Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 08-25-2002, 10:01 AM

Absofuckinglutely brilliant, gentlemen! Just don't get that DefCom mixed up with Def Jam, though, 'cause if we have to listen to rap "music" here on II, I'll be forced into seppuku.

WinAce · 08-25-2002, 11:43 AM

This is utterly hilarious. I'm still trying to contain my laughter.

Someone please start a webpage based on this parodying the Discovery Institute; this new theory would be PERFECT for satirizing the likes of Dembski and Behe!

Grumpy · 08-25-2002, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Tamzek:
...ITWA Theory appears to match up well with the Hindu religion, for example the titanic battles portrayed in the Bhagavad Gita...

And, from what I can tell, <a href="http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/xenu-13.html#xenu" target="_blank">Scientology</a>. And Tolkeinism.

Nic Tamzek · 09-15-2002, 06:40 PM

Yet more support in the literature for ITWA theory:

Quote:

Cohn M. Immunol Rev 2002 Jul;185(1):24-38

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=121909 19&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">The immune system: a weapon of mass destruction invented by evolution to even the odds during the war of the DNAs.</a>

Living systems operate under interactive selective pressures. Populations have the ability to anticipate the future by generating a repertoire of elements that cope with new selective pressures. If the repertoire of such elements were transcendental, natural selection could not operate because any one of them would be too rare. This is the problem that vertebrates faced in order to deal with a vast number of pathogens. The solution was to invent an immune system that underwent somatic evolution. This required a random repertoire that was generated somatically and divided the antigenic universe into combinatorials of determinants. As a result, it became virtually impossible for pathogens to escape recognition but the functioning of such a repertoire required two new regulatory mechanisms: 1) a somatic discriminator between Not-To-Be-Ridded ('Self') and To-Be-Ridded ('Non-self') antigens, and 2) a way to optimize the magnitude and choice of the class of the effector response. The principles governing this dual regulation are analyzed in the light of natural selection. [outline]

See <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000152&p=1" target="_blank">discussion with Dembski at ISCID</a>.

RBH · 09-15-2002, 07:42 PM

Lest the Infidels here think that ITWA is confined to merely accounting for such concrete (and ultimately mundane) phenomena as predator-prey relationships and immune system function, let it be known that it has both esthetic and metaphysical/philosophical dimensions, discussed <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000262" target="_blank">in a thread on ARN.</a>

Perhaps the most important metaphysical conception to be based on ITWA is "purposeless teleology," a concept originally due to Richiyaado and named by charlie d, both pioneers in Multiple Designer Theory.

RBH

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: RBH ]

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: RBH ]</p>

Quetzal · 09-15-2002, 11:58 PM

Fascinating concept. Seems, however, there are a few gaps in the theory.

1. How does ITWA explain mutualistic relationships? One example would be Acacia colensii and Pseudomyrmex spinicola. Did the designer create the ant for the acacia, or the acacia for the ant? What is the defcom level? Are the ants and acacia on the same side?

2. Why don't predatory fish like sharks and rays eat cleaner fish (like Labroides spp)? If everything is in a knock-down drag-out war, these little critters should be quick lunches.

3. How does ITWA explain what the evil darwinist high priests proclaim as coevolution? For example, Darwin's own famous example of the orchid (Angraecum arachnites) with a 23 cm nectary, and the moth (Panogena lingens) with a 23 cm tongue that the orchid uses as a pollinator? Are they on the same side? Were they designed by the same designer, or two different ones?

4. Lichens, anyone?

Just a couple of areas that might provide fruitful research topics or that need explaining to insure the robustness of ITWA. I think the theory does a great job of explaining convergent evolution and biogeography, however. (Real separate creation).

Nic Tamzek · 09-16-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
1. How does ITWA explain mutualistic relationships?

Uh, you mean there is evidence against ITWA? Well, that can't be, so rather than deal with it, I will obfuscate about what constitutes evidence; if Dembski can do it so can I.

<a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000153" target="_blank">What Counts as Evidence? -- Methodological Dispositions</a>

Quote:

I've lately been reading Michael Rea's new book, _World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism_ (Oxford, 2002). Rea is a Notre Dame philosopher sympathetic to ID (though not on the bandwagon).

At the very beginning of the book he remarks: "True inquiry is a process in which we try to revise our beliefs on the basis of what we take to be evidence."

He continues: "But this means that, in order to inquire into anything, we must _already_ be disposed to take some things as evidence. In order even to begin inquiry, we must already have various dispositions to trust at least some of our cognitive faculties as sources of evidence and to take certain kinds of experiences and arguments to be evidence. Such dispositions (let's call them _methodological dispositions_) may be reflectively and deliberately acquired."

Thus, when biologist Barry Palevitz in the most recent issue of _Evolution_ (http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3B8225C1) denies that there is "positive evidence in favor of ID," is it simply that his methodological dispositions proscribe him from counting anything as evidence for ID? Alternatively, what is it about the methdological dispositions of biochemist Michael Behe that induces him to see plenty of positive evidence in favor of ID? Is one set of methodological dispositions correct and another incorrect? What sort of "evidence" would help us decide? If no evidence can help us adjudicate among competing methodological dispositions, then are there other factors that could? Should the success of naturalistic science count? Should opening up inquiry to consider the full range of possibilities count?

Without a full exposition of your methdological dispositions Morpho, I don't have to deal with "evidence."

nic

More evidence of arms-races:

Quote:

Science 2002 Aug 23;297(5585):1336-9

Comment in:
Science. 2002 Aug 23;297(5585):1289-90.

Mechanisms of adaptation in a predator-prey arms race: TTX-resistant sodium channels.

Geffeney S, Brodie ED Jr, Ruben PC, Brodie ED 3rd.

Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.

Populations of the garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis have evolved geographically variable resistance to tetrodotoxin (TTX) in a coevolutionary arms race with their toxic prey, newts of the genus Taricha. Here, we identify a physiological mechanism, the expression of TTX-resistant sodium channels in skeletal muscle, responsible for adaptive diversification in whole-animal resistance. Both individual and population differences in the ability of skeletal muscle fibers to function in the presence of TTX correlate closely with whole-animal measures of TTX resistance. Demonstration of individual variation in an essential physiological function responsible for the adaptive differences among populations is a step toward linking the selective consequences of coevolutionary interactions to geographic and phylogenetic patterns of diversity.

Quetzal · 09-16-2002, 11:41 PM

Nic:

Naw, not evidence against. I just wanted to hear the ITWA explanation. After all, we must be fair and provide equal time, right?

BTW: Great obfuscation! I'm impressed. It's not often I run into such absolutely opaque blather outside of a creationist website...

Skydancer · 09-17-2002, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
<strong>Nic:

Naw, not evidence against. I just wanted to hear the ITWA explanation. After all, we must be fair and provide equal time, right?

BTW: Great obfuscation! I'm impressed. It's not often I run into such absolutely opaque blather outside of a creationist website...</strong>

That's easy! Since the battles are so evenly matched so much of the time, ITWA theory -predicts- that some organisms will form alliances with others for the purpose of taking down mutual enemies. This does leave unresolved the question of whether there are only two sides in the ITWA, implying that alliances should be between organisms of the same side, or if there are multiple sides and organisms may ally in more complex combinations. More work needs to be done on this question.

Nic Tamzek · 09-17-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skydancer:
That's easy! Since the battles are so evenly matched so much of the time, ITWA theory -predicts- that some organisms will form alliances with others for the purpose of taking down mutual enemies. This does leave unresolved the question of whether there are only two sides in the ITWA, implying that alliances should be between organisms of the same side, or if there are multiple sides and organisms may ally in more complex combinations. More work needs to be done on this question.

Good solution! I do think that this indicates there are as ITW Armies as there are organisms, or something close. Certainly "fighting" is often most intense between closely-related-but-reproductively-isolated groups.

ITWA Theory marches on...

nic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2002, 10:01 AM	#21
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Absofuckinglutely brilliant, gentlemen! Just don't get that DefCom mixed up with Def Jam, though, 'cause if we have to listen to rap "music" here on II, I'll be forced into seppuku.

08-25-2002, 11:43 AM	#22
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	This is utterly hilarious. I'm still trying to contain my laughter. Someone please start a webpage based on this parodying the Discovery Institute; this new theory would be PERFECT for satirizing the likes of Dembski and Behe!

09-15-2002, 07:42 PM	#25
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Lest the Infidels here think that ITWA is confined to merely accounting for such concrete (and ultimately mundane) phenomena as predator-prey relationships and immune system function, let it be known that it has both esthetic and metaphysical/philosophical dimensions, discussed <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000262" target="_blank">in a thread on ARN.</a> Perhaps the most important metaphysical conception to be based on ITWA is "purposeless teleology," a concept originally due to Richiyaado and named by charlie d, both pioneers in Multiple Designer Theory. RBH [ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: RBH ] [ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: RBH ]</p>

09-15-2002, 11:58 PM	#26
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Fascinating concept. Seems, however, there are a few gaps in the theory. 1. How does ITWA explain mutualistic relationships? One example would be Acacia colensii and Pseudomyrmex spinicola. Did the designer create the ant for the acacia, or the acacia for the ant? What is the defcom level? Are the ants and acacia on the same side? 2. Why don't predatory fish like sharks and rays eat cleaner fish (like Labroides spp)? If everything is in a knock-down drag-out war, these little critters should be quick lunches. 3. How does ITWA explain what the evil darwinist high priests proclaim as coevolution? For example, Darwin's own famous example of the orchid (Angraecum arachnites) with a 23 cm nectary, and the moth (Panogena lingens) with a 23 cm tongue that the orchid uses as a pollinator? Are they on the same side? Were they designed by the same designer, or two different ones? 4. Lichens, anyone? Just a couple of areas that might provide fruitful research topics or that need explaining to insure the robustness of ITWA. I think the theory does a great job of explaining convergent evolution and biogeography, however. (Real separate creation).

09-16-2002, 11:41 PM	#28
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Nic: Naw, not evidence against. I just wanted to hear the ITWA explanation. After all, we must be fair and provide equal time, right? BTW: Great obfuscation! I'm impressed. It's not often I run into such absolutely opaque blather outside of a creationist website...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.