Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 ... >

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,06:33    Quote Point-Counterpoint: Steven Weinberg vs. Eugenie Scott WAD “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.” –Steven Weinberg, NYT, 21nov06 “Scott describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality. . . . In her earnest, soft-spoken voice, she tried to explain to parents and teachers [in Kansas] that science and evolution are not anti-religion. ‘Students don’t have to accept evolution,’ Scott frequently has said. ‘But they should learn it — as it is understood by scientists.’” –Monica Lam, Profile of Eugenie Scott, SFC, 7feb03 Question: Whom do you prefer, the straightforward Weinberg or the smarmy Scott? Is this a loaded question? "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." "Admitting design into science can only enrich the scientific enterprise. All the tried and true tools of science will remain intact. But design adds a new tool to the scientist’s explanatory tool chest. Moreover, design raises a whole new set of research questions." Question: Whom do you prefer, the straightforward WAD or the smarmy WAD? Is this a loaded question? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,07:13    Reciprocating Bill has been spotted deep in enemy territory. Reciprocating Bill           Quote DUDES! Before you break out the cigars, you might take some time to actually read the two threads to which Gil refers. Do so and you will see that they aren’t composed of Gil championing some ID notion that “struck a nerve,” followed by the futile, red-faced efforts of Darwinians to refute it. In fact, almost no positive ID thesis is presented in the thread, by Gil or anyone else. Instead, Gil posted a proposal regarding the computational simulation of natural selection that is downright mistaken (random mutation should extend to the underlying hardware, operating system, etc.), and the overwhelming bulk of the contrary replies addressed his (and others’) apparent misapprehension of the nature of simulation. Gil eventually (after days of discussion and two threads) admitted as much by stating that his original post was intended as sarcasm, that it shouldn’t have been taken seriously, and that he intended points that he apparently failed to make clear. Some did not find that backdown very credible. Read and judge for yourselves. In any event, an often interesting and instructive conversation was triggered addressing the abstract nature of computation, the algorithmic and abstract nature of selectionist causation, the central features of natural selection in nature vs. in simulations, the significance of these simulations, etc. Very little of it actually addresses the ID thesis. That discussion has been interesting and instructive in several ways, and mostly cordial, and I think all contributors *should* be congratulated for sustaining a civil and productive discussion. The only resistance so far is handwaving and a bit of sporadic incredulity. Good luck, Reciprocating Bill! Edit: That's old news. How did I end up on that thread? Arghh! (It's what I get for posting right before the upcoming lineup of Jupiter, the Moon and Antares. For those in North America, look to the SSE at nightfall the middle of next week to enjoy this beautiful event.) How did it turn out anyway? Oh, banned. Sorry about that Reciprocating Bill. Didn't mean to dredge up old war wounds. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,08:11    Quote (Zachriel @ June 22 2007,07:13) Reciprocating Bill has been spotted deep in enemy territory. Reciprocating Bill             Quote DUDES! Before you break out the cigars, you might take some time to actually read the two threads to which Gil refers. Do so and you will see that they aren’t composed of Gil championing some ID notion that “struck a nerve,” followed by the futile, red-faced efforts of Darwinians to refute it. In fact, almost no positive ID thesis is presented in the thread, by Gil or anyone else. Instead, Gil posted a proposal regarding the computational simulation of natural selection that is downright mistaken (random mutation should extend to the underlying hardware, operating system, etc.), and the overwhelming bulk of the contrary replies addressed his (and others’) apparent misapprehension of the nature of simulation. Gil eventually (after days of discussion and two threads) admitted as much by stating that his original post was intended as sarcasm, that it shouldn’t have been taken seriously, and that he intended points that he apparently failed to make clear. Some did not find that backdown very credible. Read and judge for yourselves. In any event, an often interesting and instructive conversation was triggered addressing the abstract nature of computation, the algorithmic and abstract nature of selectionist causation, the central features of natural selection in nature vs. in simulations, the significance of these simulations, etc. Very little of it actually addresses the ID thesis. That discussion has been interesting and instructive in several ways, and mostly cordial, and I think all contributors *should* be congratulated for sustaining a civil and productive discussion. The only resistance so far is handwaving and a bit of sporadic incredulity. Good luck, Reciprocating Bill! Edit: That's old news. How did I end up on that thread? Arghh! (It's what I get for posting right before the upcoming lineup of Jupiter, the Moon and Antares. For those in North America, look to the SSE at nightfall the middle of next week to enjoy this beautiful event.) How did it turn out anyway? Oh, banned. Sorry about that Reciprocating Bill. Didn't mean to dredge up old war wounds. Often, when the coquettish Unnamed Disembodied Telic Entity Not Otherwise Specified closes a door, He/She/It opens a window. It was not long after attaining bannudity at UD that I discovered AtBC, and was healed. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,08:32    Some advice here on how to control Kristine I guess one should check what it is first, The Design Inference won't work too well.  Anything by Dawkins, and she's yours. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,10:35    Quote (Bob O'H @ June 22 2007,07:32) Some advice here on how to control Kristine I guess one should check what it is first, The Design Inference won't work too well.  Anything by Dawkins, and she's yours. Bob *Winks at SteveStory* Ohhhhh. Is that whatcha think? I’m harder to get than that. Even Dawkins had to read Dawkins on the ship, in order for me to…give him some ideas about his next book over breakfast. Lucky guy. Can’t wait ‘til September. Maybe I’ll let him part the next veil and talk about…our respective experiences bicycling in the city. R’arr! (Jetta? That’s a car, right? They’re not extinct yet?) And “To actually refute this assumption, and thereby eliminate chance, S will have to do one more thing, namely, show that the probability P(D* |H), that is, the probability of the event described by the pattern D, is small enough” is a total pickup line. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,12:38    Sure got quiet here all of a sudden. Well, I'm happy to say that my shimmy depravation experiment has paid off:     Quote According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by about 7.5 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said. Indeed, and it is very serious. Caused by humans, too. It's true that China is exempt from the restrictions in the Kyoto Treaty due to its "developing" status. Naturally I think this is a crock. Now China is huffy about the criticism. My hope is that the U.S. will now take the initiative to organize and support the bottom-up efforts now evolving through local and private initiatives. Geez, wouldn't that just stick it to China. (I'm all for sticking it to China until they recognize some human rights.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,12:55    Quote (Kristine @ June 22 2007,12:38) Sure got quiet here all of a sudden. :) Well, I'm happy to say that my shimmy depravation experiment has paid off:       Quote According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by about 7.5 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said. Indeed, and it is very serious. Caused by humans, too. It's true that China is exempt from the restrictions in the Kyoto Treaty due to its "developing" status. Naturally I think this is a crock. Now China is huffy about the criticism. My hope is that the U.S. will now take the initiative to organize and support the bottom-up efforts now evolving through local and private initiatives. Geez, wouldn't that just stick it to China. (I'm all for sticking it to China until they recognize some human rights.) Yet the population of China is >1 Billion. The USA aprox 300 Mill. So the average Chinese citizen is poluting by about 1/3 the average USA citizen. Scarey aint it? Wait till China and India are as poluting as the USA. BTW. I know we aren't much better in the UK and I am not having a go at you personally as a fellow non-car user. It is more than a tad frightening how we are abusing the World we live in. I think that we evolved to live in a climate/World (something like) we exist in but are changing the environment faster than evolution can cope with. EDIT: IIRC China is poluting the main rivers that the majority of it's citizens rely upon to live.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,13:19    Quote (CCP @ June 21 2007,15:05) "But I would say that some information required to make an human is not in his/her genome. The egg cell has the information required to decode the genome (the genetic code), and it cannot be in the genome itself." Nah. Ribosomes are in the egg cell, and they translate nucleic acid sequence into amino acid sequence, but all the parts of a ribosome are encoded in the genome. How would you decode the genome without a ribosome and the correct genetic code?

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,13:25    Quote And “To actually refute this assumption, and thereby eliminate chance, S will have to do one more thing, namely, show that the probability P(D* |H), that is, the probability of the event described by the pattern D, is small enough” is a total pickup line. Don't try it with a Bayesian. They'll be more interested in your posterior anyway. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Gunthernacus Posts: 235 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,14:52    Nelson, sarcastically:       Quote Because such emergence is guaranteed mathematically (never mind the messy chemical details, folks, just focus on the large numbers — you’re bound to win the lottery if you buy enough tickets), there’s no need for the design hypothesis... But Paul, move those large numbers into the denominator and you have the entire ID argument - and sum total of its contribution. -------------- Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,14:55    What good is mining for gold if you can't share it with the townspeople? I believe Sal owes Mark H a bottle of single-malt scotch. Miyah and also miyah.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,17:34    Over at Telic Thoughts, Salvador T. Cordova commented on the "least action principle" and teleology. I responded, Quote Excellent example! The least action principle has the intuitive feel of teleology, but it turns out there is an underlying symmetry. Rather than a least action path, quantum mechanics stipulates that bodies take *all* paths. With large bodies composed of large numbers of particles, this results in the appearance of a least action path as a result of the Law of Large Numbers rather than teleology. Meanwhile, Salvador then blogged it on Uncommon Descent. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,17:41    Quote (Zachriel @ June 22 2007,17:34) Over at Telic Thoughts, Salvador T. Cordova commented on the "least action principle" and teleology. I responded, Quote Excellent example! The least action principle has the intuitive feel of teleology, but it turns out there is an underlying symmetry. Rather than a least action path, quantum mechanics stipulates that bodies take *all* paths. With large bodies composed of large numbers of particles, this results in the appearance of a least action path as a result of the Law of Large Numbers rather than teleology. Meanwhile, Salvador then blogged it on Uncommon Descent. Slaveador reminds me of Adam Sandler's "Water Boy" character from the movie of the same name. more than happy to pick up a ball and run with it, only to unwittingly score touchdowns for the other side. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,18:09    Uncommonly Denyse continues her strange relationship with evolutionary psychology:                               Quote Responding to something I wrote at the Post-Darwinist about the popularity of evlutionary psychology among atheists, Moran (a textbook co-author you may well have suffered though in school), responds: "Just for the record, Denyse, I’m one of those evil atheists that you like to rant about but I’m totally opposed to evolutionary psychology. But you already knew that many evolutionary biologist were against evolutionary psychology, didn’t you?" No, I didn’t, Larry, and if that’s true, it’s high time more of them voiced their objections... No doubt, there are many critiques out there that I haven’t seen, but I wonder what proportion comes from evolutionary biologists, as opposed to social scientists who know the difference between research and speculation... errrraAAAARHHHHHHGH (Ouch. I've GOT to dispense with mentation-based irony detection.) She continues:                               Quote Are you an evolutionary biologist who does not believe in evolutionary psychology? Write in and tell us, will you? If, for whatever reason, you’ve been banned at Uncommon Descent, go to the Post-Darwinist and put a comment in any story. Howabout you engage in self-referential coitus. Denyse, dearie.  There ARE clear epistemological and methodological problems with the brand of evolutionary psychology presented, for example, in Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby's 1992 The Adapted Mind. I know this because there is a LARGE LITERATURE addressing the promises and perils of evolutionary psychology. See, for example, the Paul Sheldon Davies article "The Conflict of Evolutionary Psychology" in the excellent 1999 edited volume Where Psychology Meets Biology: Philosophical Essays (Edited by Valerie Gray  Hardcastle, MIT Press). Buller is represented there as well. Way to tip us off that you are completely ignorant of the literature you so often critique. Two things you need to catch up with.  (OK, three, if you include the fucking literature.) One: Denyse, sweetheart, you need to understand that the central problem with evolutionary psychology of the Barkow/Cosmides/Tooby/Buss variety (namely: the heuristic it proposes - analysis of adaptive problems faced by human beings during the Pleistocene as a way of understanding contemporary human psychology - is difficult to employ because we typcially independently know very little about those adaptive challenges) in no way undermines the reality that human beings originated, both physically and in many respects cognitively/affectively/behaviorally, across an extended, contingent evolutionary history. What it does mean is that psychology and cognitive science may be more helpful to developing our knowldge of that human evolutionary history than speculation regarding human evolution will be to contemporary cognitive science. That remains to be seen: significant research efforts are being made to confirm hypotheses generated from within the EP framework. (That may not sound familiar to an ID proponent...). Two. Sweetie?  I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but these obstacles to making evolutionary psychology work offer no cover for ID. Zero. Zip. NADA. Evolutionary psychology is not contra ID, or to your wierd notions that something called intelligence just knows things, and does things, and pulls cortical strings to those ends.  We'll call that "cortical string theory." Evolutionary psychology is contra other research programs in cognitive psychology that derive heuristic insights from observations of current human and animal functioning without resort to speculative analysis of an historical dimension. All of which programs acknowledge human evolution, and all of which understand that human psychological functioning is grounded in people, their bodies and brains, and the cultural contexts within which they are nurtured. There is no research into detachable ghost psychology within contemporary science. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,19:12    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 22 2007,18:09) Howabout you engage in self-referential coitus. Oh crap that gave me the chuckles. I happened to bump into a link to a link that landed me at the PD earlier today. I had totally missed this at the time, I think Quote At Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:24:00 PM, Anonymous said... Denyse- if you can keep this private, or delete it when you read it...I just wanted to share this with you, but I don't see an EMail address. -------- I see "janiebelle" a lesbian with "no sexual preference" who lives with someone she calls "Corporal Kate" is attacking you and saying you're a prude. I guess everyone is a prude to a bisexual lesbian with no sexual preference who doesn't realize Lilith first showed up in medieval Jewish literature, long after the OT and NT were written, compiled, etc. I talked to Dr. Dembski, but it seems he has no interest in reigning in DaveScot. Actually, his reply to me was rather rude "take it up with him yourself" was all he said when I pleaded with him to reign in Dave as the moderator...if you're going to attack O'Leary, I told him, then you might as well shut your blog down. Dembski doesn't seem to understand that HIS name, HIS face, HIS rep. is associated with the blog. I'm honestly starting to lose all respect for the man. If the guy Bill chooses to run his blog cannot get along with ANYBODY (not even you!), then ID itself will never get anywhere. my email is <redacting is an ethical thing to do, despite the stupidity of the poster who posted it> I read this blog as much as I can. Agree with nearly all of it. Thanks a lot. Ahh, the stroll down memory lane.  That was about 36 hours before JanieBelle got the boot. (It'll be a year next week since the evil plot hatched on page 19 of the BW.) -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,19:21    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 22 2007,19:09) Uncommonly Denyse continues her strange relationship with evolutionary psychology:                               Quote Responding to something I wrote at the Post-Darwinist about the popularity of evlutionary psychology among atheists, Moran (a textbook co-author you may well have suffered though in school), responds: "Just for the record, Denyse, I’m one of those evil atheists that you like to rant about but I’m totally opposed to evolutionary psychology. But you already knew that many evolutionary biologist were against evolutionary psychology, didn’t you?" No, I didn’t, Larry, and if that’s true, it’s high time more of them voiced their objections... No doubt, there are many critiques out there that I haven’t seen, but I wonder what proportion comes from evolutionary biologists, as opposed to social scientists who know the difference between research and speculation... errrraAAAARHHHHHHGH (Ouch. I've GOT to dispense with mentation-based irony detection.) She continues:                               Quote Are you an evolutionary biologist who does not believe in evolutionary psychology? Write in and tell us, will you? If, for whatever reason, you’ve been banned at Uncommon Descent, go to the Post-Darwinist and put a comment in any story. Howabout you engage in self-referential coitus. Denyse, dearie.  There ARE clear epistemological and methodological problems with the brand of evolutionary psychology presented, for example, in Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby's 1992 The Adapted Mind. I know this because there is a LARGE LITERATURE addressing the promises and perils of evolutionary psychology. See, for example, the Paul Sheldon Davies article "The Conflict of Evolutionary Psychology" in the excellent 1999 edited volume Where Psychology Meets Biology: Philosophical Essays (Edited by Valerie Gray  Hardcastle, MIT Press). Buller is represented there as well. Way to tip us off that you are completely ignorant of the literature you so often critique. Two things you need to catch up with.  (OK, three, if you include the fucking literature.) One: Denyse, sweetheart, you need to understand that the central problem with evolutionary psychology of the Barkow/Cosmides/Tooby/Buss variety (namely: the heuristic it proposes - analysis of adaptive problems faced by human beings during the Pliestocene as a way of understanding contemporary human psychology - is difficult to employ because we typcially independently know very little about those adaptive challenges) in no way undermines the reality that human beings originated, both physically and in many respects cognitively/affectively/behaviorally, across an extended, contingent evolutionary history. What it does mean is that psychology and cognitive science may be more helpful to developing our knowldge of that human evolutionary history than speculation regarding human evolution will be to contemporary cognitive science. That remains to be seen: significant research efforts are being made to confirm hypotheses generated from within the EP framework. (That may not sound familiar to an ID proponent...). Two. Sweetie?  I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but these obstacles to making evolutionary psychology work offer no cover for ID. Zero. Zip. NADA. Evolutionary psychology is not contra ID, or to your wierd notions that something called intelligence just knows things, and does things, and pulls cortical strings to those ends.  We'll call that "cortical string theory." Evolutionary psychology is contra other research programs in cognitive psychology that derive heuristic insights from observations of current human and animal functioning without resort to speculative analysis of an historical dimension. All of which programs acknoweldge human evolution, and all of which understand that human psychological functioning is grounded in people, their bodies and brains, and the cultural contexts within which they are nurtured. There is no research into detachable ghost psychology within contemporary science. Posts like this make me proud to be part of the After the Bar Closes gang.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,19:29    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2007,03:54) GilDodgen notes:   Quote Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from? Well, even I know that one! Gradients right? You'd think that Gil would pick up a damm book before pontificating. do you think we would make Gil's head asplode if we linked him to PZ Myers posts where he explains how this works?

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,19:32    Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2007,19:21) Posts like this make me proud to be part of the After the Bar Closes gang. I'd love to agree with you, Steve, but I can't get through RB's comment. Every time I get to "self-referential coitus" I bust a gut and can't finish. Perhaps that in itself is reason enough... -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

someotherguy Posts: 398 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,21:01    Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2007,19:29) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2007,03:54) GilDodgen notes:   Quote Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from? Well, even I know that one! Gradients right? You'd think that Gil would pick up a damm book before pontificating. do you think we would make Gil's head asplode if we linked him to PZ Myers posts where he explains how this works? Agreed.  That's got to be post of the week or something. . . .Along that line, Steve, do you think it would be worth setting up a separate OUDDT "best of" thread where high-quality comments like Bill's can be highlighted so they don't disappear into the vast underbelly of this thread? It's just an idea, and perhaps it's an unworkable one, but, then again, perhaps not. -------------- Evolander in training

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,21:09    Quote Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from? Gee, actual scientists were so interested in questions like that an entire field formed around them called developmental biology! fancy that, they even have answers as to how cells differentiate! Moreover, it was in studies BY said developmental biologists that we started to learn the value of stem (undifferentiated) cells. I swear, it's like these people lock themselves in a closet for 20 years or something to avoid having to learn anything. It's fookin scary, I tells ya. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,21:44    Taking bets . . . how long till Brandon gets banned at UD? Quote 32 Brandon 06/22/2007 8:36 pm Apollos: I would have posted a response sooner, but I needed to read the articles you included in your post. Also, I would appreciate it if you could post a source for your percent of college graduates that believe in special creation. Now I disagree with your statement that “It is hardly possible to make evolutionary claims clear to students when evolutionary biologists don’t even understand it.”

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,00:53    Oooh, Dembski is now taking the piss out of his own readers: Quote So, to make amends, I’m helping to circulate this advertisement for a position they are trying to fill. Note the paragraph in bold. I expect many who read this blog would be qualified to fill this position. and the part in bold reads Quote Candidates must have at least a college degree; advanced degrees in the sciences, particularly biology and geology, or in the history and/or philosophy of science, and/or science education, are pluses. A record of involvement in or understanding of the creationism/evolution controversy, or church/state separation issues in general, is also a plus. Biology and geology?  Hmmmm. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,01:34    Quote I expect many who read this blog would be qualified to fill this position. OMG, he really HAS gone completely mental. sorry Kristine, seems the years have not been too kind to Wild Bill. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,06:07    Quote GilDodgen notes:       Quote Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from? Wow, this reminds me of that old joke about the thermos being the greatest invention in the world, because it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. How does it know? -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,07:08    DaveTard clarifies moderation policy at UD:       Quote DaveScot   06/23/2007 3:17 am hermagoras Does the moderation here preclude name-calling? Generally speaking gratuitous flamage directed at regular members is discouraged whether those members are for or against ID. Also generally speaking those against ID are held to a higher standard in both civility and quality so if you’re a regular member against ID it’s likely you’re smarter than the average bear and nicer too. Gratuitous flamage leveled at pro-ID persons who are not regular members here is also discouraged. Gratuitous flamage leveled at anti-ID persons who are asshats (best exemplified by PZ Meyers) is encouraged. It isn’t really gratuitous in that case but rather well deserved. Gratuitous flamage directed at anti-ID persons who are generally not asshats is neither encouraged or discouraged except on a case by case basis... Dave forgot: Gratuitous being informedage about a topic, gratuitous being rightage about assertions, and gratuitous revealage of DaveTard's stupidity are also discouraged. And I think he meant, "on a case by case bias." -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,08:25    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 23 2007,07:08) DaveTard clarifies moderation policy at UD:               Quote DaveScot   06/23/2007 3:17 am hermagoras Does the moderation here preclude name-calling? Generally speaking gratuitous flamage directed at regular members is discouraged whether those members are for or against ID. Also generally speaking those against ID are held to a higher standard in both civility and quality so if you’re a regular member against ID it’s likely you’re smarter than the average bear and nicer too. Gratuitous flamage leveled at pro-ID persons who are not regular members here is also discouraged. Gratuitous flamage leveled at anti-ID persons who are asshats (best exemplified by PZ Meyers) is encouraged. It isn’t really gratuitous in that case but rather well deserved. Gratuitous flamage directed at anti-ID persons who are generally not asshats is neither encouraged or discouraged except on a case by case basis... Dave forgot: Gratuitous being informedage about a topic, gratuitous being rightage about assertions, and gratuitous revealage of DaveTard's stupidity are also discouraged. And I think he meant, "on a case by case bias." Hmm. Look at the time-stamp. The wee hours. The policy is; it's okay to gang up on those who don't fit in, but take your cues from the mood of the alpha-ape. Incredibly, Larry Fafarman is the voice of reason.     Quote Dave, IMO you are making this much too complicated. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,09:10    Quote (Bob O'H @ June 23 2007,00:53) Oooh, Dembski is now taking the piss out of his own readers:     Quote So, to make amends, I’m helping to circulate this advertisement for a position they are trying to fill. Note the paragraph in bold. I expect many who read this blog would be qualified to fill this position. and the part in bold reads     Quote Candidates must have at least a college degree; advanced degrees in the sciences, particularly biology and geology, or in the history and/or philosophy of science, and/or science education, are pluses. A record of involvement in or understanding of the creationism/evolution controversy, or church/state separation issues in general, is also a plus. Biology and geology?  Hmmmm. Bob So let's see, using Hooligans' categorization of UD posts,   Quote ID is Persecuted = 33 Articles Unwittingly Supporting ID = 17 Global Warming Isn't Happening = 15 Reviews of Popular Books about ID (not peer-reviewed) = 15 Stupid Articles by Denyse = 12 Evolution is Wrong, So ID is Right = 12 Articles That Don't Make Any Sense (not by Denyse) = 9 Davescot Pontificating About Something He Doesn't Understand = 8 Street Theatre = 7 Complaints/Putdowns about Dover or Jones = 5 Evolution is Evil = 5 Teach the Controversy = 5 Jealousy/Hatred of Dawkins = 4 New Research ID is Thinking About Doing Sometime = 2 ID Supporting Pleasurianism = 1 New Research by ID Scientists = 0 I would guess this is either "Street Theatre" or perhaps a new category, "NCSE Bashing", which we've all seen there before. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,10:30    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,00:34)   Quote I expect many who read this blog would be qualified to fill this position. OMG, he really HAS gone completely mental. sorry Kristine, seems the years have not been too kind to Wild Bill. Yeah, I see. Not the least of which is the fact that he has all these pretend complicated relationships with people who barely care that he exists. I'm not sure anyone at the NCSE noticed the "Pleasurian" thingie... "Too hard on the NCSE"? Bwahaha. Sure, Dawkins knows who Dembski is, but I didn't see him spending 1/1000th of the energy on Dembski as Dembski does on him (which might be one key to Dembski's lashing out - needing attention, as I've said). Lou's link said it all: "The guy doesn't see that his name, etc., is linked to this..." MESS, this utter MEANINGLESS CHAOS that is UDious. Dembski is flailing. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,10:38    Patrick                   Quote Brandon                   Quote It’s inaccurate to use Darwinism and evolution interchangeably, at best it reveals a poor understanding of the subject. Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are often used interchangeably but the standalone “Darwinism” is used to encapsulate all forms of modern ideas and “Darwinist” as a supporter of the general idea. There can be a difference in opinion, of course. I’m sure there are people out there who dislike the way the terms are now being used. Brandon is correct. The term "Darwinism" needs to be used carefully as it has several meanings. However, when used amongst evolutionary biologists, depending on context, it usually refers to the importance of the mechanism of selection. So an evolutionary biologist who thinks that genetic drift is the most important mechanism may eschew the appellation of "Darwinist". Patrick                   Quote See this quote from Lynn Margulis for an example of how these terms are used: "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.” Margulis is using Neo-Darwinist to refer to a specific camp supporting a particular idea in the Darwinist group. But, she’s not using Darwinist as in reference to Charles Darwin’s original ideas…she’s referring to herself as a supporter of the common idea. But if you’re not familiar with the terminology her statement would be confusing. Margulis is obviously using "Neo-Darwinist" to refer to a specific camp, but just as obviously she is not using the term "Darwinist" to mean evolution generally or "to encapsulate all forms of modern ideas". She is using it to refer to the fundamental principles of variation and selection. Margulis believes that the mechanisms of variation in Neo-Darwinism (e.g. mutation and recombination) do not adequately explain the origin of species, that horizontal mechanisms of variation (e.g. symbiogenesis) are of greater importance. She is certainly right as far as the early evolution of cellular life, and there are important instances even in more modern epochs. However, there are also important observations of vertical evolution, and most scientists think she overstates her case. Margulis: "Most evolutionary biologists deal with the Phanerozoic, which is like saying that history began in 1909 when the Ford Motor Company opened shop in Dearborn, Mich." -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:04    Quote Margulis concluded, is that "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis--the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction--is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes--animals, plants, and fungi." I haven't really read much about this but what evidence does she base this on?

Pages: (1000) < ... 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard