﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nasty feelings in the OOL community toward Hubert Yockey?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/</link>
	<description>Serving The Intelligent Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:45:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Benjii</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27381</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjii</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27381</guid>
		<description>Dr. Yockey is an evolutionist, he just departs with his fellow colleagues on the matter of the origin of life.  At any rate, he states that the fossil record doesn&#039;t matter as far as evolution is concerned.  Instead, what matters, is the continuity and similarity of biological genomes.  This is quite laughable, has he not heard of common design.  Obviously, when we see real world designers, we see a lot of similarities between what the designer has created.  Sorry Mr. Yockey, you need to use your head on this one!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Yockey is an evolutionist, he just departs with his fellow colleagues on the matter of the origin of life.  At any rate, he states that the fossil record doesn&#8217;t matter as far as evolution is concerned.  Instead, what matters, is the continuity and similarity of biological genomes.  This is quite laughable, has he not heard of common design.  Obviously, when we see real world designers, we see a lot of similarities between what the designer has created.  Sorry Mr. Yockey, you need to use your head on this one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scordova</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27376</link>
		<dc:creator>scordova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27376</guid>
		<description>Welcome Albert Voie!!!

Thank you for visiting our weblog, and congratulations on the acceptance of your paper.  


Salvador</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome Albert Voie!!!</p>
<p>Thank you for visiting our weblog, and congratulations on the acceptance of your paper.  </p>
<p>Salvador</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scordova</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27375</link>
		<dc:creator>scordova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27375</guid>
		<description>&quot;This is too stupid of an error for someone like Yockey to make, unless he was simply assuming that Behe was using TuringÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s definition without reading BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book. My (wild, unsubstantiated) guess is that he felt the need to attack ID in order to protect his own criticisms of the establishment. &quot;

Well, maybe he&#039;s really a secret Wedgie agent.  He realized the only way to infiltrate the establishment is to use token criticisms of ID as cover while sneaking Wedge literature into the mainstream in attempt to subvert all of science and public education, and establish a theocracy just like Barbara Forrest said.  (just kidding)


Glad to hear form you johnnyb.

Sal</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is too stupid of an error for someone like Yockey to make, unless he was simply assuming that Behe was using TuringÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s definition without reading BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book. My (wild, unsubstantiated) guess is that he felt the need to attack ID in order to protect his own criticisms of the establishment. &#8221;</p>
<p>Well, maybe he&#8217;s really a secret Wedgie agent.  He realized the only way to infiltrate the establishment is to use token criticisms of ID as cover while sneaking Wedge literature into the mainstream in attempt to subvert all of science and public education, and establish a theocracy just like Barbara Forrest said.  (just kidding)</p>
<p>Glad to hear form you johnnyb.</p>
<p>Sal</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27374</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27374</guid>
		<description>Yockey says &lt;blockquote&gt;Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Behe certainly can define the words according to his understanding, as long as he tells his reader how he is defining them - which he does. 
This is a perfectly legitimate practice, as Dawkins, for instance, tells us  when he defines &quot;gene&quot; for his own purposes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yockey says<br />
<blockquote>Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.</p></blockquote>
<p>Behe certainly can define the words according to his understanding, as long as he tells his reader how he is defining them &#8211; which he does.<br />
This is a perfectly legitimate practice, as Dawkins, for instance, tells us  when he defines &#8220;gene&#8221; for his own purposes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnnyb</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27373</link>
		<dc:creator>johnnyb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27373</guid>
		<description>This is too stupid of an error for someone like Yockey to make, unless he was simply assuming that Behe was using Turing&#039;s definition without reading Behe&#039;s book.  My (wild, unsubstantiated) guess is that he felt the need to attack ID in order to protect his own criticisms of the establishment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is too stupid of an error for someone like Yockey to make, unless he was simply assuming that Behe was using Turing&#8217;s definition without reading Behe&#8217;s book.  My (wild, unsubstantiated) guess is that he felt the need to attack ID in order to protect his own criticisms of the establishment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Albvoie</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27372</link>
		<dc:creator>Albvoie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27372</guid>
		<description>If a problem has a solution, a Turing machine will halt. If not it will go into a loop and continue forever. In mathematics Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â refers to something uncomputable, like a fact that has no reason, as something that must be taken as an axiom itself (if it the universe was truly random, every phenomena would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â). A Godel formula is such an irreducible statement Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and I hold that the origin of life is such an Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible phenomenonÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Irreducible complexity refers to something different, but it could be that the flagellum is an Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â phenomenon in the sense that it does not follow from natural law or some genetic algorithm, but by design inference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a problem has a solution, a Turing machine will halt. If not it will go into a loop and continue forever. In mathematics Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â refers to something uncomputable, like a fact that has no reason, as something that must be taken as an axiom itself (if it the universe was truly random, every phenomena would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â). A Godel formula is such an irreducible statement Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and I hold that the origin of life is such an Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible phenomenonÃ¢â‚¬Â.</p>
<p>Irreducible complexity refers to something different, but it could be that the flagellum is an Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibleÃ¢â‚¬Â phenomenon in the sense that it does not follow from natural law or some genetic algorithm, but by design inference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scordova</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27365</link>
		<dc:creator>scordova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27365</guid>
		<description>Hi dougmoran,

You asked: 

&quot;Can you say more about TuringÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s coining of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Irreducible ComplexityÃ¢â‚¬Â and any analog it has with BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s term? I can imagine an irreducibly complex computer program that is the minimum goto-loop. But it sounds like Turing had a different meaning in mind. &quot;

Indeed Turing had something completely different in mind.  Take a look at:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IhlX8pkpsVAJ:www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/xxx.pdf+irreducible+complexity+alan+turing&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Irreducible Complexity in Pure Mathematics&lt;/a&gt; and compare that with Behe!

Yockey, argued against Behe&#039;s IC using Turing&#039;s definition of IC.  A classic equivocation.  I kept thinking when I read Yockey&#039;s book, &quot;huh?, how does that show biology does not have IC?&quot;.  It was when Yockey posted on his website that it made sense when he mentioned Turing.

Anyway, Yockey only gave 2 paragraphs regarding ID in his book....The following is about as much as you&#039;ll find in his book regarding ID.  His website actually has more  about ID.

&lt;blockquote&gt;
www.hubertpyockey.com:

First, Behe did NOT coin the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexity,Ã¢â‚¬Â he hijacked it from Alan Turing and stole its identity. Turing defined Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexityÃ¢â‚¬Â as a computation that runs indefinitely. Cellular processes start and stop, therefore they do not run indefinitely, therefore they are not irreducibly complex.
...
The correct definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexityÃ¢â‚¬Â in information science is a computation whose result can be computed for eternity and never reach its final answer. Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.

Biology is not irreducibly complex because the bit string in the genome that describes a protein is finite and stops after it produces the protein (so the computation does not run indefinitely).

A summary of another proof of why biology is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complexÃ¢â‚¬Â is as follows:

As Dr. YockeyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work shows, the genome is digital, linear and segregated. Ã¢â‚¬Å“DigitsÃ¢â‚¬Â in this case means the letters of an alphabet, each one different from the other. The letters of the alphabet of the genome are the 64 codons of DNA and RNA. The letters are in a sequence in DNA and RNA, so they are linear. And they are separate and distinct from one another, so they are segregated. 

Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genomeÃ¢â‚¬â€the critical element for evolution in biologyÃ¢â‚¬â€is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complex.Ã¢â‚¬Â Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer. 

&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi dougmoran,</p>
<p>You asked: </p>
<p>&#8220;Can you say more about TuringÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s coining of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Irreducible ComplexityÃ¢â‚¬Â and any analog it has with BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s term? I can imagine an irreducibly complex computer program that is the minimum goto-loop. But it sounds like Turing had a different meaning in mind. &#8221;</p>
<p>Indeed Turing had something completely different in mind.  Take a look at:<br />
<a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IhlX8pkpsVAJ:www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/xxx.pdf+irreducible+complexity+alan+turing&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1" rel="nofollow">Irreducible Complexity in Pure Mathematics</a> and compare that with Behe!</p>
<p>Yockey, argued against Behe&#8217;s IC using Turing&#8217;s definition of IC.  A classic equivocation.  I kept thinking when I read Yockey&#8217;s book, &#8220;huh?, how does that show biology does not have IC?&#8221;.  It was when Yockey posted on his website that it made sense when he mentioned Turing.</p>
<p>Anyway, Yockey only gave 2 paragraphs regarding ID in his book&#8230;.The following is about as much as you&#8217;ll find in his book regarding ID.  His website actually has more  about ID.</p>
<blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.hubertpyockey.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hubertpyockey.com</a>:</p>
<p>First, Behe did NOT coin the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexity,Ã¢â‚¬Â he hijacked it from Alan Turing and stole its identity. Turing defined Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexityÃ¢â‚¬Â as a computation that runs indefinitely. Cellular processes start and stop, therefore they do not run indefinitely, therefore they are not irreducibly complex.<br />
&#8230;<br />
The correct definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducible complexityÃ¢â‚¬Â in information science is a computation whose result can be computed for eternity and never reach its final answer. Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.</p>
<p>Biology is not irreducibly complex because the bit string in the genome that describes a protein is finite and stops after it produces the protein (so the computation does not run indefinitely).</p>
<p>A summary of another proof of why biology is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complexÃ¢â‚¬Â is as follows:</p>
<p>As Dr. YockeyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work shows, the genome is digital, linear and segregated. Ã¢â‚¬Å“DigitsÃ¢â‚¬Â in this case means the letters of an alphabet, each one different from the other. The letters of the alphabet of the genome are the 64 codons of DNA and RNA. The letters are in a sequence in DNA and RNA, so they are linear. And they are separate and distinct from one another, so they are segregated. </p>
<p>Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genomeÃ¢â‚¬â€the critical element for evolution in biologyÃ¢â‚¬â€is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complex.Ã¢â‚¬Â Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer. </p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scordova</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27364</link>
		<dc:creator>scordova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27364</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you benkeshet, I made the correction!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sal
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you benkeshet, I made the correction!</p>
<p>Sal</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: benkeshet</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27325</link>
		<dc:creator>benkeshet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27325</guid>
		<description>The website is:

www.hubertpyockey.com

with a P between Hubert and Yockey

All the best.

hbenkeshet</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The website is:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hubertpyockey.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hubertpyockey.com</a></p>
<p>with a P between Hubert and Yockey</p>
<p>All the best.</p>
<p>hbenkeshet</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Exile from GROGGS</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/comment-page-1/#comment-27297</link>
		<dc:creator>Exile from GROGGS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/918#comment-27297</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Is this Adami of Avida fame? I hardly think that Adami is in a position to criticise, considering the claims of his group are so mathematically untenable - see here:&lt;br /&gt;
http://exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/2005/10/more-about-avida.html
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Avida also protects against random mutation the code the digital &quot;organisms&quot; require for replication.   In real living things nothing is protected against deleterious mutation, not the replication machinery and not even the environment.  But I&#039;ve said before that Avida really does emulate the theory of evolution which is to say it demonstrates a mechanism producing the laughably simple and extrapolates that into being able to produce the hideously complex. -ds &lt;/b&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this Adami of Avida fame? I hardly think that Adami is in a position to criticise, considering the claims of his group are so mathematically untenable &#8211; see here:<br />
<a href="http://exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/2005/10/more-about-avida.html" rel="nofollow">http://exilefromgroggs.blogspo.....avida.html</a>
</p>
<p><b>Avida also protects against random mutation the code the digital &#8220;organisms&#8221; require for replication.   In real living things nothing is protected against deleterious mutation, not the replication machinery and not even the environment.  But I&#8217;ve said before that Avida really does emulate the theory of evolution which is to say it demonstrates a mechanism producing the laughably simple and extrapolates that into being able to produce the hideously complex. -ds </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

