within his rights to disagree with Sarkar's interpretation of his data and he has a perfect right to come to the conclusion that DNA contains "the characteristic hallmarks of intelligently encoded information", even though that is Sarkar's opinion. There is nothing fraudulent about that.

#52088: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  10:57 AM
charlie wagner wrote:

"even though that is Sarkar's opinion. There is nothing fraudulent about that."

should read:
"even though that is NOT Sarkar's opinion..."

#52090: John — 12/05  at  11:03 AM
Charlie wrote:
"Meyer is also within his rights to disagree with Sarkar's interpretation of his data..."

Of course he is. But if he cites Sarkar without stating that he disagrees with Sarkar's interpretation, he is being completely fraudulent. What did Meyer write, Charlie?

#52092: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  11:14 AM
John wrote:

"What did Meyer write, Charlie?"

He made the following statement in his deposition:

"Studies in molecular biology and information theory have shown that the assembly instructions inscribed along the spine of DNA display the characteristic hallmarks of intelligently encoded information: both the complexity and specificity of function that, according to Dembski’s theory, indicate design.[51]"

I now quote what Reference [51] is:

"51. See Sahotra Sarkar, Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology, in THE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: NEW PERSPECTIVES 191 (Sahotra Sarkar ed., 1996)."

I don't see anything fraudulent about that. Sarkar may be pissed that Meyer cited his work in defense of his statement, but tough bunnies.

#52095: — 12/05  at  11:27 AM
Meyer wrote: "Studies in molecular biology and information theory have shown that the assembly instructions inscribed along the spine of DNA display the characteristic hallmarks of intelligently encoded information: both the complexity and specificity of function that, according to Dembski’s theory, indicate design.51" with note 51 being "51. See Sahotra Sarkar, Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology, in THE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY O F MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: NEW PERSPECTIVES 191 (Sahotra Sarkar ed., 1996)."

With nothing else to go one, one might reasonably take from this passage that the conclusions in Meyer's sentence were supported by Sarkar. An honest man and a fair man would have noted, even if only in the footnote, that Sarkar himself doesn't feel that his paper supports the conclusions Meyer draws from it.

#52096: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  11:29 AM
John wrote:

"But if he cites Sarkar without stating that he disagrees with Sarkar's interpretation, he is being completely fraudulent."

Horsepookey.

There is nothing about Sarkar's "interpretation" in his paper. Meyer is citing his data in support of his statement. The only defense Sarkar has is that "Meyer knows very well where I stand on this issue." That should not preclude him from interpreting the data in his own context. The charge of fraud is serious and should not be used indiscriminately. In this case, it is nothing less than attempted character assassination.

#52104: — 12/05  at  11:43 AM
Actually, Charlie, Meyer wrote "Studies in molecular biology and information theory have shown ..." A study consists of all its parts, including its conclusions. If Meyer wanted to claim only the data, he'd have to say 'Data arising in studies of ...' but he doesn't. Why not? Because it would be a tip-off that the folk who did the studies draw different conclusions than Meyer does and Meyer wants to create the impression that isn't so.

A fair, forthright and honourable person would have made it clear Sarkar's study didn't draw Meyer's conclusions.

#52105: John — 12/05  at  11:48 AM
Charlie desperately tried to spin:
"Meyer is citing his data in support of his statement."

BS, Charlie. If Meyer had been citing data, he would have cited the primary literature, not a book chapter. Scientists know the difference; pseudoscientists conflate them.

Meyer's intent was clearly to deceive his audience.

Have you read the chapter, Charlie?

#52110: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  12:05 PM
TDP wrote:

"A fair, forthright and honourable person would have made it clear Sarkar's study didn't draw Meyer's conclusions."

Nonsense. He was under no such obligation.
This reference contains articles from many different people. Sarkar is the editor. He wasn't specifically citing him. He says "studies have shown...", he doesn't specify which particular studies or if they can be attributed to Sarkar.
Like I said, this is nothing less than a scurrilous attack on Meyer and one that should be repudiated. Although I disagree with Meyer on many points, I have no reason to believe that he is anything less than a fair, forthright and honourable person, and neither should you or Sarkar.

#52111: PZ Myers — 12/05  at  12:10 PM
Baloney. The DI deeply desires to have the credibility of academic publications, and this was an attempt to coopt work that opposes the interpretations of the DI as a point in favor. You do not do that. You do not cite people's work as if it bolsters your argument when it does exactly the opposite. You especially do not do that when you are making an argument in a courtroom to people who are extremely unlikely to track down the citations and see what they actually say.

I also think that by now we've got good reason to believe that anyone associated with the Discovery Institute is a dishonorable person.

#52113: John — 12/05  at  12:12 PM
Charlie, spinning frantically, wrote:
"This reference contains articles from many different people."

Contains or cites, Charlie? If meyer was citing data, why didn't he cite the primary literature? I'll venture a guess--he is dishonest.

"Sarkar is the editor."

He was both the editor of the book and the author of that chapter; thanks for revealing that you can't even interpret a simple literature citation. That speaks volumes about whether you've actually bothered to read anything that anyone has cited.

"He wasn't specifically citing him."

He was.

"He says "studies have shown...", he doesn't specify which particular studies or if they can be attributed to Sarkar."

That's another reason why his intent to deceive his audience is crystal-clear.

#52121: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  12:39 PM
John wrote:

"Have you read the chapter, Charlie?"

No, I'm trying to locate it.

In any event, there is no requirement that I know of that compels a person who cites another person's work to explain to his readers how his interpretation compares to the author's. In fact John, I've read a number of your papers and I believe that some of your findings are supportive of my view that intelligent input is necessary for the emergence of complex systems and I would not be dissuaded from citing them in any papers that I might write on the subject.
Myosin is a molecular motor that has the ability to convert the energy obtained from its hydrolysis of ATP into mechanical work as it interacts with actin, a cytoskeletal protein. These entities possess a motor domain that has hydrolytic, actin-binding, and motor capacities. Attached to the motor domain is a light-chain and/or calmodulin-binding domain that acts as a mechanical lever to amplify small changes in shape that originate within the motor domain’s active site.
In my opinion, you are witnessing the seamless integration of structures and processes in such a way that these structures and processes not only support each other, they support the overall function of the system, which is to contract the muscle.
In my humble opinion, this is prima facie evidence for intelligent input, since such a system could not have emerged by random or accidental events. A system such as this requires insight, and insight requires intelligence. (1)

1. D.W. Provance, C.R. Gourley, C.M. Silan, L.C. Cameron, K.M. Shokat, J.R. Goldenring, K.Shah, P.G. Gillespie, and J.A. Mercer (2003). Chemical-genetic inhibition of a sensitized mutant myosin-Vb demonstrates a role in peripheral-pericentriolar membrane traffic. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 101, 1868-1873.

#52126: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  01:00 PM
Paul wrote:

"You do not cite people's work as if it bolsters your argument when it does exactly the opposite."

That's a ridiculous statement and you know it. Scientists disagree all the time about the interpretations of their work, what it means and its significance. If we were to rely solely on the authors spin on his own work, science would grind to a halt.
Who is to say which argument the work bolsters? John Mercer has done extensive work on myosin motors but I expect that he believes that they evolved by mutation and natural selection. I expect he will correct that impression if it's not accurate.
I, on the other hand strongly believe that myosin motors are the product of intelligent input, or some first principle which we don't understand. I do not believe that random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, chromosome duplication or any such accidental or random events can accomplish this.
As I explained to John, I would have no moral reservations about citing his work in support of my views, even though he doesn't share them. Nor would I feel the need to explain in the cite that we do not agree on the issue.

#52131: — 12/05  at  01:12 PM

You especially do not do that when you are making an argument in a courtroom to people who are extremely unlikely to track down the citations and see what they actually say.

I wouldn't rate creationists, or even the averagely lazy member of the public, as particularly likely to track down citations anyway. However, doesn't doing that sort of dishonest thing in court bring with it any legal consequences at all? Or was it merely the job of the cross-examining lawyer(s) to point it out via questions about the content?

#52138: PZ Myers — 12/05  at  01:19 PM
Yes, scientists disagree about interpretations, and when they write about it, they plainly say where the battle lines are drawn and highlight the disagreements. They do not sweep them under the floorboards and pretend that Dr Jones, his arch-nemesis, is on his side.

#52162: — 12/05  at  02:01 PM
Charlie, you're engaging in quote mining. You're taking research that does not support your point of view and using it to justify a belief for which you've provided no evidence whatsoever. It's an appeal to authority and it's dishonest.

You assert a great deal, but assertion doesn't mean anything. I can say the Sun is a giant ferret and that Richard Feynman's lecture about the motion of planets around the Sun provides firm evidence that the Sun is actually an unusually large mustelid, but that appeal to authority doesn't lend any sort of credence to the claim. Not even a little.

#52165: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  02:07 PM
Paul wrote:

"Yes, scientists disagree about interpretations, and when they write about it,.."

I don't know how you manage to do it.



Hundreds of posts in the past several years, and not once, not EVER have I detected a spelling error or typo. Are you NEVER tired, careless, drunk or in such a hurry that you don't ever make mistakes?

I marvel at that.

(By the way, I thought that as a member I wouldn't have to type that little word anymore, but it seems that I do. Howcum?)

#52172: — 12/05  at  02:15 PM
I asked:
"Have you read the chapter, Charlie?"

Charlie replied:
"No, I'm trying to locate it."

Then why did you try to portray Sarkar as only the editor?

"In any event, there is no requirement that I know of that compels a person who cites another person's work to explain to his readers how his interpretation compares to the author's."

Charlie, we all know that you are incredibly ignorant of fundamental scientific practices and ethics.

" In fact John, I've read a number of your papers..."

But did you understand them?

"... and I believe that some of your findings are supportive of my view that intelligent input is necessary for the emergence of complex systems and I would not be dissuaded from citing them in any papers that I might write on the subject."

Which findings, Charlie? In fact, our findings trash Dembski's notion that functional sequences are sparse in "sequence space," because we produce another function (adding a different substrate) by changing ONE amino acid.

"Myosin is a molecular motor that has the ability to convert the energy obtained from its hydrolysis of ATP into mechanical work as it interacts with actin, a cytoskeletal protein."

Yes, it is, but our paper didn't show that.

"These entities possess a motor domain that has hydrolytic, actin-binding, and motor capacities. Attached to the motor domain is a light-chain and/or calmodulin-binding domain that acts as a mechanical lever to amplify small changes in shape that originate within the motor domain’s active site."

Again, the paper you cited didn't show that.

"In my opinion, you are witnessing the seamless integration of structures and processes in such a way that these structures and processes not only support each other, they support the overall function of the system, which is to contract the muscle."

Charlie, you doofus, myosin-Vb is not muscle myosin.

"In my humble opinion, this is prima facie evidence for intelligent input, since such a system could not have emerged by random or accidental events."

How do you explain the structural homology between the motor domains of myosin and kinesin and G proteins, then?

"A system such as this requires insight, and insight requires intelligence. (1)"

Thanks for citing this paper as evidence of my intelligence. I wish I could say the same for you. You didn't discuss a single one of our findings. I don't think that you can.

#52178: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  02:27 PM
Hellesfarne wrote:

"You're taking research that does not support your point of view and using it to justify a belief for which you've provided no evidence whatsoever. It's an appeal to authority and it's dishonest."

Who is to say that the research does not support my point of view? If John Walker (who is a neo-darwinian) writes a paper:

Structure of the Rotor of the V-Type Na+-ATPase from Enterococcus hirae
Takeshi Murata, Ichiro Yamato, Yoshimi Kakinuma, Andrew G. W. Leslie, and John E. Walker
Science 29 April 2005: 654-659

In which he elucidates the structure of the V-type sodium/atp rotor, why can I not cite it in support of my point of view? Why can I not say that this is prima facie evidence for intelligent input, even though Walker does not believe it is? I simply don't find anything scurrilous or unethical in interpreting someone's work differently that he does.
The whole purpose here is not do discuss the strengths and weaknesses of any particular point of view. The purpose is to launch personal attacks and impugn the honesty and integrity of persons whose views we don't share. And that is despicable.

#52200: charlie wagner — 12/05  at  03:15 PM
John wrote:

"Thanks for citing this paper as evidence of my intelligence. I wish I could say the same for you. You didn't discuss a single one of our findings. I don't think that you can."

You would be surprised. Unfortunately, I have to spend considereble time correcting what you mistakingly assumed I said because you didn't read carefully enough or added words that weren't there.

Specifically, you said:

"Then why did you try to portray Sarkar as only the editor?"

I did not. I said:

"This reference contains articles from many different people. Sarkar is the editor. He wasn't specifically citing him."

I don't see anything there about "only".

You wrote:

"Charlie, we all know that you are incredibly ignorant of fundamental scientific practices and ethics."

Logical fallacy. "Everybody knows it." is not logically defensible. Everybody could be wrong. Can you cite any specific examples in which I am ignorant of fundamental scientific practices and ethics? Please cite the specific practice or ethic, explain what I said, then make your correction.

You wrote:

"But did you understand them?"

Mostly. I don't work in your specific field so there are some subtleties that get by.

You wrote:

"Yes, it is, but our paper didn't show that."

It should have been clear that I wasn't specifically discussing the findings in that particular paper. In fact, I take no exception to the majority of it. I was referring to molecular motors in general and the body of work that has accumulated regarding them.
I know that myosin V-b is not muscle myosin and I don't believe I ever said it was.

You wrote:

"How do you explain the structural homology between the motor domains of myosin and kinesin and G proteins, then?"

There can be no doubt that myosin, kinesin and G proteins are closely related and most likely had a common origin. I cannot explain the homology beyond that.
But that's not the question. The question is "how did these three highly organized systems, in which structure and process are integrated to produce function, arise in the first place?" Was it random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift or chromosomal duplication or was there some component of intelligent input. The question is not "did these systems evolve?" the question is "what is the mechanism by which these systems evolved?".

You wrote:

"You didn't discuss a single one of our findings. I don't think that you can."

Well, I assure you that I can. But that's beside the point. I take no exception with your findings, only with your explanation for how these systems emerged in the first place.

#52205: John — 12/05  at  03:32 PM
I wrote:
"Then why did you try to portray Sarkar as only the editor?"

Charlie wrote: "I did not. I said: "This reference contains articles from many different people. Sarkar is the editor. He wasn't specifically citing him." "

I don't see anything there about "only"."

I do. Sarkar WROTE the chapter that was cited. Again, if one is discussing something controversial, one cites the primary literature, not the secondary literature. That's why Meyer's citation was unethical.

"Logical fallacy. "Everybody knows it." is not logically defensible. Everybody could be wrong. Can you cite any specific examples in which I am ignorant of fundamental scientific practices and ethics?"

This one.

"Please cite the specific practice or ethic, explain what I said, then make your correction."

When one cites a paper with which one disagrees, one must note and discuss the disagreement. This applies when the disagreement is with either the data or the interpretation.

"Mostly. I don't work in your specific field so there are some subtleties that get by. "

I don't think so.

"It should have been clear that I wasn't specifically discussing the findings in that particular paper."

Then it was completely and utterly dishonest for you to cite it.

"In fact, I take no exception to the majority of it. I was referring to molecular motors in general and the body of work that has accumulated regarding them."

If you were ethically citing our paper, ethically you are obliged to address the data in it.

"I know that myosin V-b is not muscle myosin and I don't believe I ever said it was."

You cited our paper on myosin-Vb and made a claim about muscle myosin. Your dishonesty and/or incompetence speaks volumes, Charlie.

"There can be no doubt that myosin, kinesin and G proteins are closely related and most likely had a common origin. I cannot explain the homology beyond that."

Then, since G proteins aren't motors, it's pretty idiotic to claim that myosin and kinesin were designed to be motors, wouldn't you agree?

"But that's not the question. The question is "how did these three highly organized systems, in which structure and process are integrated to produce function, arise in the first place?"

They evolved from a common ancestor.

" Was it random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift or chromosomal duplication..."

Yes.

"... or was there some component of intelligent input."

None that I can see. Why don't you explain how our data suggest anything but?

I wrote: "You didn't discuss a single one of our findings. I don't think that you can."

"Well, I assure you that I can."

I don't believe you.

"But that's beside the point."

How so, when you are making the claim that our data are consistent with ID?

"I take no exception with your findings, only with your explanation for how these systems emerged in the first place."

Charlie, why are you backpedaling from your claim that:

"A system such as this requires insight, and insight requires intelligence. (1)"

In what way does our PNAS paper support your claim? I think that your citation of our work at the end of this sentence was profoundly dishonest, and every evasion you've used supports that conclusion.

#52206: — 12/05  at  03:35 PM
PZ, why don't you just ban Charlie, like Dumbski does to dissenters? Oh, is it because science encourages debate? WOW, even though Charlie is dead wrong, we still listen to him. See the difference, Charlie? You're bunch is unwilling to listen to the evidence since it supposedly doesn't fit the preordained facts. Charlie, why don't you mention to your adored dictator Dumbski that censoring opposing comments is dishonest and not in the spirit of good scientific debate? Is it because he doesn't want a debate just like the rest of the frauds at DI? Trouble-making trolls like you are welcome here, and even encouraged to engage in a debate. Why don't you tell your idol Dumbski this? Is it because he might ban you too, then? LOL

#52207: — 12/05  at  03:35 PM
PZ, why don't you just ban Charlie, like Dumbski does to dissenters? Oh, is it because science encourages debate? WOW, even though Charlie is dead wrong, we still listen to him. See the difference, Charlie? Your bunch is unwilling to listen to the evidence since it supposedly doesn't fit the preordained facts. Charlie, why don't you mention to your adored dictator Dumbski that censoring opposing comments is dishonest and not in the spirit of good scientific debate? Is it because he doesn't want a debate just like the rest of the frauds at DI? Trouble-making trolls like you are welcome here, and even encouraged to engage in a debate. Why don't you tell your idol Dumbski this? Is it because he might ban you too, then? LOL