text:
Talk:Creation biology/Archive 4

Timescale incongruities
I submit that creation biology claims that microevolution happens faster than mainstream biology while macroevolution (which they believe doesn't occur) happens slower than mainstream biology. I think this should be included in the text. Here is my evidence:

''However, creationists do disagree on the timescales invovled. Biology doesn't claim that camels and llamas descended from the same ancestor a few thousand years ago. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)''
 * yes, the timescales are different. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This should be noted. It is interesting that many creationist arguments are made to the tune of evolution being an impossible explanation for the diversity of life because they claim that there's no way to create it by evolutionary mechanisms in the time that mainstream science claims it did (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69). Then we turn around and see the idea that that speciation between llamas and camels occured within the last 6000 years. In other words, creationists simultaneously object to mainstream science being to slow and too fast to explain the diversity of life on Earth. I think this should be addressed in the article. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At this point, UNGTSS decided to change subjects to mutations, but I think this is a good point that needs to be made in the article. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, that's certainly the gist of the YEC CB articles he's citing. Kinds are roughly at the family level, and have (d)evolved very quickly in the last 6000 years, or thereabouts.  I think the article should lay out:
 * The different timescales CB and EB posit for these radiations
 * 4500-6000 years.
 * The mechanism CB proposes for this
 * rapid genetic drift in a population bottleneck
 * EB perspective on same
 * Ideally without adding CB 'snappy comebacks' extemporaneously before we lay out that basic structure. Alai 23:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

here:
 * The different timescales CB and EB posit for these radiations
 * 4500-6000 years.
 * The mechanism CB proposes for this
 * rapid genetic drift in an exteme population bottleneck to the tune of 14 of each kind. Ungtss 03:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But by what mechanism? You're simply continuing to throw POV text at us, and alas, at the article. To give you an idea of the difficulty, you're in effect trying to defend (as you're clearly not happy simply to describe) the position that it's impossible for dogs and cats to evolve from a proto-carnivore (but have no difficulty with other 'kinds' at the order level) in 50,000,000 years, but find it easy to imagine all felines (not just lions and tigers, please note) evolving in 5000? Alai 04:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the mechanism, again, is genetic drift in an extreme population bottleneck. inbreeding in a rapidly spreading population will lead to a great deal of homogenizing within the first few generations, through basic mendelian genetics.  if i have 5 kids and you have 5 kids, and two of our blue-eyed kids run off together and two of our brown-eyed kids run off together, all of their descendents will be fundamentally different from then on.  Same with the species, just on a larger scale.  If two a small population of super-ligers have children, and a group of the more "tiger-like" individuals run off together and spread wildly every generation, there's gonna be ENORMOUS genetic drift -- those species are gonna homogenize into only "tiger-genes" within a few generations.  that's the idea anyway.  if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but that's CB:).  Ungtss 13:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * my goal is to describe effectively -- that involves taking the reader through every step of the process. i'm only defending it here to you guys, so that we can all be on the same page as to what the idea is before we edit it:).  Ungtss 13:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, the creationist has less than 5000 years. They have to have speciation occur within roughly 1000 years because we have historical records of the different species.

 * Not to mention they have to explain how the world was repopulated at such a breakneck speed. What I really want to know is how they explain beetle speciation. Joshuaschroeder 06:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How does the KIND barrier apply to this?
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures). Joshuaschroeder 06:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * interesting story ... what are its genetics like? Ungtss 13:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * check it out for yourself. Joshuaschroeder 20:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * from the creationary perspective, it would be defined not as a new kind, but as a distorted, mutated, and largely self-destructive perversion of a human cell. it has no new abilities.  in fact, it has only lost abilities that the original kind had -- important things, like Contact inhibition.  yes, it's different, and it can reproduce.  but i think cancers deserve a category all their own: "diseased cells from created kinds."  call it a new kind if you like -- but i daresay it's a pretty sorry instance of "evolution" to brag about.  Ungtss 21:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that this lifeform is human? And it's not simply a diseased cell, but it is an independent, fully-functional, single cell organism. Or do you dispute that as well? Joshuaschroeder 21:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So is a kind a category? Or is a category a kind?  Nothing like throwing in a bit of new terminology.  BTW, I believe "counterexample" is the word you're looking for, rather than the rather unorthodox evidenciary description "sorry instance to brag about".  If you want an impressive example, wait the 10 millions years or so predicted by EB theory, rather than complaining about them not turning up orders of magnitude faster.  Alai 21:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What is more, EB predicts evolution on a generational basis rather than on a strict time-scale basis. Bacterium evolution and complete speciation (even to the point of creation of new higher taxa) is observed because the timescale for a generation is on the order of weeks rather than years. Joshuaschroeder 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * no, i'm claiming it is exactly what it is -- a diseased human cell that has LOST the ability to take part in a complex human organism and can't even stop reproducing when it runs out of space. a new species?  certainly.  but not a new kind.  it's just another mutant -- a broken version of the original.  it's a very interesting issue -- i'm glad you found it on talk.origins.  would you like a reference to this instance on the page?  Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * no sir, i selected by terminology carefully. it's a mutant.  a broken human cell.  a new kind?  no.  that's the creationist viewpoint -- new species show up, but they're always BROKEN versions of the original.  Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem that way... (Regarding care, that is.) I'll try the same question again:  What's its kind?  Are you saying it's of kind "human"?  Or that it doesn't have a kind at all?  Saying "it's a mutant" is an answer to a question that wasn't asked;  we're all mutants, even by CN criteria.  Alai 03:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * reference? Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 13, 7348-7351, June 22, 1999.

New kinds from 'devolution'
''no sir, i selected by terminology carefully. it's a mutant. a broken human cell. a new kind? no. that's the creationist viewpoint -- new species show up, but they're always BROKEN versions of the original.''

This means, then, that kinds are completely arbitrary. There is no distinction between a human and an amoeba as long as the amoeba came from a human being.

What's to distinguish this idea of kinds from the fiducial unicellular organism from which all life evolved in mainstream biology? Couldn't we call that an original kind and all the rest of life is a "broken" version of that original? "Broken" in my estimation could easily be applied to all lifeforms that came afterward. After all, the original lifeform had the capacity to evolve into all the creatures we see in the ecosystem while current organisms don't have such a capacity since they are dependent on the ecosystem already established.

I submit that the only difference then between modern biological evolution and creation biology is that creationists posit more "kinds" than biological evolution, creationists believe that evolution happens faster given an environment with a limited number of species after a global flood, and that creationism doesn't have as much evidence to back itself up as EB. Joshuaschroeder 01:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * you could, if you're willing to call a 2001 Camry a "broken" Model T. the fact is, we are immensely more complex, functional, organized, and impressive than the amoeba, and there's no reason to believe we evolved from a common ancestor.  can we develop cancers that can live on their own?  yes.  but we didn't evolve from them.  they devolved from us.
 * here are the differences:
 * 1) as you noted, there are more than 1 kinds.
 * 2) evolution is a purely negative affair -- things can specialize to a particular environment, but only at the expense of the capacity to adapt to another environment
 * 3) things don't EVER get more complex. Ungtss 02:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * the fact is, we are immensely more complex, functional, organized, and impressive than the amoeba, and there's no reason to believe we evolved from a common ancestor.--> not facts at all. "Impressive"? Okay, whatever you say. "Functional"? Nope, human beings couldn't live back then without the ecosystem, "Organized" --> how do you propose to measure this? "Complex"? --> The complexity of the ecosystem (you cannot measure the complexity of an individual independent of its environment) is well-understood, but I don't see any creationist offering an objective measure saying that an ecosystem is more complex than a planetary system without an ecosystem. Furthermore, complexity can evolve, there are plenty of models which allow it. There's nothing that says that something that is less complex cannot become more complex. In fact, complexity arises from symmetry breaking processes which are a fundamental part of physical processes.
 * things can specialize to a particular environment, but only at the expense of the capacity to adapt to another environment --> universally accepted and non-controversial.
 * things don't EVER get more complex.--> out and out falsehood. Look at turbulent flow patterns if you don't believe me. Look at the simplicity of the standard model compared to the complexity of chemistry. Joshuaschroeder 02:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * can we develop cancers that can live on their own? yes.  but we didn't evolve from them.  they devolved from us. --> so is it your position that all amoebae/bacteria/protists "devolved" from more complex organisms? Joshuaschroeder 02:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''"Complex"? --> The complexity of the ecosystem (you cannot measure the complexity of an individual independent of its environment)''>>
 * so is it your position that the human organism exhibits no greater complexity than an amoeba? Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's my position that you have no consistent measurement of complexity so your assertion towards it in this regard is a moot point. I do not think complexity of an organism can be measured independent of its environment. I may be wrong in this regard, but there's no consensus on the matter in any case. Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's my position that your demand for an "objective measure of complexity" is a red herring intended to avoid the obvious fact that humans are more complex than amoeba by any measure. to support this assertion, i appeal to common sense.  Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, an appeal to common sense is not NPOV. You're going to have to do better than that. Creationists argue that life is "too complex" to evolve all the time without bothering to state what life would look like if it had evovled (and was presumably "less complex"). If they cannot characterize their own arguments, how can they claim any legitimacy in making them? Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i never claimed to be npov. npov is for articles, not people.  i think anybody reading the simple creationist claim that "there is an increase in complexity between amoeba and humans" will see what we mean, and i'm content to leave it at that for now, until biological complexity can be adequately quantified.  Ungtss 14:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But a scientific theory, which creation biology claims to be, needs to be falsifiable in all of its claims or explicitly state that its claims are not falsifiable and therefore speculative. There should be mention that complexity claims by creationists are entirely speculative at this point. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's important to differentiate between between unquantifiable and speculative. i'd agree that it's not quantifiable, but i don't think it's speculative.  the complexity is OBVIOUS to creationists, even if we can't boil it down to numbers.  yet.  Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Things that are "obvious" can still be speculative. You need to have some observation you can point to that confirms your ideas and allows them to be falsified, otherwise they aren't scientific ideas. If you cannot provide a definition of complexity there is no chance that I or anyone else can falsify your claims of complexity. Therefore, it's entirely speculative. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you're free to make that error in reason. i refuse to.  i don't think that unquantifiable=speculative.  i think that unobservable=speculative.  if you can't see the greater complexity of humans relative to amoeba, you're blind.  developing a mathematical definition for complexity is a nice goal to strive for.  but until somebody comes up with one, i'm content with the obvious facts.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are the one, sir, who has made the error. The fact is that something that is "obvious" should be observably obvious. If you haven't provided a way to observe the fact you contend exists, then there isn't anything "obvious" about it.
 * so you don't think it's obvious that humans are more complex than amoeba, regardless of any calculations? Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Answer already given above. Thanks for coming around full circle! Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * if you can't see the greater complexity of humans relative to amoeba, you're blind. --> If you can't tell me what method to characterize the greater complexity, you have an unobservable condition. My question is, what is wrong with Kolmogorov complexity? Do you reject it as a definition? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i think it's a good stab, but by its very nature, insufficient to fully quantify complexity. it deals only in text strings, but cannot begin to address the complexity of all the integrated component parts.  Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It deals with more than text strings. It deals with anything that can be programmed. This would include chess, for example. If you could make a program big and complicated enough, it could include anything that you can model. If you don't think life can be modeled then please tell me now. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * what are you talking about? you're talking about theories.  i'm talking about lifeforms.  yes our ideas get more complex, but LIFE does not get more complex.  Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you believe that life must follow physical laws then this is an apt comparison to make. If you don't believe that, then that's something that can go into the article. Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * do you really think it's an apt comparison to say that "because ideas get more complex, it stands to reason that lifeforms get more complex?" Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an apt counter to the implication that information can't increase under any circumstances, don't you think? Alai 05:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean about "ideas get more complex". Do you think that the physical arrangement of the universe gets more or less complex as time goes on, for example? Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * brushing the red herrings aside, i think the universe gets LESS complex over time, a la entropy, regardless of how complex our ideas may become. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then obviously we disagree on one of these terms: entropy or complexity. As a system changed increases in entropy, a system necessarily becomes more complex, not less. This is easy to see. If you were going to write a UTM describing a crystal of zero entropy it would be far shorter than a system that had a very high entropy. The rules for arranging molecules in a crystal that don't move are much shorter to encode than a system that has greater entropy. Unless you're referring to a definition of complexity or entropy I've never heard of. In information theory the following string has less entropy: 10101010101010101010 than this string: 00001011110101001011. The first string is less complex than the second. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's why you're UTM is an insufficient measure of complexity and order for our purposes. the second sentence of entropy reads: "It is also a measure of the disorder present in a system."  you're speaking in strictly numerical terms, which are ultimately meaningless.  i'm talking about the organization and order in a system.  entropy destroys that order over time.  all the "organization" on this planet will be gone in a billion years, unless an outside force comes into to "reorganize" things.  that's entropy to me.  Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The measure of the disorder present in a system IS the entropy. It's a mathematical definition, not a mamby-pamby concept that people just throw about. If you haven't studied statistical mechanics, that's okay, but don't claim that you have a handle on the true definition of entropy then. In fact, entropy's mathematical definition is the only one recognized by any published author I have ever read. I'd love to see a counterexample. Order and complexity, it turns out, are diametrically opposed. The more ordered something is, the less complex it turns out to be. For example, a crystal at absolute zero is more ordered and less complex than those same atoms as a gas a room temperature. So explain to me one more time how you claim that order decreases (or entropy increases) while complexity increases. Because I'm not seeing it.
 * well it seems i've been using the wrong terminology -- common sense instead of statistical mechanics. here's my point: i think the human organism is more complex when it is alive than when it is dead, and i think that over time, entropy breaks them apart -- destroys the organization -- turns the beautiful and wonderful complexity of a human being into dust.  i think that's how the universe operates.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * common sense instead of statistical mechanics. --> Is it your contention that common sense is opposed to stastical mechanics? In other words, do creationists reject the statistical mechanical definition of entropy?
 * no and no, just more silly strawmen (you're good at those!). i said that i wasn't using a statistical mechanics definition.  i was speaking as normal people speak, and i still am.  Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is the thermodynamic and the statistical mechanical definitions of entropy. Both are mathematically equivalent. If you aren't using a statistical mechanical definition of entropy, you are not talkin about entropy in the sense that is talked about in physics. You have invented an alternative definition. You are in conflict with physics. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * here's my point: i think the human organism is more complex when it is alive than when it is dead, and i think that over time, entropy breaks them apart -- destroys the organization -- turns the beautiful and wonderful complexity of a human being into dust. i think that's how the universe operates.  --> But I've just demonstrated to you that complexity as it is strictly defined and entropy as it is strictly defined both increase. I would argue with your dead human organism being less complex than a live one. How did you determine this to be? Gut instinct? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so you'd look at yourself, and look at a pile of ashes, and say, "it is more complex than i am?" Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A pile of ashes and a human being are not strictly comparable from an entropic sense. There are energetic processes that have gone on in a human being that are dissipated as random motions and heat and have increased the total entropy of the universe. When the human dies and is converted to ashes, there is more entropy in the universe than when the human was alive. Therefore, the entire universal system is more complex. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complexity and information
We're getting into freeform debate, and away from the specifics of the article. The point is, in what context do we put a statement/belief/hypothesis about complexity, if we can't define what we mean by 'complexity'? If creationists simply say "complexity is that which I point to when I say 'complexity'", the it negates the falsifiablity of anything they say on the subject. Keep in mind this is an article about a self-characterised science. Alai 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you're right, there's a need for clarity here (incidentally, thank you both for pointing out areas in which research is desperately needed). the best definition of complexity we've got are already mentioned in the article -- specified complexity and irreducible complexity.  specified complexity has been codified into a "law of decreasing genetic information."  i'll try and flesh them out a bit.  Ungtss 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. (And you're welcome.)  I'm not sure you can have a law, or indeed a hypothesis, about something you can't define or measure, but certainly that sounds as if it should be discussed or reported in some form.  Alai 20:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''so is it your position that all amoebae/bacteria/protists "devolved" from more complex organisms? ''>>
 * no -- that's another lovely strawman. many single-celled organisms were created separately ... some speciated from MORE complex forms of life ... but NONE evolved from SIMPLER forms of life.  Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so much a strawman as a question I didn't know how you were going to answer. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'd love an answer to this question: how do you measure the complexity of an organism? Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's an interesting question ... i don't know how it can be measured, a little like our earlier discussion of "certainty." but just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  which is more complex: The Barenstein Bears or War and Peace?  Windows 3.1 or Windows XP?  An amoeba or an elephant?  The answer's obvious, but not quantifiable.  Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I submit that the answer is sometimes obvious and sometimes isn't obvious. Kolmogorov complexity states that the Berenstein Bears is probably less complex than War and Peace because the UTM for the latter is probably longer than than the former (though I haven't seen the UTM for either, so I cannot say for certain). However, both of these are texts and so it's easy to take them in isolation. Same goes for the computer program. Now we turn to the amoeba and the elephant. If you were going to write a UTM for either, the code would be immense because both are contextualized. That is the life of the amoeba is dependent on its environment and so it the life of the elephant. Not only would you have to characterize in the UTM the genetic coding, you'd also have to characterize the adaptability, the stability, the characteristic timescales, and many other things. By the time you are done doing that, it'd be very interesting to see if our "gut instincts" were correct and the elephant was indeed more complex than the amoeba. I'm willing to wager, however, that the difference in the UTM for a modern elephant and a modern amoeba would be on the order of less than 1%. Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Kolmogorov complexity is an interesting stab at the problem, but it doesn't capture all the complexity, because the complexity is not only in the "data" within the dna, but also the means by which the DNA translate into function within the organism -- essentially, kolmogorov would have to write a computer program to write ANOTHER computer program (the dna) to build a MACHINE (the organism). there's a whole other layer of complexity he doesn't even touch.  i venture to say that the true complexity of life can't be punched into a calculator.  if you're truly willing to say that an elephant is only 1% more complex than an amoeba, i think our discussion ends here.  Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously you've never heard about Kolmogorov complexity before. The UTM takes into account all your objections (your apparent stab at "another layer"). If "true complexity cannot be punched into a calculator" then it cannot be measured, therefore this conversation definitely ends here because you are now claiming you cannot provide a measure for true complexity and therefore your contention of complexity cannot be evaluated. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * your mistake, my friend, is thinking that things that cannot be definitively quantified cannot validly by stated as scientific fact. i may not be able to count the number of cells in my body, because i don't have the tools, and the number is in a constant state of flux -- but i know that they're there, i know that there are a lot of them, and i know that there are more now than there were when i was a baby.  therefore, i am perfectly entitled to say "i have more cells now than i had before" even tho i can't strictly quantify it.  same thing with complexity + order.  i can't quantify it, but i know it's there.  that's my common sense.  i'm not ashamed of that.  that's why many of you scientists can't see the obvious facts of creation that are right under your nose.  you cry, "if i can't quantify it, it doesn't exist!"  it takes the "uneducated" to bring you back to the hard facts of common sense.  Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Complexity CAN be definitively quantified. At least that's what people who are scientists claim. You are claiming something else. Can you provide a citation to someone that claims similarly to you, that complexity cannot be quantified? And also, we can count the number of cells in a body, there are just precision errors involved. I'm not asking for an exact measurement of complexity, I'm asking for A measurement of complexity. Until you can provide that, you cannot claim that this is a valid scientific argument. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * from kolmogorov complexity:
 * <>
 * how, then, do you intend to quantify this K(s)? Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'll read on, you'll find out that you don't have to quantify the Ks to get a meaningful comparison, for example. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want to talk about information -- or even so much as allude to information theory (as it strikes me the current article draft does, and creationists are wont to do), then I'd suggest it's imperative to quantify. (And information theory can answer all of your rhetorical questions.)  Here's a couple of measures that spring to mind:  number of codons in the genome;  number of genes. (I fact I was tacitly assuming that was what you meant.)  If you mean something less specific, the language in the article ought to reflect this.  Perhaps this is why I'm struggling so much to imagine (or get you to answer) how one can get a tiger, a housecat, and a cheetah all from 'simplifying', or 'worsening' the undescribed proto-felid, within the normal mechanisms of genetics.  Alai 05:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We should be able to calculate how much bigger the ProtoF's genome is by simply adding up the genetic variation across the family. Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, i think a genetic comparison among the family could develop or falsify this theory quite easily. Ungtss 14:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. However, I was hoping Ungtss would be prepared to clarify his hypothesis (or his synopsis of other's) and its possible falsifiability, before I expended too much 'original research' effort in trying to do so.   Alai 06:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

People, can we keep the threading straight? You're both going into 'backward thread mode' in places here, and it's confusing to read, and confusinger to add to. Ungtss, there's not falsifying your proto-F hypothesis as stated, because you haven't clarified what sort of genetic change is permissible, despite my asking you several times. Alai 23:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well here's how i would do it if i had all the genetic info at my fingertips. i'd go through the genomes of all the felines, and sort the segments into three groups -- those shared by all the felines, those shared by the different species, and those that vary among individuals.  i would then check to see if the species-specific segments were on the same spot on the genome, so that they could have been heterozygous.  then i would track any mismatches -- spots that COULDN'T just be accounted for my heterozygosity, and see if i'm looking at different "kinds," or if the number of mutations or chromosome rearrangements could have occured within 6000 years.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you two thrash out 'complexity', since it's arguably an informal claim (though if it is, better to say so). However, "genetic information" is, to my mind, an easily quantifiable term, so if that doesn't mean in the context of the article what it sounds like it means -- or worse, that it doesn't mean anything at all -- the article really shouldn't talk about it at all (or at best, should be very heavily heavily caveated). Alai 23:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 4


text:
Talk:Creation biology/Archive 5

Biological kinds
I looked for a reference to "biological kinds" in AiG, ICR, etc. They don't generally use it. Rather they refer to "Genesis kinds" or "original kinds". I changed it tenatively to "Genesis kinds", but would be happy for the alternative too, if that is more to the liking of others.

These aren't "biological kinds" as described in most literature which describe this phrase as being opposed to "non-biological kinds". In other words, life and non-life. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some "google grade research", and at first wink, "created kinds" is the most common, then "original kinds", and "Genesis kinds" least (but the top hits are all on creationist websites, so "no-one" isn't quite accurate). (Could be all sorts of false hits in there, but there's at least one positive in each case.) I've included all three in the text as synonyms, for the sakes of documenting the variation. But please edit if there's any inaccuracy here. Alai 03:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

open question
<>

 * i don't object to this being on the page ... i welcome mainstream critiques ... but can we be a little more specific? which kinds?  why?  who says?  Ungtss 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Any of them; though I was thinking especially of the examples you cite at the order and family levels.  Clearly those are (a lot) more than one gene's worth of mutation/variation.  I'd go into more detail, but the 'heterozygosity' argument needs to be drawn out in more detail in the first instance to be properly responded to.  (See a couple of 'open questions' on this, on this very page.)  More specifically, are you (CBs in general) suggesting that kinds are characterised by gene-for-gene variation/mutation, as your example is highly suggestive of?  And that changes in the gross structure of the genome (number of chr., approximate total of genes, etc) are highly unlikely/impossible?    Alai 03:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human speciation
According to CB, kinds speciated after the flood due to bottleneck effects. Apparently this didn't happen to human beings. Why? Joshuaschroeder 05:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) they had fewer to go on (only 8 people, but 14 of each kind).
 * 2) there was a great deal of variation that may or may not have been speciation, including Neanderthal man, Homo floresiensis, and (some argue) the Hottentots of South Africa (with radically different features than all other races -- see Hottentot Venus) and the Twi peoplegroup in central africa that averages 4 feet in height.
 * 3) humans didn't spread to the four winds as quickly as the animals -- they remained together for several hundred years, reducing the effects of population isolation and genetic drift. Ungtss 13:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll buy your third comment as the YEC explanation. The first comment is simply throwaway. 8 vs. 14 should yield at most a twice as much genetic variation in the larger population. There is no evidence the other human organisms you named were post-flood with the exception of the Hottentots which are obviously not an example of speciation. Joshuaschroeder 14:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds good:). Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To be clear, however, you haven't explained how population isolation and genetic drift explain speciation on small timescales in the first place. The explanation you offer assumes that this mechanism is available. You haven't pointed to any studies that support your claims. You haven't shown any evidence that such is the case. Until you can do that, there is no way we can accept any explanation you offer as scientific. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, that sounds like a great area of research, but it hasn't been done. note on the page that the research hasn't been done all you like.  the idea itself stands.  i'd do the research myself, but it seems creationist biologists can't get state funding to do their research ... Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That creationists cannot get funding is often touted as a conspiricy. Perhaps we should include this belief in the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i said nothing about a conspiracy. i said only that the reason we don't have exhaustive research done in this area is that we all have real jobs to make a living.  Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No one's forcing you not to work in science. Joshuaschroeder 03:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problematic addition
Here is what I removed:

""Roughly speaking," says Leslie Orgel, "the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure." (L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, 1973, p. 189)

Essentially, the complexity of a structure is measured by the number of instructions necessary to specify it. More complex structures, by definition, contain more "information."

It is argued that there are three types of structures.

Random structures (such as "asdfkjaD23") require very few instructions, and therefore contain very little information. They require only the instructions, "Write a letter between A and Z," followed by "Now do it again," ad infinitum. Highly ordered structures (such as "AAAAAAAAAA") also require few instructions. Complex structures (such as "I love you.") require many instructions. If we wanted a computer to write out a poem, for example, we would have to specify each letter. That is, the poem has a high information content. Further, this type of structure is specified for a specific purpose, in that each component of the structure is dependent on the others for its function -- to change "I love you" into "I lyve you" would destroy the meaning of the entire structure. Creationists argue that the first two structures can occur through natural means alone (the first through random functions and the second through selection functions), and genetic information can change or decrease. However, the information content of a structure cannot increase to any significant degree without the influence of an intelligent designer.

Creationists argue that biological structures are of the last type: complex, specified information. As an example, the construction of the eye requires an enormous number of individual bits of genetic data, each of which are dependent upon each other for their function. A lens without a retina is useless. A retina without a link to the brain and the ability of the brain to process the information is useless. Each of these components require a large number of genes, and all the genes must be present for any to function. The eye, according to creationists, must have been constructed at once in order to function at all.

In response, evolutionists posit natural selection as the means by which these information increases came through the accumulation of beneficial random changes over time. Essentially, an organism tends to pass on the advantageous traits more often than the disadvantageous traits, so that a series of small random changes can be "added" to each other.

Creationists argue that this function is inherently insufficient to explain the specified and irreducible complexity, because "I lyve you", "A lose you," or any other random variant hold no meaning, and (in the biological context) no survival value, until they are assembled intact. Without any benefit or use while partially formed, a string is useless, and carries no survival advantage. Without any survival advantage, it will not be aided by natural selection, and the construction of the structure is relegated to pure chance.

Further, random functions will destroy the meaning of the structure much more quickly than constructing it, leading to, on balance, a net decrease in genetic information over time. For instance, should the structure reach the state "I lyve you," there are 9 other characters within the structure that are also subject to random change, making it 9 times more likely that the rest of the structure will change before the y changes to an o than that the final component of the structure will complete the structure.

For a more complete discussion, see this article (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/menu/complex/complex.htm)."

Here are the problems:

1) There is a conflation of random with simple. This is not the case in any information theory I've ever read. Writing a perfect random number program is, in fact, one of the more complex machines you can build.

1a)I don't trust Ungtss' source as a good review of information theory. Therefore, we have to reformulate this.
 * you don't trust anything you don't agree with. therefore you have to unilaterally delete it.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't need a single source.
 * i cited a book in the last version you mindlessly reverted. irrelevent, i suppose.  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Specified complexity is assumed true. That is, it is assumed that there is some complexity associated with "I love you" BEYOND the simplest computer program that can be written to display that. In other words, specified complexity assumes meaning not touched by the actual text itself.
 * right. specified complexity is not assumed true.  it is STATED as a creationist IDEA that it is true, and demonstrated with the strings.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not well formulate that this is a POV and not simply a fact. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well fix it. don't delete it, grand inquisitor.  this thread provides no justification for deleting it.  ~
 * If you can fix it, do so right now. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't see any problems. you're making vague and empty complaints in an attempt to justify you're brainless deletion.  YOU have the problem.  YOU fix it.  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) There's no such thing as a random function, that I know of.
 * no randomness in nature, joshua? how about those third base pairs?  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is, what is a "random function"? Are you talking mathematics here?
 * first, your failure to understand the terminology is not grounds for deletion, so this thread fails too. beyond that, i'm not talking strictly mathematics -- i'm talking ANY random function -- computer generated or natural.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't terminology, it's madeup jargon. There is a rule about notability. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i fixed the term in the last version which you so thoughtfully deleted. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4) Information content not increasing is absolutely incorrect statement. For example, the information about the past history of a planet is easy to find out because there is evidence as to what the past history of the planet is (for example in the form of craters)
 * that's a totally non-contextual use of the word information, just like your comparison: "ideas get more complex, therefore life gets more complex." the meaning of information is very clearly defined in the segment.  or at least it was, before you deleted it.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never said "ideas get more complex therefore life gets more complex". Information, as Alai says below, is not well defined. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it has been defined as best as creationists can as yet on the page. the lack of a clear-cut definition is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for clarification on the page that the definition is not clearcut.  this thread fails too.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Alai has pointed to better definitions of information which you continue to ignore. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * what do "better definitions of information" have to do with the summary of a creationist article on the topic? Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

5) The eye-complexity argument seems to be relatively devoid of content. What's the point of the description in the first place (it doesn't say anything about whether it is possible for the eye to have evolved)? What's the "large number of genes"? Furthermore, the final sentence is simply throwaway. Of course creationists believe that, but that doesn't follow from the above comments.
 * "of course creationists believe that." that's what this page is intended to represent -- what creationists believe.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the paragraph is an attempt to develop the rationale for the belief. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the PURPOSE of the paragraph is to EXPLAIN the creationist rationale for the belief. conclusions alone do not make good articles.  EXPLANATIONS make good articles.  and the fact that a paragraph explains the rationale for belief is not grounds for deletion.  this thread fails too.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It does a poor job of explaining the rationale because the explanation doesn't plainly follow.
 * THAT'S a job for EDITING, not deletion. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6) The "creationist response" to the "evolutionist response" is, ironically, itself devoid of meaning. A typo or a homonym is supposed to be the evolutionary equivalent of "I love you"? That's impossible logic to follow.
 * your mechanism for evolution is by definition a number of typos that eventually add up to the right thing. monkeys typing shakespeare over millions of years.  am i wrong?  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wrong. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * and you're free to put that on the page, but my "wrongness" (in your silly little world where an example of an information increase is increased understanding of geology) is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" isn't even on the page. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's right -- a more subtle and accurate description of the process of evolutionary is. why are you deleting it?  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7) Crude forms are supposedly without survival advantage. This doesn't make any sense. To use a creationist favorite, if a crude eye allows an organism to see, it is definitely a survival advantage even if it isn't a human eye.
 * crude? who said anything about crude?  the text says, "incomplete."  one part without the others won't work.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Irreducibility, another highly criticized creationist invention, is not explicitly delineated in that part. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well i'd like to do that with EDITING, not with DELETION. this thread fails too.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't editted. The removal is warranted because the bit is not good enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia article. You're the one that is adding a poor section. If you don't want to see it deleted, add a section that isn't poor.Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i edited a number of things you didn't both to notice. compare versions.  i took some out, changed a lot of wording, attributed to particular authors, and qualified.  smoke going to your head, grand inquisitor?  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8) "Random functions will destroy the meaning..." The effect of natural selection is totally ignored.
 * the effect of natural selection is EXPLAINED as FUNDAMENTALLY INADEQUATE, because it only protects organs that are USEFUL in a PARTIALLY FORMED state. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not in that paragraph it isn't. And what makes you so certain that organs that are evolutionary precursors aren't useful? Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * your DISPUTE with the uselessness of the precursors can be documented on the page, but it is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not my DISPUTE, it is simply a statement that the paragraph itself contains hidden assumptions that need to be rectified before inclusion. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well NAME them and INCLUDE them. why are you expecting ME to read YOUR mind and include YOUR objections, and REFUSING to allow a CITED SUMMARY of a BOOK until i DO SO?  have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are not insurmountable problems, but they need to be addressed before they go into the article. Right now the section is a creationist POV screed. We need balance at least. Joshuaschroeder 03:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well get working. i especially enjoy your false representations of creationist beliefs.  like a fundamentalist christian putting words in the mouth of muhammed.  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quite. I think there's a confusion here between raw amount of information (from a purely genetics meets informatics POV, number of codons is a perfectly decent measure), which can clearly be increased by 'mutation' (esp. in the broad sense previously alluded to), and the utilily of that information, which is entirely a matter of fitness (and which I think even Ungtss would agree, can be increased by natural selection).
 * did the text not follow? we're saying that mutation can add RANDOM strings, but that those have a low information content, because they can easily by produced with a few computer instructions (produce random number.  repeat.)  and natural selection doesn't HELP with those instructions until they are arranged in such a way as to be specified -- that is -- to have some USE.
 * Have you ever tried to write a computer program that will produce a random number? It's a near impossibility. I'm glad you're on board and admitting that we can add things to the genome. Now we've got to figure out what exactly you mean by "information" in terms of "speficity". Joshuaschroeder 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm clear that there can be no truly random numbers in computer programs. but firstly, i'm not talking about computer programs, i'm talking about nature, and second, i'm not talking about purely random numbers, but the influence of random changes, which is the basis of evolutionary change.  as to the definitions, yes, they're vague, and we can work on in refining the text further, but it is not grounds for deletion.  this thread fails too.
 * What is a "function" in nature? I know the mathematical definition for a function, I know the computer science definition, but the problem with the presentation as it now stands is that it is not specified well. You did not address the issue. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i got rid of the word function in the latest version you deleted. maybe if you read edits other than your own, you might have noticed.  Ungtss 17:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow how you can add material like the above, Ungtss, and make any pretense it's either a) addressing the issue of defining information and complexity (or stating that CBs don't define), which is what we were discussing on the talk page; or b) that it makes the least good faith attempt at NPOV. The last paraphrase is unmediated creationist POV without even the usual reported speech fig-leaf, and the intro to the final link pretty breathtaking. The ID discussion is merely "mere complete"? And not, say, an utterly partisan POV? Once again I feel compelled to point out that NPOV is the joint and several responsibility of every wikipedian; it's not satisfactory or sufficient to throw in a shedload of POV, and then challenge others to "make it NPOV". Alai 05:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you asked for more about information on the page, and an effort to describe and quantify it on the page. i laid out exactly what i thought it was, per your request, ascribed it to creationists, and gave a cite which references a book.  i don't see any pov in there at all (not nearly as much as say, Human evolution, which states those things and evidence as undisputable fact without any alternative viewpoints).  now it's been reverted wholesale (again).  i'm trying to represent the topic.  joshua?  to deliberately misrepresent something he has no understanding of.  why are you on me?  Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ungtss, we've been trying to get information out of you on the talkpage for some time now. This is what you claim is the result of that --> a screed you post on the page itself instead of on talk, none of which answers the question we were asking of you but brings up a whole slew of other questions. You're the one who is always arguing for taking "one thing at a time". Believe me, if I had simply editted what you had written, we'd be embroiled in an enormous edit war right now. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the reason we'd be embroiled in an edit war is that you'd insist that nobody state as a VIEW anything that you think is an invalid view, and would insist on inserting the VIEWS that you THINK we hold, rather than those we actually do. Alai's approach is editing is constructive -- he adds mainstream views and tones down pov on creationist views.  yours is destructive.  you delete views held by those with whom you disagree, and insert caricatured.  YOU have failed to provide a single justification for your mass deletion.  this text is a summary of the creationist views on information.  tone down pov and add mainstream perspectives if you'd like, but DO NOT DELETE MINDLESSLY.  Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtfully redeleted
Ungtss, simply adding "creationists say" to the beginning of a paragraph is not addressing the concerns raised above. This is an article, not a treatise. You need to develop a presentation of the arguments with the critiques in mind, otherwise you aren't being honest. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * listen. you haven't offered any substantive changes.  you're making vague and empty complaints about a cited summary of a text.  if you wanna fix it, FIX IT.  why the hell do you think you're justified in deleted a cited summary of a book explaining a widely held idea until someone ELSE can adequately address YOUR CONCERNS?  don't hide behind reason.  she's not on your side.  on the contrary, she's laughing at you.  this is WIKIPEDIA.  if you don't like it, FIX IT.  Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop yelling. We can see you know how to hold down the shift key. I have explained exactly why this was an inappropriate addition. Frankly, I don't think you are calm enough to consider the issue carefully. I have fixed the problem. If you want the problem fixed in another way, you need to give us some explanation. Joshuaschroeder 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * stop bullying, telling me how calm i am (much less telling me i SHOULD be calm in the midst of your bullshit), and stop deleting my good faith, substantive edits wholesale without substantive comment, and we'll have a deal. Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not doubtin your good faith. I am doubting your ability to be a fair and neutral editor. I am also disputing your dismissal of my comments. Please ask around and figure out if anyone else thinks they are substantive or not. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The biggest changes I want to see are:

 * Definitions of complexity, information, entropy, simplicity, and random that everyone agrees upon (hopefully). Followed by the concepts of irreducible and specified complexity which are creationist inventions.
 * sounds like a good place to start. entropy and simplicity are not used in the article, so i don't see how they are relevent.  random is intuitive to me, unless you'd like to define it differently than most people think of it.  information and complexity are defined as best i know how -- do you have suggestions for improvement?
 * Entropy and simplicity, however, are often referred to by creationists and should be included. Random has an agreed upon definition that I submit we should stick to. It's not an intuition. Information theory is what defines information and complexity, I submit, is defined by Kolmogorov complexity the best. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * these are all great ideas, but they do not come from "creation biology" sources. if you'd like to provide these definitions and ideas, or critique creation biology on these bases, then feel free to do so.  but if you can't find it in a "creation biology" book, then i don't see how it is relevent to the article?
 * A definition of biological information as suggested by Alai.
 * what would you suggest as an improvement upon the general definition of information as used now? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Alai's posts above show what would be better. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * and has that definition ever been used in the context of creation biology? Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A change of examples. The text used isn't well-qualified or explained why it is a good example (in fact, I submit it is a bad example).
 * what better example would you suggest? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For example, laminar flow moving to turbulent flow. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * and has that example ever been used in the context of creation biology? Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The complexity of the eye in terms of specificity or irreducibility is a well-understood example from the mainstream perspective. There is an entire talkorigins.org article on the matter.
 * that's a pov you're free to add as an attributed pov, but certainly a disputed fact for purposes of this article. Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As NPOV, we should strive to have decent attribution. Right now, to critique your point would be difficult because it isn't well written or attributed as a creationist POV. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * how do you mean it's not attributed? the citation to the book is given.  Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Removal of the conflation of text messages with biological evolution (a comparison that isn't described in any detail, this probably will be resolvable if we change the examples).
 * and why is this a conflation, rather than a valid comparison? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because there is no indication that the analogy is valid or how it can be considered to be so. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's grounds for a critique, if you don't find it to be so -- again, creation biology considers it to be a valid analogy, as indicated by the cited book. Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A distinction made between random processes and environmental context.
 * and what would you like that distinction to be? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like a proper description of evolutionary theory rather than a sidestepping jab at something else. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * feel free to add that. i'd prefer if we also maintained a proper description of Creation Biology, rather than a sidestepping jab at something else.  Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dogma"?
Is there a "dogma" or "religious dogma" tag that can be added to articles like this indicating that they are matters of belief, not fact, and will be contentious until the day the sun expands and swallows the earth? I doubt any two people would even agree on the line between presenting facts about the dogma vs presenting the dogma as fact.
 * and what makes you think you have the right to determine which beliefs are fact and which are fiction? Ungtss 04:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I would want to? But my understanding of the definition of dogma would certainly include "creation biology" Krisjohn 08:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes. that would be your definition of dogma.  and there are a solid contingent of people (including myself) who would place evolution squarely within the same category.  Ungtss 14:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This cannot continue
Ungtss, will you agree to Requests for Mediation to help resolve the disputes? Joshuaschroeder 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well sure, if you want to waste some poor mediator's time ... but honestly, i don't think it is necessary. we're big boys here.  let's follow basic policy.  the purpose of this page is to summarize and explain the concepts held by those claiming to be "creation biologists," and provide mainstream critiques of those ideas.  i've taken a stab at the first part based on an article and a book, and i'm planning to move forward with further clarification, citation, and development of the idea.  you're welcome to read through creation biology articles to further clarify the topic, or provide summaries of cited mainstream critiques of the ideas.  this is not complicated.  this is not a power struggle.  this is not a case of "we can't say anybody says it unless everybody agrees it's true."  this is a very simple case of "let's write an encyclopedia article about what a certain group of people think."  why do we need a mediator to do that?  Ungtss 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Anatomical?) complexity vs. genetic information
I feel it would help if we picked out the distinction between the points currently being made in generalised terms about the systemic anatomic, developmental, etc biological complexity of an organism qua organism in its total environment (which is, I think, what 'complexity' is suggestive of), and 'genetic information', which surely can be given a much narrower definition. The article currently seems to flip between the two on a pretty a hoc basis, without ever clarifying which (if either) is meant. The 'text strings' comparison is somewhat useful in the second context, but I don't see how it illuminates the first. As it stands I follow the drift of the portion on irreducible complexity, but the 'specified complexity' bit seems to be arguing purely from rather loose analogy, without actually specifying what it's asserting to be very unlikely/impossible. Alai 05:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The 'text strings' comparison is somewhat useful in the second context, but I don't see how it illuminates the first.--> I don't think it makes a good comparison to the genetic information either because it's not clear what makes "I love you" a good comparison to ATAGATTC, for example. Joshuaschroeder 05:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't want to put words in U's mouth, but I assume the gist of it would be, a genetic sequence that codes for a 'useful' protein. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means arguing in favour of the disputed section;  I'm trying to take a step back from it.  Alai 06:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not trying to get U. to come up with such a definition out of whole cloth, but to represent the statements of CBs on the matter as best as we, collectively, can. If there really is no such definition, or if CBs don't agree among themselves as to what it is, then we should simply say that. Alai 06:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks, alai. that is exactly my point -- ATAGATTC may "work," while CTAGATTC may not "work" in creating the protein it needs to create on order for the organism to function.  i'd love to clarify exactly why creationists make the analogy in such a way as to make it easy to read, but it's very clear they do, as any article of creationist arguments from genetics will indicate, including the one linked from the page, which explicitly makes the "I love you" analogy.  i'm not a biologist myself, so i can't make up these definitions on my own, and it's not my job.  i'm just reporting what other people have said in the best way i know how.  that's all any of us can do.  obviously i agree with them, so i'm not as familiar with counterarguments, and not as aware of biased tone i might insert.  that's why this is a team effort, so we can clean up each other's messes.  let's do this:).  Ungtss 15:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (But that's not information or complexity, see, that's fitness. Which you may argue in the "irreducibility" context, or try to, but I can't see how it elucidates "specified complexity".)  But you're not supposed to be "making the creationists' arguments" in the first place.  If you can't find a definition of information and complexity, it's inappropriate to simply continue to lax lyrical with "laws" and arguments that are seemingly based on such a thing.  We have a couple of links to such things, we don't to reproduce them here with the ol' "creationists say" formula (or in some cases in your additions, without even that).  Honestly, if I were to start editting the currently removed section, I'd probably end up either in whole or in large part re-removing it, or trying to find a polite way to phrase "CBs say these things about genetic information, which they don't define, and which are clearly false by any likely definition (such as size of the genome)".  Alai 04:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * points all well made ... it seems to me we've got a section that describes a vague and ill-defined idea in a vague and ill-defined way ... but i don't know how better to describe the idea yet, and i don't think that wikipedia requires such a description. i'd like to continue researching to try and define and refine it ... maybe i'll try and dig up some of dembski's stuff to put a sharper edge on things.  but do you think this really warrants deleting the section entirely?  Ungtss 04:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll admit to being somewhat disarmed by your candour on the first point. But I don't see how to integrate it into a reasonable comparison between CB and EB without getting into lengthy "but that's not a very good characterisation of information" sidebars.  What does it objectively matter what English language 'instructions' can encode a text string or genome?  (And JS's observation that "it's random" is not a sufficient specification for any sequence.)  That's not, after all, relatable to how they arise.  The sequence itself, or a series of genetic operations that could produce it would be more pertinent.  As it stands, the analogy is too long-drawn out and too wooly, the token "EB" view is sandwiched between two chunks of CB POV, and is framed in terms of the preceding wooly definition of information.   Alai 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * the analogy makes perfect sense to me -- "randomness" is easy to find in nature -- it doesn't take any "intelligence." "order" is also easy to find it nature -- it only requires a law.  but we're arguing that specified complexity, that is, text strings in which the components of each string are dependent on each other for their meaning, CANNOT come about by those two functions ... just like "i love you."  if it's bad, let's explain why it's bad.  but let's at least explain it, no?  Ungtss 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Randomness is easy to find, but hard to specify. The distinction between 'nature' and 'intelligence' is rather begging the question, isn't it?  Your argument here about specified complexity still sounds to me exactly like the IC argument;  one (or very possibly more!) of us is missing something, I think.  IC I can dig up reasonable EB context on.  But SC I'd personally have to sift through the CB stuff on to get a handle on what they're saying.  I agree we should certainly describe it, but focussing on a particular analogy makes for a weak article structure, as it too easily falls into EB rebuttal, CB counter-rebuttal, etc, etc, then someone else coming along and saying the example is a straw man and weak analogy and the CB position is really more like such and such.  So I'd prefer a clear, but more abstract example, but one that's more directly connected (or connectable) to the genetics/biology.  Alai 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * fair enough -- i share your goal of better examples and analogies. but i don't have one:).  do you think omission is better than inclusion in this case, given that the example is cited specifically to a website and book as an identifiable CB position?  Ungtss 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Does it need to be an analogy at all? If text strings are a stand-in for genes, why not simply describe it in terms of (partial) gene sequences?  Or at the least, make it clear that that's what the text strings are there to illustrate, as opposed to Non Brand Complexity(TM).  Alai 01:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that sounds like a perfectly reasonable proposal ... i'd prefer the second, since it would give instant recognition to the way the sequences have to "work together." Ungtss 05:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * how would you suggest making the analogy less wooly, drawn out, and allow the evolutionist side fair representation? Ungtss 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 5


text:
Talk:Paul Gauguin Cultural Center

Untitled
I dunno if it's good style to annotate a stub as part of two categories. The Cultural Center is not really a museum, nor is it exclusively Gauguin-related. It's equal parts both, as well as being another equal part "Polynesian or Marquesas Culture"-related...for which there is no stub, nor do I have time to make a template for one. If someone knows the protocol for this sort of thing, please fix my stubbification. I'd have used just a simple "Culture-stub", but there doesn't appear to be such a creature just yet. TShilo12 05:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?
Just in case it comes up when furthur editing occurs. I was in the center and discovered the following fact: The painting "Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?" is not in the center. There is, however, a large replication. I don't know where the original is, but I know it's in France. Most of the really valuable paintings are in France due to fears that the atmospheric conditions in Atuona would destroy the paintings. Wm 00:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Gauguin Cultural Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050226083223/http://chez.mana.pf/~hoata/communique.htm to http://chez.mana.pf/~hoata/communique.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Gauguin Cultural Center


text:
Charlie Clouser

Charles Alexander Clouser (born June 28, 1963) is an American keyboardist, composer, record producer, and remixer. He worked with Trent Reznor for Nine Inch Nails from 1994 to 2000, and is a composer for film and television; among his credits are the score for the Saw franchise and American Horror Story. Clouser was nominated for two Grammy Awards for Best Metal Performance in 1997.

Early life
Clouser was born in Hanover, New Hampshire; his father, K. Danner Clouser (1930–2000), was a professor at Dartmouth College and Pennsylvania State University. He attended Middletown High School in Pennsylvania and graduated from Hanover High School in 1981. He is also a graduate of Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts; he earned a degree in electronic music in 1985.

Career
Clouser plays keyboard, synthesizer, theremin, and drums. He also does music programming, engineering, and mixing. He co-worked with Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails (1994–2000) for several projects. Before he worked with Nine Inch Nails, he was in the alternative band Burning Retna with former L.A. Guns guitarist Mick Cripps and fellow Nothing Records employee Sean Beavan. Clouser also was a member of the band 9 Ways to Sunday, which released a self-titled album in 1990. Clouser has remixed artists such as Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, White Zombie, Rammstein and Meat Beat Manifesto.

In 2004, Clouser produced the Helmet album Size Matters. Consisting mainly of collaborations between Clouser and Page Hamilton, it was intended to be a Hamilton solo album. The first release from the collaboration, known as "Throwing Punches", appeared on a soundtrack in 2003 for the film Underworld, and was credited as a Hamilton track. Clouser created one of FirstCom music's master series discs, only sold for commercial use, in the late 1990s.

Two songs programmed by Clouser were nominated for Grammy Awards in 1997: White Zombie's "I'm Your Boogie Man" and Rob Zombie and Alice Cooper's "Hands of Death (Burn Baby Burn)", the latter of which Clouser also co-wrote and mixed.

He worked with Trent Reznor on the soundtrack of Natural Born Killers, helping record and produce a new version of "Something I Can Never Have," the original version of which appeared on Nine Inch Nails Pretty Hate Machine album. Clouser's remix of Zombie's "Dragula" can be found on The Matrix soundtrack. Another Zombie track remixed by Clouser, "Reload", appears on The Matrix Reloaded soundtrack. He produced the unfinished Hamilton project Gandhi. In 2001, Clouser formed the supergroup Revenge of the Triads with Jason Slater and Troy Van Leeuwen, although they later disbanded in 2002 without releasing any material.

Clouser provided the live synth for Alec Empire's "Intelligence And Sacrifice" tour in 2001. He appears in the Moog documentary about electronic-music pioneer Robert Moog and composed the song "I Am a Spaceman" for the original soundtrack of that movie.

Clouser has also worked as a film and television composer, scoring the entire Saw series of films. He was the "top choice" for scoring the first film of the series, as director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell are both Nine Inch Nails fans and they used remixes of the band's songs for the temp score. Clouser said, "They wanted progressive, underground music that was kind of underground, and they were looking to inject that flavor in the score." He has also scored films such as Deepwater (2005), Dead Silence (2007), Death Sentence (2007), and Resident Evil: Extinction (2007). On television, he was the composer for the TV series Las Vegas (NBC), for which he won a BMI TV Music Award, Fastlane (Fox), and Numbers (CBS). Additionally, he composed the theme song for those shows as well as American Horror Story (FX).

Personal life
Clouser married his long-time girlfriend, photographer and model Zoe Wiseman, in the summer of 2007.

Discography
With Nine Inch Nails
 * The Downward Spiral (1994)
 * Further Down the Spiral (1995)
 * The Perfect Drug (1997)
 * Closure (1997)
 * The Day the World Went Away (1999)
 * The Fragile (1999)
 * Into the Void (1999)
 * Starfuckers, Inc. (1999)
 * Things Falling Apart (2000)
 * And All That Could Have Been (2002)

Marilyn Manson
 * Portrait of an American Family (1994)
 * "Lunchbox" (1994)
 * Smells Like Children (1995)
 * "Sweet Dreams" (1995)
 * Antichrist Superstar (1996)
 * "Tourniquet Pt. 2" (1997)
 * Lest We Forget: The Best Of (2004)

White Zombie
 * Astro Creep: 2000 (1995)
 * More Human than Human (1995)
 * Real Solution #9 (1995)
 * Ratfinks, Suicide Tanks and Cannibal Girls (1996)
 * Supersexy Swingin' Sounds (1996)
 * Electric Head Pt. 2 (The Ecstasy) (1996)

Rob Zombie
 * "The Great American Nightmare" with Howard Stern (1997)
 * Hellbilly Deluxe (1998)
 * Dragula (1998)
 * Living Dead Girl (1999)
 * American Made Music to Strip By (1999)
 * Remix-a-Go-Go (1999)
 * The Best of Rob Zombie (2006)

Other artists
Clouser has performed on releases with a variety of other artists and bands.

 * 9 Ways to Sunday – 9 Ways to Sunday (1990)
 * 12 Rounds – Pleasant Smell (1998)
 * Alec Empire – Live at Fuji-Rock (2001)
 * Apartment 26 – Music for the Massive (2004)
 * Black Light Burns – Cruel Melody (2007)
 * Burning Retna – Frozen Lies (2006)
 * Collide
 * Vortex (2004)
 * Live at the El Rey (2005)
 * David Bowie
 * I'm Afraid of Americans (1997)
 * Seven (2000)
 * Best of Bowie (2002)
 * Deltron 3030 – Positive Contact (2001)
 * Die Krupps
 * The Final Remixes (1994)
 * Rings of Steel (1995)
 * Fire (1997)
 * Esthero
 * Breath from Another (1998)
 * Heaven Sent (1998)
 * FAT – Down Time (1995)
 * Foetus – Blow (2001)

 * Fuel – Natural Selection (2003)
 * Helmet – Size Matters (2004)
 * John Frusciante – Shadows Collide with People (2004)
 * Killing Joke – Democracy (1996)
 * Meat Beat Manifesto – Asbestos Lead Asbestos (1996)
 * A Perfect Circle – eMOTIVe (2004)
 * Prong
 * Broken Peace (1994)
 * Rude Awakening (1996)
 * Puscifer – Don't Shoot the Messenger EP (2007)
 * Radiator – Black Shine (remix) (1998)
 * Rammstein – Stripped (1998)
 * Reach 454 – Reach 454 (2003)
 * Real McCoy – Another Night (1994)
 * Schwein – Son of Schweinstein (2001)
 * Snake River Conspiracy
 * Sonic Jihad – "Oh Well" (2000)
 * Splattercell – AH - ReMiKSiS (2000)
 * Type O Negative
 * Cinnamon Girl (1997)
 * D-Side 1 (2000)
 * Least Worst Of (2000)

title: Charlie Clouser


text: User talk:67.82.97.220

title: User talk:67.82.97.220


text:
User:Threefour

see http://victorlombardi.com/

title: User:Threefour


text:
Henninger Brewery

Henninger Brewery was a notable brewery in Frankfurt, Germany. The Henninger brewery in Frankfurt traces its roots to 1655 in Eberhard Stein's brew house. In 1873 Heinrich Christian Henninger, who came from Erlangen/Bavaria, entered the brewery. In 1881 it was transformed into a stock company and changed its name into "Frankfurter Bierbrauer-Gesellschaft - vormals Henninger und Söhne". After several expansions and acquisitions it changed its name again in 1935 to its final name Henninger-Bräu AG.

After the World War II Henninger was the first German brewery to use beer cans. The company rapidly expanded and soon became one of the largest breweries in Germany. In 1966, under the aegis of majority shareholder Bruno H. Schubert, Henninger ranked number three amongst all breweries in Germany in terms of sales and expanded its reach worldwide. The company founded subsidiaries or brewed under license in countries like Argentina (Cerveceria Schneider S. A., Santa Fé), Italy, Spain (Henninger Española), Greece (Henninger Hellas S.A) and the U.S.

In 1980 tobacco and cigarette producer Reemtsma bought the brewery, but was unsuccessful in developing the brand further. In 1987 the company was sold again to meat producer Gebrüder März AG, Rosenheim. The brewery could recover again from the heavy losses during the Reemtsma era. The company re-introduced its main brand "Kaiser Pilsner Privat", which was replaced a couple of years before by the artificial brand "Christian Henninger". On 1.5.1994, to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the prestigious road cycle race "Around the Henninger Tower, Henninger launched "Henninger Radler" (engl. "Hennninger cyclist"), a beer-lemonade mix, which was the first nationwide drink of its category. Still, the enormous success of the product could not save the parent company, which went bankrupt in 1996.

In 1998 the brewery, which remained intact despite the trouble with the parent company, was sold to private investors around German billionaire and software entrepreneur Dietmar Hopp, who divested the Henninger Brand and distribution rights in 2001 to local rival Binding Brauerei AG (nowadays Radeberger Group). The last brew at the old brewery site was produced on December 20, 2001, before the buildings were demolished and gave way for a modern residential development called "Stadtgärten Henninger Turm".

The Henninger Turm (engl. Henninger tower), erected in 1961 as a grain storage silo with a barrel-like top with viewing platform and a revolving restaurant was the tallest building in Frankfurt until 1974 and had been placed under protection and classified as a historical monument. It was demolished in 2013 because it was too costly and uneconomic for renovation. On its site there was a new residential tower erected, 140 m (460 ft) tall with 130 luxury apartments and externally inspired by the old Henninger tower.

The Henninger brands include the following beers:

 * Kaiser Pilsner (Privat) - Pilsen type beer
 * Export - Spicy, premium beer.
 * Radler - Beer and lemonade mix.
 * Diät-Pils - Low-carbohydrate beer.
 * Highlander - Brewed with whisky malt.

title: Henninger Brewery


text:
Andrea Anders

Andrea Anders (born May 10, 1975) is an American actress. She is best known for her work on television, notably through her main roles on five anticipated but short-lived sitcoms, Joey, The Class, Better Off Ted, Mr. Sunshine and Mr. Mom, as well as recurring and guest roles on numerous TV series including Cruel Summer, Oz, Young Sheldon, Modern Family, Necessary Roughness, and That '90s Show. Additionally, she has been cast in nearly ten produced but unsold pilots.

In addition, she regularly appears as supporting characters in films directed or produced by her older brother Sean Anders, namely Never Been Thawed, Sex Drive, Daddy's Home 2, Instant Family, Countdown and Spirited, and has also had roles in a handful of other films such as The Stepford Wives, Return to Zero, Is That a Gun in Your Pocket? and Nancy Drew and the Hidden Staircase.

Early life
Andrea Anders was born in Madison, Wisconsin on May 10, 1975, the third child of Terrance and Sally Anders. She was raised in DeForest, Wisconsin with her sister Torri and her brother Sean, where she attended the DeForest Area High School, graduating in 1993. She went on to study acting at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, receiving her bachelor's degree in fine arts in 1997. She then moved to New Jersey to study at Rutgers University's Mason Gross School of the Arts, earning a Master of Fine Arts in 2001. In addition, she trained in the Meisner technique under Maggie Flanigan and credits the teacher with her continued work as an actress.

Theatre
In 2001, Anders began her career in theatre. She was an understudy for Mary-Louise Parker in the Broadway production of Proof and later played the part of Elaine Robinson in The Graduate. She also appeared in On the Jump at the Arena Stage, New Doors at the Guthrie Theater, Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical and two New York Stage & Film productions: Cold/Tender and New World Rhapsody.

In May 2007, Anders started in the Geffen Playhouse performance of Fat Pig. She played the part of Jeannie, an accountant. Fat Pig closed on July 1, 2007.

Television and film
One of Anders' first appearances on television was a commercial for Danone that ran in the 1990s and then again around 2006.

Her first acting credits came between 1998 and 2001 when she appeared on the soap operas One Life to Live and Guiding Light, respectively as Elaine, one of Starr Manning's nannies, and Ellie, an assistant to Olivia Spencer.

In 2001, she appeared in the Law & Order episode "The Fire This Time", as teenager Emily Hoyt. In 2003, she played the recurring role of Donna Degenhart for five episodes of the HBO drama series Oz. That same year, Anders was cast opposite Richard Ruccolo as the original female lead in the failed television pilot for the proposed series Spellbound, about a warlock who falls in love with a mortal woman. After the pilot was not picked up by NBC, Anders was replaced for the equally unsuccessful second pilot.

In 2004, Anders made her film debut with a minor role in The Stepford Wives, playing a secretary to Nicole Kidman's main character. That same year, she was cast as Emma Leeds, the female lead in News To Me, a proposed workplace sitcom inspired by Joel Stein's experiences as the youngest-ever columnist at Time magazine; the pilot was not picked up. That same year, Anders guest starred in one episode of the series Tru Calling.

In July 2004, Anders was cast in what would be her breakthrough role as Alex Garrett, Joey Tribbiani's neighbor, landlady, friend and eventual love interest on the Friends spin-off, Joey. NBC cancelled the series during its second season.

In between seasons of Joey, Anders appeared as a "Christian Band Slut" in her older brother Sean's directorial debut film Never Been Thawed, marking the first of many collaborations between the pair.

In February 2006, prior to Joey's cancellation, Anders signed as a series regular of the sitcom The Class as Nicole, the unfulfilled wife of a former pro-football player who reconnects with her high school boyfriend after a class reunion. Despite steady ratings and winning the Favorite New TV Comedy Award at the 33rd People's Choice Awards, CBS did not renew the show for a second season.

In 2008, following The Class' cancelation, Anders guest starred on the episode "Power" of the crime drama Numb3rs, and had a small role her brother's film, Sex Drive.

In May 2008, Anders was cast in the satirical workplace comedy Better Off Ted, after creator Victor Fresco was impressed with her work on The Class. She played Linda Zwordling, the love interest for main character Ted Crisp, played by Jay Harrington, and a co-worker of his at an evil megacorporation. The series was a mid-season replacement, premiering to low rating in March 2009, but critical acclaim kept the show going and even renewed for a second season, though it would be cancelled and pulled from the air with the last two episodes of that season unaired. The show enjoyed a mini-reunion in 2011 through the music video for Revenge of the Nerds, a rap song recorded by co-star Malcolm Barrett under the stage name "Verbal", which features all the main actors from the series in cameos either as their characters or, in the case of Anders, new characters.

In April 2009, shortly after Better Off Ted premiered, Anders joined the cast of The Big D, a sitcom project centered on a New York City couple – played by Anders and Ben Koldyke – who move to Dallas, where the husband is from, and where the wife consistently clashes with her southern belle mother-in-law. Despite her character being central to the premise, Anders was billed as a guest star in case she'd have to work on The Big D and Better Off Ted at the same time, with the latter having precedence. This issue was moot, as CBS did not pick up the series.

In February 2010, Anders was cast in Mr. Sunshine, marking the return to comedy television for Friends star Matthew Perry. Anders played Alice, the tomboyish co-worker and friend with benefits who's looking for more commitment from Perry's character. It premiered as a midseason replacement the following February, but was cancelled by ABC just three months.

Right after Mr. Sunshine cancellation, Anders appeared in a four episode story arc in the first season of USA Network's series Necessary Roughness, as a former girlfriend of Marc Blucas' character.

In the years following Mr. Sunshine, Anders starred as a lead in a string of sitcom pilots, none of which were picked up to series. First was Ladyfriends in 2012, for NBC, centered on two best friends leading very different lives, portrayed by Anders and Minnie Driver. In 2013, ABC did not pick up Divorce: A Love Story, an adaptation of the long-running Israeli sitcom Ha-Chaim Ze Lo Hacol, about a happily divorced couple played by Anders and Jason Jones. In 2014, CBS did not pickup the proposed Cuz-Bros, in which Anders was cast as an anchorwoman and co-worker of Geoff Stultss character

In 2015, Anders starred in two more failed pilots. First was How We Live, where Anders played a stay-at-home mom and best friend of the female lead, played by Briga Heelan. Next was The Half of It, where Anders portrayed the ex-wife of Jon Dore's character. In 2016, she starred in the failed pilot for the sitcom Crunch Time, as the creator and producer of a game show hosted by Craig Ferguson's character.

While making pilots for all these failed series attempts, Anders had roles in a number of other projects. In 2012, she filmed a supporting part in the fact-based television film Return to Zero, which premiered on the Lifetime Network in 2014. She had recurring roles in the one season each of comedy series About a Boy and of Modern Family, appearing in the latter as the obnoxious new neighbor of the Dunphy family. In 2016, she was the main character in the comedy film Is That a Gun in Your Pocket?, where women in a small Texas town withhold sex until their partners dispose of their guns. That same year, she also did a guest spot on the first season of Speechless, a sitcom led by Minnie Driver, her co-star from the failed Ladyfriends pilot.

In 2019, she appeared as the aunt of Sophia Lillis' character in the film Nancy Drew and the Hidden Staircase, and as the mother of Elizabeth Lail's character in the film Countdown, the latter produced by her brother Sean. That same year, Anders played the starring role in the sitcom Mr. Mom, which was cancelled after 11 episodes.

Personal life
Anders met actor Matt LeBlanc in 2004 while co-starring as his friend and eventual love interest on Joey and the pair eventually embarked on a relationship which was confirmed in 2006 following LeBlanc's split from his wife Melissa McKnight. After over eight years as a couple, LeBlanc announced at the start of 2015 that he and Anders had been broken up for several months.

In late 2016, Anders revealed she was pregnant, talking about the experience at length during a stand-up comedy set on December 15, 2016. She has however never publicly discussed the child's birth, gender, name or father.

On September 15, 2016, Anders and her older brother Sean were inducted into their high school's hall of fame, at the DeForest Area High School's Performing Arts Center.

title: Andrea Anders


text:
Capone-N-Noreaga

Capone-N-Noreaga (also known as C-N-N) is an American hip hop duo formed in 1995 from Queens, New York. The duo features East Coast rappers Capone and N.O.R.E.

History
In October 1995, Capone-N-Noreaga appeared in The Source magazine's "Unsigned Hype" column. In 1996, the duo secured a recording contract with Neil Levine's Penalty Recordings. In 1996, before the group's debut album was completed, Capone was jailed for a parole violation, and Noreaga finished their debut album The War Report, with the help of various fellow New York City hip-hop acts, including Mobb Deep and Tragedy Khadafi. The album was met with critical and commercial acclaim; it also saw the group partake in the conflict between Death Row Records and Bad Boy Entertainment, making it a more widespread East Coast/West Coast rivalry, responding to West Coast hip hop duo Tha Dogg Pound's single "New York, New York", with their own rendition of "L.A L.A".

In 2000, the group released The Reunion, their second album on Tommy Boy Records. The album was similarly star-studded but suffered from mixed reviews. Additionally, Capone had once again been sent to prison before its release for violating a probation sentence on gun possession, which undermined promotion of the album. Soon after, in 2001, Capone-n-Noreaga jumped ship to prominent label Def Jam. As Tommy Boy retained the rights to the names Capone-n-Noreaga and Noreaga, because the company claimed that the duo owed it more recordings, the group shortened its name to CNN, and Noreaga billed himself as N.O.R.E. (or NORE) for his solo work. The duo recorded a new album in 2003, titled New Religion, with a lead single "Yes, Sir," which was issued on mixtapes and promoted with a music video. The single failed to make an impact, and the album was ultimately shelved. A compilation of several tracks was released in 2004, entitled "What Up 2 Da Hood Thugged Out",

Later that year, the duo found itself implicated in a non-fatal shooting between rival hip-hop groups, one of which included fellow East Coast rapper Lil' Kim, after a chance encounter outside New York radio station Hot 97. Capone-n-Noreaga have denied any involvement in the shooting, for which the group was not charged. In early 2005, Def Jam released Capone from his contract while retaining N.O.R.E.; Capone released his solo debut album Pain, Time, and Glory, later the same year.

In 2006, N.O.R.E. brought up the possibility of a Capone-N-Noreaga reunion and a new album. On June 12, 2008, the duo released a mixtape titled Back on That Q.U. Shit. CNN released Channel 10, their third studio album, on March 17, 2009, referencing the name of a song from their debut album, The War Report. Channel 10 was put together with the assistance of longtime friend DJ EFN. The album's lead single, titled "Rotate", features Busta Rhymes and Ron Browz, and was produced by the latter. American record producers DJ Premier, Havoc, and The Alchemist—among others—also provided production for the album.

In 2010, the duo had teamed up once again to release their fourth album in June. The album, titled The War Report 2: Report the War as a sequel to their debut, was released to slight fanfare. At that point, the duo recalibrated and decided to return to focusing on solo efforts. In June 2011, N.O.R.E. announced via his Twitter account, that the group had disbanded and that he would continue to focus on his solo career. In March 2013, N.O.R.E. and Capone called into radio personality Sway Calloway's morning radio show, to announce they had once again reunited.

In August 2016, the duo also had a collaboration with Supreme, a streetwear clothing company. This collaboration with Supreme is based on the duo's "The War Report" and includes a waffle thermal longsleeved crewneck shirt and shorts, t-shirt, hooded sweatshirt and a skateboard deck which features Capone-N-Noreaga's original album artwork from The War Report. In 2020, the instrumental to "Streets Favorite" from Capone's 2005 album became an Internet meme on TikTok, typically being played when an accident is shown.

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * The War Report (1997)
 * The Reunion (2000)
 * Channel 10 (2009)
 * The War Report 2: Report the War (2010)
 * Lessons (2015)

Video game appearances

 * Def Jam Vendetta (2003)
 * Def Jam: Fight for NY (2004)
 * Def Jam Fight for NY: The Takeover (2006)

title: Capone-N-Noreaga


text:
XM Radio Canada

XM Radio Canada was the operating name of Canadian Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (or CSR), a Canadian communications and media company, which was incorporated in 2002 to broadcast satellite radio in Canada. Following the merger of Sirius XM Radio in the United States, XM Canada and its competitor Sirius Canada reached a deal in late 2010 to merge into SiriusXM Canada, which was approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on April 11, 2011 and completed on June 21, 2011.

History
On August 19, 2003, Canadian Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., the parent company of CSR, filed its initial application to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for a broadcast licence to provide subscription based digital radio service in Canada. In June 2005, the CRTC awarded the company a six-year licence to commence broadcasting in Canada. XM Radio Canada started transmissions across Canada on November 22, 2005, and launched officially on December 1, 2005. Clear Channel's channels were eliminated from XM Radio Canada on April 17, 2006. On April 1, 2007, XM Radio Canada began simulcasting the U.S. service, with the exception of Clear Channel's channels. On November 30, 2007, XM Radio Canada announced that they have over 350,000 subscribers. The Best Of Sirius package (NFL, NASCAR, Howard 100, Howard 101) was not included on XM Radio Canada's offerings in September 2008, even though the Sirius channels were poured to XM Radio Canada during the merger of XM and Sirius channels on November 12, 2008.

On November 24, 2010, CSR announced that it has proposed an all-stock merger with its competitor, Sirius Canada, subject to approval by shareholders and the CRTC. The CRTC approved the merger on April 11, 2011.

Corporate Structure
XM Radio Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (CSR Holdings). CSR Holdings is a publicly traded company on the TSX Exchange. The executive chairman and founder is John Bitove, a Canadian businessman, who owns 58% of CSR Holdings, while the American company Sirius XM owns 23% of CSR Holdings. The remaining 19% forms the publicly traded float on the TSX stock exchange. XMSR granted an exclusive 15 year licence (including a 5-year renewal) to XM Radio Canada to broadcast and distribute its content and to use its XM brand name.

XM Radio Canada has strategic alliances with Corus Entertainment, Telesat Canada, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Telus, Rogers Communications and Air Canada.

XM Radio Canada Content
XM Radio Canada offers listeners 130 channels, including 100% commercial-free music as well as news, talk, sports and children's programming across Canada via satellite. XM Radio Canada also offers every NHL hockey game, as it is the exclusive broadcaster of the NHL games starting in the 2007-2008 season. As of September 2007, XM Radio Canada now offers every Major League Baseball game, the IRL, select college sports, and the PGA Tour Network along with the NHL. The company programs, produces, and distributes thirteen new Canadian channels (eight in English and five in French) with formats such as music, sports, comedy, and news, in addition to the existing XM service. XM Radio Canada uses the existing 2 XM satellites: Rhythm and Blues, as well as a system of ground repeaters across Canada to broadcast a subscription radio service to Canadians. For a complete list of channels, please visit List of XM Satellite Radio channels.

XM Radio Canada currently programs the following on-air channels for XM Satellite Radio.
 * The Verge (XM87) - New and emerging Canadian rock music. This channel sticks to the up-and-coming talent and does not play the more established Canadian rock artists. Broadcast in.
 * Air Musique (XM88) - New and emerging music. Broadcast in.
 * Sur La Route (XM89) - Pop hits. Broadcast in.
 * XM Scoreboard (XM95) - Channel for sports news, scores and schedules on a tightly structured 10-minute newswheel. Broadcast in.
 * Canada 360 (XM96) - Looping news and information reel that covers news, business, and other forms of information for Canada. Broadcast in.
 * Calendrier Sportif (XM97) - Sports information channel. Broadcast in.
 * Quoi de Neuf (XM125) - Looping reel that covers art and entertainment news and information as well as news, business, and other forms of information for Canada. Broadcast in.
 * Laugh Attack (XM153) - Canadian stand-up and comedy routines. Like XM's now-defunct XM Comedy and the succeeding Raw Dog Comedy, this channel is completely uncensored. Broadcast in.
 * ATN-Asian Radio  (XM159) - South Asian Programming produced by ATN. Broadcast majority in.
 * Radio Parallèle (XM172) - News, talk, information and entertainment channel that features Jeff Fillion's show. Broadcast in.
 * MLB Home Plate Info (XM179) - Major League Baseball information, scores, updates and short specials are produced for this channel, and loop on the other MLB play-by-play channels occasionally when out of service. Broadcast in.
 * NHL Home Ice (XM204) - National Hockey League talk and play by play. Features hockey talk and programming in the daytime hours and games in the nighttime hours. XM Radio is the exclusive broadcaster of the NHL. Broadcast in.
 * NHL Play-by-Play (XM205-209) - National Hockey League play by play. These channels are programmed and scheduled by XM Radio Canada. XM Radio Canada also produces special content for the channels during their downtime, as well as sports updates, known as NHL Home Ice Info. All broadcast in.

XM NavTraffic
XM Radio announced on 2007-07-30 that their XM NavTraffic added Montreal and Toronto to their list of cities that now have traffic data. Unfortunately, as of September 29, 2007, no data seems to appear for those users who have subscribed to this added feature. By calling XM Radio, you can leave a contact phone number to be notified when service is available.

title: XM Radio Canada