steve_h
Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
DaveScot | Quote | ftk
I’m banned by Myers too. Interesting story. I was commenting at Panda’s Thumb on something and Myers thought to condescendingly tell me that the environment contributes information in ontogenesis. I replied that if he was talking about epigenetic factors (outside the DNA) then I knew all about that but if he was talking about information coming from the outside environment he was all wet. I condescendingly described how all the information required to make a chicken is inside the shell of the egg and the environment need provide nothing but warmth as any child who’s hatched a chicken egg under a light bulb knows quite well. There are a few exceptions such as the gender of alligators being determined by the incubation temperature of the egg but as a general rule no information is provided by the environment outside the egg. He went apoplectic and started disemvoweling my comments from that point on.Myers can dish it out but he can’t take it. |
More DaveScot revisionism. His chicken egg remarks are here on 2005-02-21:
| Quote | Some biologists evidently need a sticker on their foreheads warning of the hubris therein.
So Dr. Myers, did you come up with any examples for me of the new information created inside a chicken egg while it’s going from egg to chick, or are you prepared to concede that ontogeny is the expression of preformed information? |
He continues on that thread without disemvowelling.
| Quote | | Quote | Grey Wolf Wrote:
The moment the chick-to-be goes from undifferientiated cells to slight specialization there is an increase in the information, according to Shannon’s Information Theory. |
No, there is not. All the information required for differentiation is already there. No new information is created. None is added from the environment. Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.
|
PZ
| Quote | | Quote | | No, there is not. All the information required for differentiation is already there. No new information is created. None is added from the environment. Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently. |
OK, show me where the information for, say, gastrulation is located. Explain how dorsal is specified in the chick without referencing anything in the environment or in the epigenetic history of the oocyte.
|
Only one more reply from DS (to Grey Wolf) on this thread. It was not disemvowelled
From this point on, according to DaveScot, his comments were summarily disemvowelled but on 2007-02-2005 on PZ's "Penis Evolution" thread he continues: | Quote | | Researching amniote penises seems like a wonderful application of your natural talents, Dr. Myers. Keep up the good work! |
| Quote | | Richard, may I call you Dick? |
| Quote | | Alright then, Dick. I didn’t want to erect any seminal barrier between us that would interfere with further intercourse. At first glans I thought it might be too presumptious. |
.
Note the vowels! Then on 2005-03-04 he comments on another PZ thread "The brain of Homo floresiensis"
| Quote | The Drudge Report posted a link to the news before Panda’s Thumb.
How ‘bout that!
Too bad Scott Page isn’t still posting here so he can tell me how many more children he can save once he knows exactly where to place the hobbit in the tree of life.
|
| Quote | John
”It worked well in experimental situations, but it did not suitably reflect what happens in nature.”
No, that’s not right. What it didn’t suit was the argument for mutation/selection. Nobody could demonstrate, even in 20,000 years of selecting dogs for unique traits, that a new species had arisen.
Darn. Well, if you can’t show those anti-Darwinians an instance of speciation then just change the definition of speciation!
If you can’t reach the goalpost just move it closer and pretend it was in the wrong place all along.
Disgusting.
Testing for capability to produce fertile offspring is often IMPRACTICAL but otherwise it’s the definitive test for a new species and I’m not going to accept any Darwinian apologist notions to the contrary.
|
On 2005-03-06 The Tangled bank is going to be half my age, Davescot wishes PZ: | Quote | Happy Birthday!
| Quote | | Then, on 9 March, after all the champagne has been drunk |
I wouldn’t have guessed you were old enough to legally consume adult beverages… |
and Slimy Sal wishes PZ a happy birthday too!
2005-03-14 DS contributes to PZ's "Berlinski: I can’t believe I’m wasting time on this guy" thread. | Quote | Don’t worry about it, PZ. There’s no controversy. Guys like Berlinski are just a bad dream you’re having. Click your heels together three times and repeat after me:
There’s no place like home!
There’s no place like home!
There’s no place like home! |
| Quote | A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”
[ since DaveScot claims to have ‘unintentionally’ cut&pasted so many names, I’ve taken the liberty of correcting his mistake. ]
|
DaveScot still has vowels but the inappropriatly cut and pasted full dissent from Darwinism list has been remoeved | Quote | | Sorry about the length of that. I didn’t mean to cut & paste so many names. The list is actually a lot longer and grows larger every day. |
| Quote | Longhorm Wrote:
| Quote | | it is a scientific fact that all organisms to live on earth are the descendents of self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago |
Prima facie evidence of the brainwashing of naive, impressionable young minds.
Good grief. I’m stunned. |
PZ 2005-03-15
| Quote | Yes. This blind recital of lists of names of uninformed people is spamming, and just like Berlinski’s dishonest editorial, is intended to mislead. You can find this list at the Discovery Institute; just link to it, you moron, and spare us the indigestible glob of pointless text.
If you are unable to say something intelligent and can do nothing but spew canned boilerplate (man, is that unsurprising…creationists are the most unimaginative people I’ve ever met), I will delete them.
|
2005-03-20 PZ warns | Quote | Listen, people, and consider this a formal declaration: among the last couple of articles I’ve posted here, there have been some extremely annoying attempts by creationist trolls like DvSct and Jhn Dvsn to derail what should be interesting discussions with their pretentious caterwauling. I appreciate input from readers, but I will not tolerate any more of this crap from fckng mrns. OK?
If you want to disagree with my interpretations, that’s one thing, but whining about unfairness or dredging up old, tired idiocies that are trivially refuted if you would just read Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims are going to get cut short or disemvoweled.
Davison has complained in e-mail that if I continue to gut his comments he will “stop wasting [ his ] time with Pandas Thumb.” I consider that a promise. Goodbye, Mr Davison. We won’t miss you. |
and then DS remarks about PZ's "not despicable Tactics" gets disemvowelled thusly
| Quote | | Mrs tctcs rn’t dspcbl. Th’r prdctbl. Wht dd xpct, Jhn, frm scntsts wh s th jdcl sstm t stfl crtcsm f thr thst fth? H’s gng t d whtvr t tks t sht p. |
Which I guess was orginally something like:
Myer's tactics are'nt despicable. They're predictable. What did you expect, John, from scientists who use the judicial system to stifle criticism of thier atheist faith? He going to do whatever it takes to shut you up.
So, PZ didn't disemvowel him for the chicken remark, but along with JAD, for numerous sarcastic, insulting remarks, and repeated attempts to derail threads.
Anyone not yet banned at UD want to try posting the Steve's list on one of DaveScots threads there?
edit: Somehow I changed "Dick" into "Disk". Apologies in advance for any other errors or omissions.
|
But that's not the companion book to the PBS site, so I wonder why he keeps attributing that to Zimmer. Interesting. (I wonder if my studying-creationist-citation-patterns idea will be more than I bargained for.)
