RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,11:03   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2010,10:58)
Upright Biped -
 
Quote
14

Upright BiPed

03/07/2010

1:24 am

Note to self:

Education cannot kill rationality. I refuse to believe it. There are too many who are a contradiction to the idea. So, what can? What is the force that binds such educated people to utter stupidity?

Let me know when I find out.

I engaged Upright Biped on HuffPo a few months ago.  He comes across like a whiny spolied brat.  You show he is wrong about something and he claims you are 'incivil' then runs off declaring victory.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,11:53   

Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 07 2010,18:21)
The final version wasn't one take, but it could've been...

Cool.

Do you have an opinion on the infamous 2 minute Honda ad? I find it impossible to believe that they pulled that off with no edits and no CGI.

--------------
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

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,12:01   

JohnnyB should really outline his arguments before presenting them:

Link

1) I wanted to be a biologist-but it was so Darwinian and Boring
2) We need to 'teach the controversy' in support of less boring non-Darwinian evolution
3) In support of non-Darwinian biology, here are a bunch of links from practicing evolutionary biologists
       a) Most of whom teach said boring biology classes
       b) Some of which have openly reamed ID:
Ouch

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,12:28   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 08 2010,11:53)
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 07 2010,18:21)
The final version wasn't one take, but it could've been...

Cool.

Do you have an opinion on the infamous 2 minute Honda ad? I find it impossible to believe that they pulled that off with no edits and no CGI.

Most of what I know I get through public sources just like yourself.

But my opinion is that they undoubtedly edited, changed speeds, etc.  We did a little of this stuff as well, but that's what you gotta do to make sure it's as entertaining as possible.  The fact that we pulled it off at all is a miracle.  

That machine stole 3 months of my life.  And it's hard not to be extremely proud of it.  I'll quit with the boasting and go back to lurking and laughing at the morons at UD.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,14:43   

Prepare for the special pleading:

Joseph said:
Quote
What has the warming been?

Less than 1 degree F over the past 100 years.

But it is supposed to ramp up because no one is afraid of less than 1 degree F in 100 years.


Mark Frank
Quote
Actually it is 0.74 C = 1.3 F


Joseph:
Quote
Actually that 0.74C isn’t correct.


Mark Frank:
Quote
I am basing my figure on the IPCC report http://www.grida.no/publica....2-6.htm which is in turn based on the CRUSAT record. However, I understand that other records such as GISTEMP show a very similar rise.

What is your figure based on?


--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,14:48   

Slavery justified by jonnyb:
Quote
Nakashima -

Are you familiar with Biblical rules about slavery? It was basically used as an alternative to jails, was much more humane, and required that the slaves go free after a certain period.

It wasn’t beautiful, but it wasn’t the same thing as 19th century slavery. 19th century slavery was condemned by Biblical literalists (such as Charles Hodge), who was not against the notion of slavery itself.

In fact, under OT rules, if you permanently injure a slave (such as knocking out their tooth), they automatically go free. In addition, slaves were automatically freed after 6 years, and when they were freed, the owner had to give them food and clothing to start out with.

In the NT, you were to treat all slaves as brothers.

This is a common problem with Biblical interpretation – the word “slave” that we think of is not the same thing as “slave” in that time. It is certainly worthy of discussion whether the Hebrew system was good or bad, just or unjust, necessary or unnecessary, and the like, but it is a category error to make a simple equation of Hebrew slavery with 19th century Western slavery.

What a bunch of shits.
Quote
In fact, under OT rules, if you permanently injure a slave (such as knocking out their tooth), they automatically go free.

Oh? That's all right then........

Morons.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,15:00   

Quote
In fact, under OT rules, if you permanently injure a slave (such as knocking out their tooth), they automatically go free.


But if you beat the shit out of them and they survive 24 hours before expiring, no harm, no foul.

It's your property, and if you want to break your toys, that's your business.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,15:33   

Another contribution to the Creationist's Guide to the Scientific Method, courtesy of Joseph:
Quote
As for Creation well it correctly predicted the universe had a beginning and it correctly predicted reproductive isolation.

It also predicted the Battle of Borodino and the existence of cheese.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,15:57   



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,18:20   

Quote
and it correctly predicted reproductive isolation.


Can that be narrowed down a bit?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
sparc



Posts: 1975
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,23:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 08 2010,18:20)
 
Quote
and it correctly predicted reproductive isolation.


Can that be narrowed down a bit?

I guess it is his way of saying that due to a lack of alternatives he has to masturbate. Why he has to do it verbally in the public is of course another question.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1975
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,23:32   

WMAD    
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL
My explanatory filter predicts that if he continues like that self citing one day will earn him more citations than his father's paper on same sex copulation among snails  
Quote
DEMBSKI, WJ (1968): Histochemical studies of function and fate of the eu- and oligopyrene sperm of Viviparus contectus (Millet 1813), (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia). ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ZELLFORSCHUNG UND MIKROSKOPISCHE ANATOMIE 89(2): 151-179
which until now has been cited 16 times according to web of knowledge. WMAD's count currently is 5 with 4 citations of his  
Quote
Dembski WA (1991) RANDOMNESS BY DESIGN. NOUS 25(1): 75-106
and a single one for    
Quote
Dembski WA and Meyer SC (1998): Fruitful interchange or polite chitchat? The dialogue between science and theology. ZYGON 33(3):415-430


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,03:09   

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2010,23:32)
WMAD      
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

I find it interesting that he uses  
Quote
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

in the paper but the word "Dawkins" does not appear. Neither does the phrase "Intelligent Design".

So as this paper was announced as
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL


A) How does it support ID?
B) How do we know he's talking about Dawkins WEASEL without a reference to where it's defined?

Poor poor Dr Dr Dembski. As yet there are no comments on that post. Don't be afraid to dig in y'all.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 41
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,06:59   

How many peer-review papers does Richard Dawkins have?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,07:33   

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Mar. 09 2010,06:59)
How many peer-review papers does Richard Dawkins have?

]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites....Author]
http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/AuthPage/D/DawkinsR.html
http://scholar.google.fi/scholar....dawkins


If you can add up you can determine that for yourself. Tell me, how many peer reviewed papers does Dembski have that relate to biology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins
1960s

   * Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. PMID 5684149.
   * Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.

[edit] 1970s

   * Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". in Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   * Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 262: 131–133.
   * Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3.
   * Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". in Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.
   * Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. PMID 696023.
   * Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.
   * Dawkins, R. (1979) "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200.
   * Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. PMID 42057.
   * Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71: 203–244.
   * Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J., Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3.

[edit] 1980s

   * Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". in Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.
   * Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
   * Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402.

[edit] 1990s

   * Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.
   * Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution of the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686.
   * Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. PMID 1375346.
   * Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
   * Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.
   * Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins.....shtml.
   * Dawkins, R. (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
   * Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
   * Dawkins, R. (1998). "Intellectual Imposters". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.
   * Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.

[edit] 2000s

   * Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733.
   * Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
   * Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
   * Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
   * Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.
   * Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka". Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,07:58   

http://marksmannet.com/RobertM....ion.pdf

Dembski's paper does seem to include a case that looks like Dawkins:

 
Quote
C. Mutating Children With a Fixed Mutation Rate. In
this strategy each letter in the string has a probability of
being changed. Each child will have the same string as
the parent except that each letter will be changed with
a fixed probability.



ETA:
Dembski's graphs showing the effects of mutation rates seem familiar, almost as if I've seen them posted here at ATbC.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y139771

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,08:20   

Not being a biologist I don't even know if the following question is stupid.

I'm wondering if there is an estimate of the number of alleles in the human population, that is the number of distinct variations in the genome -- aside from distinct combinations produced by paring.

I suppose that should be limited to functional and regulatory genes, excluding DNA not known to have any function.

A simpler alternative question would be, is there an estimate of the number of alleles per gene in the human (or any) population?

Since this is leading up to a question about the impact of single point mutations, I would want to include synonyms and functionally equivalent alleles as different.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
sparc



Posts: 1975
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,09:46   

Since we are weaseling again. Has anybody seen Atom lately? Isn't it strange that Dembski and Marks don't even mention him in the acknowledgements?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,09:59   

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 09 2010,07:46)
Since we are weaseling again. Has anybody seen Atom lately? Isn't it strange that Dembski and Marks don't even mention him in the acknowledgements?

His real name is George Montañez, and he's listed as a co-author of the paper.  His name appears under Winston Ewert's.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,10:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2010,03:09)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2010,23:32)
WMAD        
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

I find it interesting that he uses    
Quote
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

in the paper but the word "Dawkins" does not appear. Neither does the phrase "Intelligent Design".

It's almost as if the authors either don't know how to properly cite references.  Surely it couldn't be because they lack the intellectual integrity to do so.
 
Quote
So as this paper was announced as
   
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

A) How does it support ID?

Excellent question.  I read the paper and it never mentions intelligent design nor does it discuss biology.

I have a question for the mathematicians reading this.  Isn't there an already existing, standard term for what Billy and the boys are calling endogenous information?  I remember Tom English addressing the idea that active information is a misnomer.  I'm too busy with school to do the research, unfortunately, but I'm sure that I remember something about this from my undergrad days.

I also hope someone challenges the idea in the first few paragraphs that the antenna GA uses NEC-4 as an oracle.  My understanding is that it uses a simulation of the real world to provide feedback to the evolutionary algorithm.  It seems to be stretching the meaning of "oracle" to the breaking point to apply it there.

I'm not impressed with the peer reviewers of this one.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,11:56   

Quote (REC @ Mar. 08 2010,12:01)
JohnnyB should really outline his arguments before presenting them:

Johnny B uis one of the multitude of YECs who is not as bright as we wants to think he is.

he, after all, thinks thata decorated pig carved onto the wall of a temple in Cambodia is 'proof' that stegasaurs roamed with people

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,12:11   

Quote (slpage @ Mar. 09 2010,11:56)
Quote (REC @ Mar. 08 2010,12:01)
JohnnyB should really outline his arguments before presenting them:

Johnny B uis one of the multitude of YECs who is not as bright as we wants to think he is.

he, after all, thinks thata decorated pig carved onto the wall of a temple in Cambodia is 'proof' that stegasaurs roamed with people

Or a rhino?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHqhzxF2pRM

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,12:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2010,03:09)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2010,23:32)
WMAD      
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

I find it interesting that he uses  
Quote
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

in the paper but the word "Dawkins" does not appear. Neither does the phrase "Intelligent Design".

So as this paper was announced as
 
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL


A) How does it support ID?
B) How do we know he's talking about Dawkins WEASEL without a reference to where it's defined?

Poor poor Dr Dr Dembski. As yet there are no comments on that post. Don't be afraid to dig in y'all.

I've been thinking lately about what would happen if we did just turn around and say 'fine, Darwinian evolution is wrong. What have you got?'. Because all the fine research that Dr D has been doing to pick away at evolution would suddenly be completely irrelevant, and we'd be left with the theory of 'anything we can't explain is designed', which has about as much use as the 'tall buildings have a lot of height' theory.

But it did kinda give me a glimpse into the ID way of seeing, I think. Because, when you get down to it, I don't really know how Darwinian evolution works. At least, not when it comes to, as IDers say, 'mechanisms forming out of chance and necessity'. Certainly I appreciate the idea that something could form one piece at a time, and those pieces could change, interact with other pieces, etc. But I have no idea how you'd go about proving or denoting something like that, or even if that is what population geneticists actually do.

I think ID supporters are the same. They see only the black box of Darwinian evolution (the mysterious 'chance' mechanism), the black box of ID (the mysterious 'designer did it'), and consider the two to be of the same merit.

The problem is, the public know even less about evolution than they do, so they're going to see it the same way. Is there no way to make the Darwinian box more open to those uneducated in biology?

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,13:19   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 08 2010,14:43)
Prepare for the special pleading:

Joseph said:
Quote
What has the warming been?

Less than 1 degree F over the past 100 years.

But it is supposed to ramp up because no one is afraid of less than 1 degree F in 100 years.


Mark Frank
Quote
Actually it is 0.74 C = 1.3 F


Joseph:
Quote
Actually that 0.74C isn’t correct.


Mark Frank:
Quote
I am basing my figure on the IPCC report http://www.grida.no/publica....2-6.htm which is in turn based on the CRUSAT record. However, I understand that other records such as GISTEMP show a very similar rise.

What is your figure based on?

Joseph keeps digging and Mark Frank keeps throwing the dirt on top of him:

Joseph:
Quote
My figure is based on the adjustment- the adjustment required because the IPCC did not use all possible temp readings.


Mark Frank:
Quote
As I said the IPCC/HADCRUT (I am sorry – not sure why I typed CRUTSAT above) figure closely matches other sources such as GISTEMP. Perhaps you could point me to your adjusted figures?


Just like ID is not just naysaying of evolution (UD insists that it is so), nonwarming is not just the naysaying of climate science.  Surely Joseph would not make something up!  :O

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,14:36   

Classic exchange at UD starting here:
DO'L mocks something that "Darwinists" allegedly believe:
 
Quote
Also, the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no* concern for her eggs.
Oh, wait … if you decide to test that last one, make sure you have left your legal and financial affairs in good order, and have a Cadillac health plan.
Darwin and his supporters are, of course, always right, except where they are simply wrong. But that doesn’t matter if they have got the law and the tax funding on their side.

* link to her blog where she links to this site at McGill's where the "conventional science explanation" (according to her) is given:
 
Quote
The most efficient model for understanding the brain in terms of its evolutionary history is the famous triune brain theory developed by Paul MacLean. According to this theory, the following three distinct brains emerged successively in the course of evolution and now co-inhabit the human skull:
The reptilian brain, the oldest of the three, controls the body's vital functions such as heart rate, breathing, body temperature and balance. Our reptilian brain includes the main structures found in a reptile's brain: the brainstem and the cerebellum. The reptilian brain is reliable but tends to be somewhat rigid and compulsive.[...]

Even if you didn't realize that this is a very simplistic pop science explanation it still should be obvious that this isn't a statement about the brains of reptiles but rather about the functions these evolutionary oldest structures in the human brain have in humans.

0815hrun calls her up on her equivocation:
 
Quote
Or… one has to take the term reptilian brain and try to understand it better (something that is most likely done in that particular lecture at McGill). Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.

DO'L responds by linking to a lot of snippets that all pertain to the "reptilian brain" in humans and not to the brains of reptiles. Her main claim:
 
Quote
I do not claim that all or most reptiles show concern for their offspring. Probably, the majority do not, as there is no need. Many young reptiles are live born replicas of their parents.
But if any reptiles do, claims for the “reptilian brain only” as preventing the show of emotion must be appropriately qualified.

Again, she confuses what the reptilian brain in humans does and what reptiles do.
In her next comment she treats us with this beautiful non sequitur:
 
Quote
“Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.”[quoting hrun]
[Wake up, hrun! Many people have got themselves killed or maimed trying to outsmart an adult breeding reptile in its own territory, so I would not suggest that anyone count on the idea that reptiles do not have memory.]

WTF?
And continues to ask hrun:
 
Quote
By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I'm not.

Hrun is puzzled:
 
Quote
How does this matter? Have my arguments more or less merit if I am funded by taxpayers? Does it matter to your arguments who funds you?

DO'L nonswers:
 
Quote
2. Like many pop authors, you need to believe in a construct called “the reptilian brain.”
I don’t care, as long as it does NOT find its way into public policy, as it threatens to do. As understood in popular culture, it is a myth, period.
Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me because I must shortly file my tax return. I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the natural world – on behalf of all good citizens of the Western world, only to support the worthless ideology of Darwinism and fund the persecution of dissenters.
ARE you funded by my – or any citizen of a liberal democratic society’s – taxes?
Yes, it DOES matter.

Again, WTF? In the comment preceding this one she argued that some reptiles do care for their young which in her mind apparently proves that neuroscientists are wrong in talking about a reptilian brain when referring to the brainstem and cerebellum. Which public policy depends on reptiles not caring for their young? Or on neuroscientists calling that part of the human brain "reptilian"? Or that in humans emotions are apparently not located in this part of the brain?
Batshit77 chimes in with something completely irrelevant:
 
Quote
hruno815,
If you are trying to ultimately establish consciousness “emerged” from a material basis, you may want to carefully consider this following evidence:

DO'L is reduced to incoherent muttering:
 
Quote
hrun0815, whoever you are, if you live in my country (Canada) and you are funded by taxes, you eat, sleep, and clothe and entertain yourself at my expense.
Be warm, well fed, sleep well, and enjoy yourself.
But don’t ask ME to take your opinions seriously. I just got another demand letter from the government, NOT a cheque from a government-funded agency like a university.
Do YOU get that? Wow …
And if anyone does not understand what the difference means, … they need remedial arithmetic.
Anyway, exploding this point: It means the government forces me to support all kinds of people who are contrary to my interests and welfare. That’s okay, until the government starts demanding support for worthless causes and projects like Darwinism, recovered memories, and human-caused global climate change, which are obviously ill-founded and could cause misery to thousands or millions.

My brain hurts. All parts.
But DO’L isn’t finished, yet. Her next comment:
 
Quote
“Is my argument more or less valid if I am funded by taxpayers? Is your argument more or less valid if you are not?” Nothing else should matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”
Okay, hrun [why don't these people use names and locations?]: Are you a Canadian citizen?
Yes or no?
Surely no Canadian would refuse to answer.
I myself would rather be a Canadian than have five earned doctorates and ten honorary doctorates.

Go read the rest of her comment if you want to kill some more brain cells.
At this point: Congrats to Hrun. The last 4 comments of his were just variations of this:
 
Quote
If I am funded by your tax dollar or not does not matter. Your argument is false. As simple as that.

That's efficient DO'L baiting. And it ends with DO’L flouncing:
 
Quote
hrun0815 at 27, who does not wish to reveal name, citizenship, or tax burden status (obviously not a proud Canadian, but probably a tax burden somewhere):
No one would pull off their boots to walk any distance across pack ice, if they hoped to save their toes.
Also, it is unwise to assume that we can run faster than all types of animals. Many have died assuming they can run faster than a bear or an alligator. The fact that the animal appears sluggish when he is at rest and unchallenged is NOT a good indicator.
Anyway, I must now leave this discussion, due to work-related issues – with the following observations:
- Tax funding matters a great deal to the question of whether nonsense can be retailed as sense.
The “reptiles show no care for young,” thesis due to tri-partite evolution of the brain – as a blanket statement – is a good example of Darwinism-based nonsense, easily refuted by an Internet search.
Again, I implore all to beware the alligator death roll and also the king cobra family, whom you do NOT want to visit any time near the natal day.
Or any time at all, actually, but especially not when they are hatching dozens of young cobras.

I apologize for any brain damage these DO’L quotes might’ve caused. But by reading this exchange I realized that this is how most of the discussions at UD go, it’s just usually not that obvious:
Some statement in a pro-ID post/comment is criticised.
Instead of answering the criticism the criticised statement is repeated, or it’s declared a joke, or all answers focus on some minor point in the criticising comment, or the commenter is drawn into a discussion of absolute objective morals/computer programs/frozen toes, or treated with 20 links to irrelevant YouTube videos. All in the same comment if it is KF.
But the initial criticism is never ever EVER answered. Never ever.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Henry J



Posts: 4730
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,14:56   

Quote
The problem is, the public know even less about evolution than they do, so they're going to see it the same way. Is there no way to make the Darwinian box more open to those uneducated in biology?


Maybe take things like "differential reproductive success based on genetic variations", "feedback loop", and "matching nested hierarchies", and translate them into language that average people could follow?

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,15:12   

The general public gets so much misinformation from Hollywood and from badly written popular science that the effects of creationism are a drop in the bucket.

The average person is going to think that adaptation is a goal of evolution rather than a consequence, and that adaptations occur in single generation steps.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,15:28   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 09 2010,12:36)
But DO’L isn’t finished, yet. Her next comment:
   
Quote
“Is my argument more or less valid if I am funded by taxpayers? Is your argument more or less valid if you are not?” Nothing else should matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”
Okay, hrun [why don't these people use names and locations?]: Are you a Canadian citizen?
Yes or no?
Surely no Canadian would refuse to answer.
I myself would rather be a Canadian than have five earned doctorates and ten honorary doctorates.

Go read the rest of her comment if you want to kill some more brain cells.

Last three paragraphs of that comment:
Quote
Money is what happens when I get up in the middle of the night to work for people in foreign countries.

Quite the contrary, a disgruntled person could launch some stupid persecution against me any time they wished – at present, at additional government expense for taxpayers – but I would have to pay privately to defend myself.

While I cannot imagine anyone wishing to do this, if I were addressing such a hypothetical person, I would say: DON’T try it on me. I am not called O’Leary for no reason.

Somewhere in Toronto, a bus is missing its loony.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,15:31   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 09 2010,12:36)
I apologize for any brain damage these DO’L quotes might’ve caused. But by reading this exchange I realized that this is how most of the discussions at UD go, it’s just usually not that obvious:
Some statement in a pro-ID post/comment is criticised.
Instead of answering the criticism the criticised statement is repeated, or it’s declared a joke, or all answers focus on some minor point in the criticising comment, or the commenter is drawn into a discussion of absolute objective morals/computer programs/frozen toes, or treated with 20 links to irrelevant YouTube videos. All in the same comment if it is KF.
But the initial criticism is never ever EVER answered. Never ever.

Currently, my reptilian brain is insisting I kick Dense's dumb Canadian ass.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,15:35   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2010,13:12)
The general public gets so much misinformation from Hollywood and from badly written popular science that the effects of creationism are a drop in the bucket.

The average person is going to think that adaptation is a goal of evolution rather than a consequence, and that adaptations occur in single generation steps.

Courtesy of TVTropes:

Hollywood Evolution

and:

You Fail Biology Forever (a lovely declaration I have stolen for personal use).

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]