tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post3096762534184303134..comments2024-03-24T00:33:00.389-07:00Comments on Bounded Science: Revised ID thesis describes plagiarism in originally accepted versionTom Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03887540845396409340noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-40797085275880083342015-11-23T03:33:55.972-08:002015-11-23T03:33:55.972-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03887540845396409340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-19342490318715815502015-11-23T02:13:59.100-08:002015-11-23T02:13:59.100-08:00Tom, why did you eliminate references to the plagi...Tom, why did you eliminate references to the plagiarist by name and why have you removed his name from the comments by Bob and Diogenes?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-82079530693977546312014-11-09T17:03:02.012-08:002014-11-09T17:03:02.012-08:00I have eliminated references to the plagiarist by ...<b>I have eliminated references to the plagiarist by name. Here are expurgated versions of comments I've deleted.</b><br /><br /><i>Bob O'H June 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM</i><br /><br />Good, that is progress, even if it's not perfect.<br /><br />In many ways, [student] can be seen as the victim here. I agree that Marks is the one who needs he feet holding to the fire.<br /><br /><br /><i>Tom English June 8, 2011 at 3:10 PM</i><br /><br />Bob, I was a victim of creationist con artists as a teen, and feel genuine sympathy for [the student].<br /><br />When [the student] deigned to comment on the "no free lunch" theorem at Uncommon Descent, he mangled the misinterpretation of Dembski and Marks. I doubt that there's a theoretical bone in his body. Marks is a very bright guy, and I imagine that [the student] is overawed by him.<br /><br />Some of us recall that Dembski and Marks once released a computer program that was shot through with errors. I suspect that Marks used [the student] primarily to write programs, gather data, and prepare plots. (That erroneous plots in one of the group's publications contradict the theory suggests that the research assistants were not giving much thought to theory.) For a master's student in computer science, this is grunt work. If [the student] did not design some of the research, then he has been done a huge disservice by Marks.<br /><br />It is clear in the preamble that [the student] still regards himself as a member of Marks' research group (the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, of course). So what we have is a young guy who believes that he's on a mission from God, doing his part to "prove" ID in the engineering literature, when he does not understand the claims of Dembski and Marks about "conservation of information" in search. The description "victim" seems to fit.<br /><br /><br /><i>Diogenes April 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM</i><br /><br />Three years later: [Student]'s inability to understand Intelligent Design's premises and definitions of concepts like "irreducible complexity" is so severe that has led him to redefine IC's terms to the point of obliterating everything Michael Behe ever wrote about IC and ID. In a recent (2014) paper in the ID vanity journal BIO-Complexity, [the student] attempts to refute the fact that evolutionary algorithms like Avida evolve irreducibly complex structures. In order to do so, [the student] redefines "Irreducible Complexity" so that "part" in Behe's definition now means "non-trivial part", which doesn't just silently revise Behe's definition, it obliterates Irreducible Complexity altogether. [The student] defines all the parts (computer instructions) in all Avida digital organisms as "trivial parts", so that nothing produced by Avida can ever be IC. But [the student's] definition of "trivial part" means that amino acids are trivial, and nucleotides in genes are trivial, therefore, no protein molecule and no gene can ever be Irreducibly Complex-- in direct contradiction of a mountain of assertions by Behe & William Dembski that almost all proteins and almost all genes are themselves IC.<br /><br />[The student] really blew up Irreducible Complexity for good. So, he did our side a big favor. See: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/04/once-again-desp.html.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03887540845396409340noreply@blogger.com