Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: From "LUCA" thread started by C.J.O'Brien
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Aug. 31 2005,16:31
Okay, don't usually do this, but Prof. Syvanen expressly requested that troll-baiting not occur in the comments to his article about lateral gene transfer and LUCA on the Thumb. And I have been called a "fool" by a troll there named Paley's Ghost, who, if he should desire can use this space to put his money where his big mouth is.
Here was PG's theory <snicker> of gene transfer:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Evolutionists have always used the existence of the same genes in a variety of organisms as proof of their amoral ontology, but once again they have been disproved by real evidence. The genetic similarities that they use to build their anti-God “Tree of Life” represent nothing more than the fact organisms occasionally eat each other. If you eat steak and then some cow genes are in you, evolutionists think that proves you came from cows—what a bunch of stupid, amoral left-wing ideologues! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My reply was a dashed off suggestion that the effectiveness of parsimony analysis in constructing congruent phylogenies using different genes pretty much lays to rest the idea of "common design" or any such rejection of common descent as good evidence for evolution. (I also called his idea the "meat'n'potatoes" theory, and implied it was "stupid," so I asked for it) And here is what I got:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Unlike fools like you who can barely comprehend high school algebra, you assume the only way for a creature to have a certain gene is for that creature to be related to another creature who has this gene. You’re committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You assume becuse there are puddles of water in the streets, it rained last night when what really happened was a bunch of commie hippies from the ACLU had an all night vigil in protest of their evolutionary lies challenged in public schools and peed on everything. Even techniques of mathematical analysis occasionally used by evolutionists show this not to be the case. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Charges of the fallacy of affirming the consequent are all the rage these days. It sure sounds impressive, but most often it's just waved around like it's a ticket to unassailability, as in "You're affirming the consequent. now you have to be quiet."
In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.
There it is, for the record. So, Paley's Ghost, in the unlikely circumstance that you would have the slightest interest in backing up your lunatic ideas or your insults, here is a space in which you can do so.
Posted by: Russell on Aug. 31 2005,18:28
"Paley's Ghost" strikes me as a way-over-the-top fake creationist. My bet is he [and the gender is almost certainly he] is a regular, evolution-accepting guy poking fun at creationists and/or evo-defenders he sees as taking it too seriously. That would be my bet.
Posted by: Hyperion on Aug. 31 2005,20:15
I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off. I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 01 2005,02:33
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Posted by Dave Cerutti on August 31, 2005 11:44 PM (e) (s)
Umm, you guys did realize from the name on my post that I was joking, right? Or shall I pull another admonitus and impersonate a creationist of some bizarre strain for many days before letting the cat out of the bag? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HA! Just as I suspected. Interesting, though. "Admonitus", if I recall correctly, threw in the spelling and grammar slips typical of creationists. Did "Paley's Ghost" consciously omit that, or did he just hastily fail to "reverse proofread"?
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 01 2005,03:46
Also - "Paley's Ghost" didn't fool me for a moment. "Admonitus" took me a while. But "Salvador Cordova"! Brilliant! I bought that hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 01 2005,06:40
More proof that you can't tell a creationist from a parody, I guess. I thought "Anti-God tree of life" was pretty over the top...
But I've seen some pretty over the top creationist nonsense, and being called a "fool" just made me want to provide some more rope for the auto-hanging.
#### good parody *tips hat*
Posted by: Hyperion on Sep. 01 2005,06:53
Someone should do a study comparing the reading-difficulty scores, like Flesch-Kincaid, of actual creationist nonsense and the parodies. I'd be curious to know if we're right that the parodies tend to use bigger words, better spelling, etc.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 06 2005,12:57
Quote (Hyperion @ Sep. 01 2005,01:15) | I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off. I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You claim Paley's philosphy is discredited? How? He merely stated the obvious. Living things are designed. This is as obvious as Aristotle's observation that gravity makes earth and water fall. Granted, Aristotle did not come up with the mathematics behind this process; Newton did. Likewise, Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided. Stupid, immoral evolutionists like you deny the obvious. It is like attacking Newton's law of universal gravitation by saying things really don't fall, they only "Move how the random forces of natural selection push them," or some other such Darwinian rot.
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 07 2005,03:18
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 06 2005,17:57) | Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aw, c'mon, she is much nicer than that.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 10 2005,13:48
C.J. O'Brien wrote
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's just it, you merely assume that organisms sharing genes proves they share ancestors. That is precisely what Christians are challenging. It's just an assumption of stiff necked evolutionists--and your own words agree.
In a paper published in Trends in Plant Science1, several authors do an analysis of whole mitochondria genome-based phylogenies and get a tree that completly contardicts the tadiational evolution tree. As dogmatic evolutionists, they assume their new tree is wrong because it is inconcsistent with established Darwinian catechism. However, why should it not be. Any evolutionist can just do any test and come up with any kind of ancestry tree they feel like. All of the gene distributions are random from a point of view of common ancestry. However, the subtle and sophistaicated analysis of intellegent design theory shows each gene was put in for a specific purpose, and hence, demonstrates its design.
C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.
Soltis, Douglas E., Albert, Victor A., Savolained, Vincent, Hilu, Khinder,Qiu, Yin-Long, Chase, Mark W., Farris, James S., Stephanovic, Sasa, Rice, Danny W., Palmer, Jeffry D., and Soltis, Pamela S. October 2004. Genome-scale data, angiospem relationships, and 'ending incongrunce': a cautionary tale in phylogenics. Trends in Plant Science Vol. 9 No. 10
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 10 2005,20:34
Superior intelligence, who can say without more evidence? Spelling's a bit weak though.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,14:54
Please check figure 1 from this paper:< Paley's Revenge >
Does this look familiar? It should, since this is from the evolution-smiting Naylor/Brown paper. Sorry Charlie, but the Chickens have come home to "sleep with the fishes"! And this from whole-genome mitochondrial DNA, so don't complain about small sample sizes... tap-dance all you want, but only a Dembski/Berlinski joint paper can begin to explain this curious incongruence, with a generous slice of my mathematical model (forthcoming). And while you're at it, please pity the poor urchins stranded among the chordates. Until Darwin-science can begin to address its failed predictions, Americans have every right to laugh this Lysenkoist pseudoscience out of the classroom.
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 11 2005,15:20
Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is PT still having a quote of the day?
Yep all of Dembski's predictions will come true. Perhaps even, evolution's "Waterloo in Dover." What projects are being undertaken by the Intelligent Design Creationist movement in regards to "junk DNA has a purpose." Yep evolution is sure going to "lose." Ya'll need to put up or shut up (and sidestepping peer-review doesn't cut it.) Are you aware of the numerous times that junk science known as IDC has stepped into the legal arena to defeat the "darwinists?" Are you aware that their record is worse than that of the Washington Generals? When the time came for IDC to lay their cards down on the table, they were bluffing everytime. Dover hasn't been any different, no matter how much your idol wished it otherwise and proclaimed it to be so.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds great so long as you bring the german potato salad (Hitler, Lenin and Lysenko love it.) I wonder if they have muskie in the Lake of Fire, or perhaps--lungfish.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,15:44
Sorry, the data say otherwise. The appelate courts can't overturn the results of the papers I've cited, no matter how badly they may want to. Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. I've been playing by your rules: can you?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,15:50
No thanks. German potato salad leaves me bloated and flatulent, not unlike your attempts at a rebuttal.....................
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 11 2005,16:02
Was there a point to that post two above this? Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point. What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?
Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas? Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting? He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view. Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,03:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, try this time.< Paley's Revenge >
In addition, this is not an intellegent design paper. It is from a paper peer reviewed by the commie evolutionist community!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,04:19
To clarify a previous post, I was just trying to reply to Saddlebred without using the quote feature. The point stands, however: Naylor, Brown, and Baptest have posed intractable problems for the Darwinian paradigm. The phylogenetic tree is rotten from the trunk to the tiniest stem. I could quote dozens of papers to show this, but if you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes, what good does it do? And are you really suggesting Figure 1 poses no problems for evolution? It might be time to take this horse to the glue factory...........
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 12 2005,07:00
Ghost of Paley
You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,09:50
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not he, but merely a humble servant of God.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I empathise. I, too, spent many a year in the American public school system.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ya'll need to put up or shut up ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have. Do you have anything to offer in return?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas? Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting? He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view. Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this thread represents the typical argumentation proffered on this site, I REALLY empathize. Poor man.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you're getting it. If only the feminists could get it, instead of engaging in witchcraft, lesbianism, and Dungeons & Dragons. But I've come here to provide an education in science, not social studies. One subject at a time, Sea Biscuit. Focus, gentlemen.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 12 2005,10:32
Not JAD, I see that now. No mention of semi-meiosis.
I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,11:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have cited other papers as well; I could cite dozens more. What constitutes a "good" approach to constructing your godless < tree of life >? Evolutionists merely take any data that conforms to their Darwinian catechism and reject the rest as being somehow inadequate. The "Tree of Life" is an evolutionistic fantasy construct. Intellegent Design theory explains the real reason life is as it is, and my orginal thesis that some genes wind up in other organisms because they eat each other is absolutely solid.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,12:43
Paley:
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?
I know I'm wasting my time engaging in discussions with someone so obviously ignorant of the simplest principles of biology, but hey -- it's a slow day at work.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,12:57
Paley:
Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).
I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong. I wonder if you have any understanding at all of how phylogenetic trees are constructed by reference to independent evidence from multiple lines of research. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the concept is entirely foreign to you.
It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,14:01
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's stick to the cited papers, please.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahhh, the scientists at Panda's Thumb have asked for scientific guidance from a lawyer. Why am I not surprised? First, care to elaborate on my misrepresentations? Since they are so abundant, the only hard part should be picking the most egregious one! Is Figure 1 not as I have described it in previous posts? And if it is, how is that ridiculous phylogeny acceptable under Darwinian assumptions? Talk about a big tent!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far the only flailing I've seen has been by my "critics". But I'm willing to hear you out. How are post-hoc adjustments (discarding third-codon positions from analyses, removing "problematic" taxa such as lamprey or lancelets since they lead to bad trees, etc) considered acceptable science?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,14:19
As a followup:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science. My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,15:53
Paley:
Where did I say I was a lawyer?
You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent. That's what we in the business call "misrepresentation." Maybe even "fraudulent misrepesentation," if it can be shown that you knew your argument was wrong when you made it. So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this < link >. If you weren't so wedded to your thesis that evolution is bunk, it would probably give you something to think about.
So your idea is that the simplest eukaryotes evolved to, e.g., primates based on horizontal gene transfer? Sounds like there are more than a few minor details to be worked out.
The funny thing, Paley, is that I have absolutely no training in the biological sciences at all, and yet even I can see where your arguments have gone completely off the tracks. It gives me some idea of how well your arguments would go over with real scientists.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2005,07:15
Sorry for the delay, but I was wrapped up in my bible study groups. The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! Well, on to the subject at hand.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Where did I say I was a lawyer? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did you say you weren't? In the off chance you aren't, I apologize for the slander.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It ain't just one paper, hoss. It's the cumulative weight of many that leads to my eminently sane conclusion. But following my own advice, I'll stick to the current paper. It's true that the authors hypothesize that more taxa will solve the problem, but in the case of _animalia_, they don't support that raw speculation with any data, so I didn't mention it. Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. In addition, the author's conclusions conflict with others who assert that the number of characters is the most important component in any analysis.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this link. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Believe it or not, this source is nothing new to me. In fact, I've managed to come up with with some cogent criticisms in between my bible-thumping, synagogue-torching and all. Hint: Count how many proteins are used to support his consensus tree, and then contrast this with Wu 1991. More to come later......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,07:43
Paley:
I wasn't aware that it was necessary for me to state that I'm not a lawyer. I thought that if I didn't claim to be a lawyer, it would be assumed that I'm not. You don't claim to be a scientist, so I don't assume you are one.
The cumulative weight of evidence is that the consensus phylogenetic tree is by and large accurate. Given the immense number of possible phylogenetic trees (for 30 taxa the number is on the order of ten to the thirty-eighth power), the fact that there's any consistency whatsoever in the trees derived from independent sources of evidence has to be seen as one of the crowning achievements of the human intellect. Your conclusion isn't sane; it's completely wacky.
Evidence from multiple confirming lines of research isn't "speculation," it's confirmation. If one line of evidence is in conflict with converging conclusions for the other ten or so lines of evidence, we can be reasonably certain that there's an error in the methodology. If you're using Cepheid variables to work out the hubble constant, and one Cepheid variable tells you that an obviously distant galaxy is located within the milky way, there's obviously something wrong with the distance value for that one star. This is elementary scientific methodology.
So I'm afraid one paper ain't gonna do it. One study that comes up with erroneous conclusions shows an error in the methodology, not an error in the theory. You're going to have to show me how the multiple lines of inquiry do not converge on one phylogentic tree, and I already know you can't do that.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,07:50
Paley:
A couple more points. Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.
The exact configuration of the phylogenetic tree will probably never be established for every single organism (we don't even know how many species currently exist, let alone the immensely larger number that have ever existed), given the astronomical numbers of possible trees. Pointing to this or that controversy as to where exactly a given organism gets slotted into the organizational structure will get you exactly nowhere. When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2005,09:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would be a relevant criticism except for the fact that the citation demonstrated the need for at least _5_ genes to support an analysis (some suggest 20 or even more!, instead of relying on a single protein, however informative. While Theobald may have indeed utilized multiple lines of evidence to buttress his conclusions, the facts are that: 1) he chose a _single_ protein to demonstrate his hypothesis (see the reference for the consensus tree in point 17), and 2) the protein he chose has its own problems (see Ayala's Cytochrome C analysis, which postdates McLaughlin and Dayhoff's 1973 study and has humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, in addition to a multitude of other "mistakes"). Why base a consensus tree on a single (flawed) protein, especially when your own sources counsel agin it? And if there _are_ multiple-gene studies that draw the same conclusions, why not quote them instead? I think this represents good prima facie evidence, but collapses under close scrutiny. The kind of scrutiny that's honed with diligent study of Dembski's monographs.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As opposed to chickens and fish?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,11:24
Paley:
You've entirely missed the point. The phylogenetic tree isn't only mapped out by genetic and protein analysis. Those two are only two of dozens of different techniques for deriving the same tree. Other, independent lines of evidence have nothing to do with analysis of one gene, or many genes. That's why they're called "independent." And guess what? They all converge on the same tree.
I think you need to read Theobald a little more closely.
How does Cytochrome c show humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, when humans and chimps share exactly the same cytochrome c? And why are you citing studies from 1973? And you talk about the difference between five genes and 20 genes as if it were significant. How many genes do humans possess? 20,000?
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect. Do we have zoologists out there contending that starfish are more closely related to humans than they are to sea urchins? Or monkeys that are more closely related to birds than they are to goats?
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,05:32
First, I want to thank Mr. Murphy and Mr. Fox for quoting two relevant papers as rebuttals, even if they end up supporting Uncle Paley's point of view. It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers. Mr. Murphy: If you follow point 17 as I suggested, you will see that the 1973 paper was cited by Dr. Theobald, not me. So you should address this puzzler:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- [W]hy are you citing studies from 1973? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
to him. The Cytochrome C paper showing the erroneous relationships is Margoliash Finch 1967 I think, but it's cited by (Ayala 1977). There are some other strange results, such as the viper clustering with man (how biblical!), but I need to look it up.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 17 2005,05:46
Mr The Ghost of Paley
Are you referring to < this link >, that I posted on another thread? Perhaps you can point out where there is any support for your "theory"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,07:11
No, Mr. Fox. I was planning on responding to your (most excellent) paper on the correct thread. My previous post was trying to clear up Mr. Murphy's misunderstanding of my Friday post.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 17 2005,07:44
I look forward to it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2005,12:37
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,10:32) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein..... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill, Bill, Bill,
You're still failing to divine my meaning. You cannot construct an entire phylogenetic tree from the analysis of any one protein, and you probably can't do it from any group of a dozen proteins, either. Which actually argues for evolution more than ID, because the reason you run into problems with protein analysis all by itself is because of the random nature of genetic mutations. Humans, chimps, and guinea pigs all lack a functional gene for ascorbic acid. Does this means that humans are most closely related to chimps and guinea pigs? No. It means that by chance, guinea pigs have the same busted gene. I assure you, the guinea pig genotype differs from the human one by more than 1%.
You really need to read Dr. Theobald a little more closely. It's not hard to see why given a single protein, vipers might cluster with humans. But how closely do vipers cluster with humans when one looks at the fossil record? And by reference to morphology? Not very close, is how close. You need confirmatory evidence from many, many sources to work out a phylogenetic tree. Also, genes cluster differently from organisms, which adds further complications.
Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant < picture > of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely. Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one. Perhaps you'd like to give that particular page a re-read to see if you've missed anything else.
And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,14:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant picture of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald _very_ closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're both righter than you'll ever know. But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree. Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2005,18:09
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,19:29) | I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald very closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm...I'm reading Part 4, "Criticisms," and you know, I just don't hear any slapping sound. As he states in the article, the chances that any two organisms have any similarity at all in their cytochrome c is mildly surprising, given that almost any ordering of amino acids at all would work. And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What gives you the impression that Figure 1 is cobbled together from one single protein? Nowhere on that page does he indicate that the consensus tree pictured is based on any single protein, or indeed from protein analysis alone (or at all, for that matter). (Actually, if it were possible to construct Figure 1 by reference to a single protein, that would be nothing short of astounding, and a massive triumph for the field of comparative protein analysis.)
Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. This is exactly why there is very high confidence that the consensus tree is accurate.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong? I think I know enough of taxonomy, based on my high school education (along with a lot of extracurricular reading), to know that tree is a reasonably accurate depiction of the interrelationships among the taxa included. Where do you think it's wrong? Do you think that humans are more closely related to, say, ferns than they are to other primates? Or that starfish are more closely related to mushrooms than they are to cows?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the meantime, did you trouble to read Theobald's < explanation > of just how unlikely it is that any two independently-derived trees would bear any resemblance to each other? Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. So even if it were true that protein analysis couldn't come up with even a close resemblance to trees derived from other evidence (which isn't even remotely true), the consensus tree is derived from enough other independent lines of research to indicate that, if anything, the problem is with the protein analysis methodology, not the tree itself.
After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?
Just out of curiosity, William...do you deny evolution in its entirety? Are you a believer in special creation?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,09:51
If ever there was a misbegotten Intraweb flame-war thingie, well, here it is. It's not actually D*mbski, can't be.
And if it's not the original spoofer (Cerutti, ya in there?), then the inheritor of the Paley-themed moniker certainly is playing up to the original, down to half-a$$-ed defense of the original "meat n' potatoes" theory which occasioned my (misplaced) ridicule.
So, really, people, I think we need to be aware that somebody's probably spoofing us again, cut n' pasting off of ARN or some such.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,10:07
Wow, you guys really like to poison the well, dontcha? I assure you that my ideas are mine alone. No cribbing off ARN, kibitzing at I.D. conferences, or piloting black helicopters. Just a David armed with the slingshot of Truth, with a smattering of Dembski's sublime maths. As for my beliefs, I pretty much see it as the Bible calls it: geocentric special creation. None of that cheap Hollywood special effects for me - man on the moon my arse!
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,10:20
Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked? Been to Loch Ness lately? Got any ammo for that slingshot to shoot at the Satanic Holocaust Believers?
Sublime maths!!!
Thanks for the entertainment withered husk.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,10:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not interested in what the man says as much as what he demonstrates. Which ain't much, apparently.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why yes, now that you mention it. Just one question: what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's totally bogus, dude, because the molecules were meant to provide objective characters for better tree-building. There is a reason, after all, for the palpable embarrassment that real scientists have felt for Darwinism historically. Genes were supposed to elevate just-so storytelling to the heights of a solid, if pedestrian, discipline. Now genes trees are just a "new, untested" method that everyone ignores unless it gets the correct results.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,10:38
Payley,
I generally try not to debate creationists, but what the ####; I'm bored.
Far as I can tell, you don't believe that the phylogenetic tree exists at all. In other words, since every organism was specially created by His Majesty, everything is equally closely related. In other words, humans are just as closely related to chimps as they are to bacteria.
And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,11:00
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems that Mr. Murphy's ability to quote retroactively embarrassing papers is only matched by his imaginative, zen-like readings of my posts. When did I say that HGT had any function other than making scientists gnash teeth over their worthless papers? HGT gives false positives, is all. But with a theory on how this transpires, godly men can better guide the trembing Darwinian finger over the contours of its error. The true giants (Berlinski and the other guy) are otherwise occupied, so it falls to me. But I'll take a side order of falsification while the engine's running.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,11:34
Let's play Rock Around the Clock with Bill Paley and the Creationists!
Anyway, if you're going to use Dave Berlinksi and WMD to instruct evolutionists in the error of their ways, you're mostly going to get dismissals, which is about what those guys are worth. It's so easy to poke holes in their mathematics and/or logic that even I can do it.
A quick example: Kolmogorov complexity is synonymous with probability, t or f.
Bill managed to get that one < wrong. > And he's supposedly the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory"?
Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Way to go, Dave!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,12:54
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:
Quote Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.
Way to go, Dave! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you finally did it, old chap. You made Uncle Paley out to be a liar. For the first time, I must defer to the Discovery Institute: < The Master Replies > Nick Matzke, have you found that expert in optical theory yet? If you need an information theorist, there's this guy I know......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,13:09
Bill,
Is that really supposed to be Berlinski's "response" to his critics? It seems his critics have replied to his "response" before he even wrote it. Assuming time travel is impossible, I can only assume Dave has a hard time processing criticisms of his own work.
And referring to your hero Berlinski as "The Master" leaves one to ponder what your definition of an "amateur" is.
I'm glad you didn't refer to Dembski as an Information Theory "expert," since that clearly would have been stretching the term beyond the breaking point...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,13:56
How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?
From memory: 1) The Master graces the denizens of Commentary with one of his usual masterworks. Topic: The usual inanity of evos, with a special focus on the hijinks of Dawkins, Nilsson, and Pelger 2) The authors of < Dawkin's Folly > managed to publish a shrill screed as a pathetic attempt at a reply 3) Darwinists ooze out of various sewers, orifices, and dungeons in order to gang up on our hero 4) The Master administers a sound thrashing to said minions, with a side portion of optical theory for the lurkers, and apparently, the preening experts who had extensive need for both 5) Nick Matske pines for his departed heroes. The rest slime their way back to their familiar bogs, sadder but none the wiser, to continue their collective paean to moonstuck , taxpayer-wasting scribblings
I hope this helps.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,14:03
I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.
But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?
Now, don't say "one uses a computer" you cute little guy, 'cause that's not your style anyhow. No, what I mean is, what can one do that the other can't, in principle?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,14:19
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.
But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazing. Simply Amazing. Mr. Murphy's < ink > has the power to cloud all minds, friend and foe alike. Does anyone have the ability to decipher a simple argument? The Master's argument went to the heart of the model itself, and was not a semantic quibble. Read the link. Of course, just as a podiatrist finds the solution to all illness in the humble foot, so does the Darwinist in word play.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,14:29
Since you argue exclusively by insinuation, you project the behavior onto those around you.
It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions. And I read the link.
So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,14:46
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions. And I read the link.
So, answer the question, lifeless wisp. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer: Nothing substantial at all. If that was the extent of the Master's charges, I would agree with your argument (assuming we ever hear it, that is). But since you've read the link, will you please address the rest of his? As a great man once opined, he who does will be the first.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,15:28
For those interested in the Master's argument, here is a slice:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.
Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here is the Darwinian rebuttal:
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,19:30
Bill,
I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.) It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed. And I wonder why I should, since the article has been around for almost 12 years and is still considered sound science by basically 100% of the people with the training and expertise to actually hold a supportable opinion about it.
When Einstein was at the IAS, he would get letters every week from various cranks showing in minute detail why general relativity was wrong. I don't think he lost too much sleep over it.
Anyway, I wonder what your theory is for why the entire scientific community is satisfied that neodarwinian evolution is a settled matter, while dilettantes like yourself are sure they're all wrong. Is it a matter of mass delusion?
Since you seem to think the earth is only a few thousand years old, let's just say I'm a little skeptical of your opinion on matters biological.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,06:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't remember that question being raised before, but I'll take your word for it. My answer would be: keep natural causes if you want. Just make sure they can parse the heavens. If they can't, open your mind to other explanations.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then why bring the matter up? Well, I won't tease you for not responding to the big B. But shouldn't somebody here have the requisite knowledge? After all, the man did his legwork. Don't play the Lestrade to his Holmes when Moriarty is more fun... As the Peach would say: tick, tock, tick, tock..........Mr. O' Brien? Mr. Fox?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2005,07:37
Bill,
I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong. Let me ask you this: any educated layman who's spent any time studying evolution knows the names Dawkins, Gould, Margoulis, Watson, Miller. What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?
Of course, the same criticism holds for Dembski, except with Dembski, his conversance with his own field (information theory) seems pretty shaky.
The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.
A supernatural explanation has never actually "explained" anything. Indeed, how could it? How is appeal to something that's physically impossible (isn't that pretty much what a supernatural phenomenon is?) going to explain anything?
There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,08:25
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are these scientists? Communing in the Himalayas with the yeti?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know I'm accused of being absent-minded at times, but I don't remember this at all. Could you cite this?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. But that doesn't absolve a hypothesis from its own responsibilities. So it is encumbent upon scientists to prove their case first. Yes, I know: the Nilsson - Pelger paper was a but a crumb in Mt. Improbable's buffet of evidence. So why did you guys drive us sick with it? Unless it's the best you have? Platonic truth is finally shining in your little grotto, and you can only make shadow puppets on the wall. Conspiracies only take you so far, you know......
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,13:16
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just one more thing: Berlinski is a maths guy, so his opinion on Nilsson - Pelger is highly relevant. And I'm starting to add more detail to my model in another thread.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 19 2005,21:31
Ghost of Paley
I'm sorry to say you have become boring. I will wait until your forthcoming paper is universally acclaimed and read it. Until evidence demonstrates otherwise, I will file you under "cranks".
Best of luck Alan.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 20 2005,03:39
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?
As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.)
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 20 2005,07:58
Are you running for king of the cranks or something? Really, ghastly, this is over the top, even for you.
I was going to disabuse you of your reverence for "The Master," but, like Mr. Fox, I am afraid that your credibility has been utterly exposed as non-existent.
If you are (as I believe) joking, well, it's gone about as far as it can at geocentrism. Good fun, but all things come to an end. Even ghosts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 20 2005,10:34
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are you running for king of the cranks or something? Really, ghastly, this is over the top, even for you.
I was going to disabuse you of your reverence for "The Master," but, like Mr. Fox, I am afraid that your credibility has been utterly exposed as non-existent.
If you are (as I believe) joking, well, it's gone about as far as it can at geocentrism. Good fun, but all things come to an end. Even ghosts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, don't let my beliefs keep you from your duty. I'm willing to listen to any/all criticisms of the Master's position. Remember to address his real arguments, and not what Eugenie Scott may have told you they were. If you can, that is. I promise my response will be point on (I hope this doesn't scare you away again). And by the way, if you're reading this Nicky, just one question: Have you found your expert yet?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 20 2005,12:25
I don't recall being "scared away." Not everybody has the luxury of being undead, and having 22.5 hours a day to troll the internet. Besides, I'm not scared of geocentrist ghosts.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,06:50
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2005,08:39) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?
As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you really that dilluted?
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
Next time you have lunch with Elvis, tell him I said hello.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2005,07:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are you really that dilluted? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.
Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted."
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,09:54
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,12:28) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are you really that dilluted? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.
Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that you think the moon landings were faked shows the depth of how much you really don't know or understand.
The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.
Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2005,10:13
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,14:56
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,15:13) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, now we all know you are flat out incorrect regarding Moon Landing being faked. It's been documented by numerous sources. So, you got that one wrong.
What Berlinski fairytale are you speaking of?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2005,15:54
What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?
Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 22 2005,09:00
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing much, directly. But if the earth proves as young as I suspect, this would deal a crippling blow to evolution. Plus, some are using my geocentrism as an excuse to evade my arguments (after asking me my personal beliefs!). Hopefully people aren't being taken in by this tactic.
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 22 2005,09:16
< Here you go Paley. >
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe. As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.
I thought this was a funny quote from the website:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,09:55
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe. As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, on that subject, here are some more sites that fill out the picture: < Pro Hoax > < More Pro Hoax > < Anti Hoax > < Forum > Two problems with antihoax sites: 1)The Problem of Consilience of Inductions In deciding between two hypotheses, one should usually choose the one that unifies more observations and relies less on post hoc rationales to explain phenomena. In other words, the hypothesis should do most of the explanatory work, and incorporate as little into its predictive bundle as possible. This is not met with the antihoax community, as their rationalizations range from short camera exposures, unique lunar soil characteristics, the vacuum, pranking astro-naughts, miscommunication, and hairs on lenses to account for anomalities. The prohoax community can unify all "problems" under one rubric: a manufactured moonwalk.
2) Changing, mutually-contradictory explanations. For example, the author claims that the reason that no flame was seen from the departing lander was due to the lack of air in the lunar environment. Then he says, whoops, that's a minor effect. It's really the fuel. In each case, he shows supreme confidence in his answer. But since he rarely quantifies anything (e.g. how much torque would one need to create the flag ripples we see?), one can only shrug one's shoulders and comment that his whole treatise is written in jello.
There is are cathedrals of doubt hidden behind Phil Plait's quaint, complacent Potemkin Village.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,09:58
Sorry. "There are cathedrals of doubt....."
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 23 2005,11:08
GP-
I have only one, simple question:
Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,11:38
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Do you want to believe there were no moon landings? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here we have it. Post-modernism at its worst: I feel, therefore it is........well, if it gets you an academic post in lieu of someone qualified, good luck with that.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 23 2005,15:51
but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.
I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2005,14:26
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I have only one, simple question:
Do you want to believe there were no moon landings? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure. But what does that have to do with anything?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.
I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I assumed it was a rhetorical question, but I guess you're still probing me. For what it's worth, I assure you I am not a member of the Panda's Bum. As for whether I'm sincere, the only way I could "regain" credibility in this area is by losing it. Think about it. Now answer this: Ever dunk a witch?
Wow, so many questions! Does this mean you'll give me a second chance?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 24 2005,14:38
nope, just further defining your position.
as i thought, if you "want" to believe that the moon landings never happened, and you want us to believe that you are being honest about that, then how can you claim to be objective about the data presented?
don't bother to answer, the answer is obvious.
You are just pulling our chains.
fun, isn't it?
for the record, i never implied you to be a "member of Pandas Bum" as er, PT doesn't have members.
If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.
my only point in all this is to bring that point home for those who actually considered that you WERE serious about anything you wished to debate here.
you're just another troll.
so long as folks realize that, i encourage all to have fun debating you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2005,15:52
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 25 2005,06:15
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2005,20:52) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I asked the question originally because it addresses the issue of what information your selectively choose to ignore you justify your beliefs.
You have stated, I believe, that one of the reasons evolution was a myth was because there were no witnesses to Big Bang, or Evolution... that it was not to be believed.
Well, using the same logic, your belief with regard to the moon landings has been invalidated. There were witnesses to the moon landings, the astronauts themselves.
But, contrary to documented, verified evidence and eye witness validation, you still choose to believe that moon landings didn't take place.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,07:46
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2005,20:52) | Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K, F or C?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 25 2005,08:03
Re "K, F or C?"
Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,08:49
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 25 2005,13:03) | Re "K, F or C?"
Kentucky Fried Chicken? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nah, just a little test of scientific lieracy at the Elementary School level.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Re "K, F or C?"
Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Nah, just a little test of scientific lieracy at the Elementary School level. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess it's not enough to watch me topple Sir Wiggle's mental house of cards - you have to play Socratic master as well, eh. Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:14
By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:23
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously, this should read:
Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level here is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
As if I don't italicize enough already.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,10:05
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,14:23) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously, this should read:
Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level here is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
As if I don't italicize enough already. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be getting your Cs and Ks confused. Evolutionists are obviously Ks, whereas ID proponents and their ilk are presumably Cs, as they don’t have the capacity to understand reality or science
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2005,11:01
Since there seems to be so much speculation about my motives and identity, I thought I'd compile the reigning theories just for fun. I might have added one to fill the speculative sample space:
Paley the Insider A popular early hypothesis. Paley is a regular contributer who's decided to tease the other fellas. Possible culprit: Dave Cerutti.
Evidence for: Cerutti's stated desire to assume another identity after his last visit (as Admonicus). Paley appears soon afterward. Also, Paley seems to possess some familiarity with past activity from other regulars. The continued ribbing of Nick Matzke.
Evidence against: The time frame. Why wait a month between posts? Paley's interests mesh poorly with Dave's.
The Documentary Hypothesis:Multiple Paleys
This idea has been floated occasionally. Basically, Paley is a composite of several individuals.
Evidence for: The syntax, grammar, and vocabulary shift from post to post. In fact, scholars from Panda's Thumb have postulated several distinct layers in Paley's manuscripts:
P, or Protopaley, whose posts reflect the primitive, philosophically dense trollings frequently encountered on the Talk Origins forum. P-Paley often relies on quick, brutal attacks on his enemies, leavened with the occasional swipe at other posters' political tendencies. Advocates bold scientific positions. As the name implies, the earliest model.
L-Paley. The trickster. Gentler than P-Paley, he still enjoys a good scrap, but relies on wit and dependent clauses to defang his adversary. Loves Phylogeny and Hoaxing, and has refined his trolling to fit the board's needs.
B-Paley, to denote his desire to play nice and abide by the rules. Relatively courteous; is thought to be a bridge to useful partisanship of evo doctrine.
Evidence against: At minimum, the conspirators must know each other, as Paley always uses the same email address and password when logging on. Posts often reflect similar ideas and imagery, as well as a dazzlingly intellect rarely encountered in life, much less Panda's Bum. These argue for a single author.
Genuine Paley
Evidence for: His protestations. In other words, none.
Evidence against: See above. Also, it's convenient, which counts for more than it should. Comments?
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 26 2005,11:41
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16:01) | Comments? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
None
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2005,15:09
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16: 01) Comments? None ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Hmmmmm......... > Kirk finally shuts off M5 by pointing out that by killing humans it has violated its programming of saving men from dangerous activities such as space exploration. Since the penalty for murder is death, the M5 concludes that it must die, and shuts itself down.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2005,17:18
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16<!--emo&) | Comments? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,04:24
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Murphy, you're back! Hey, do you still have the barrel I lent you from our last encounter? You can keep the suspenders; after all, you'll probably need them next time.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,08:43
To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add: F=mv.
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 28 2005,09:14
Alright, I'll bite.
One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups. The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so. As far as I know, (I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary) they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
It is not obvious from a creationism standpoint that any such tree of life should exist at all. I'm sure you have a convoluted argument that you're going to share with us now.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,09:53
---------------------QUOTE------------------- One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups. The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to make sure I understand your argument, you are saying that any choice of characters is suitable, because only evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. So there is no a priori reason for the choice; any characters that form a tree will do?
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 28 2005,10:44
Once again I am no expert on this stuff. I'm not going to ignorantly paint the wrong picture of evolution so you could point out that it's wrong. But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree. As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics." So, let's hear your complaint, man. Show me the evidence. You have my attention.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 28 2005,10:52
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2005,13:43) | To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add: F=mv. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I was hardly too stunned to reply. I just realized that someone who subscribes to geocentrism is either joking, or a joke.
Which is it, Bill?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 28 2005,14:49
Re "any characters that form a tree will do?"
Eh? I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)
Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 31 2005,09:03
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree. As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics." So, let's hear your complaint, man. Show me the evidence. You have my attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, you guys are pretty slippery! Here are my points:
The present system, although modified by Hennig, is still essentially Linnean. Now, ole Carl was definitely a creo, so any evolutionary modification should improve and objectify his schema. This was to be accomplished by applying the concept of common descent. With common descent, the evos presumed, they could use the fossil record and embryology to decipher the homologies that define the clades, and thereby produce a robust tree. But the poor embryos wouldn't < cooperate: >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Most traditional views of homology rely on two unwarranted premises: the pervasively hierarchical nature of biology, inclusive of the levels of genes, development, and morphology and the linear mapping of genes onto developmental schedules and of developmental schedules onto phenotypes. These premises are only occasionally verified. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The author proceeds to point out incongruities during the development of the vertebrate alimentary canal as one example among many. Basically, embryology seems an unreliable way to test the homology of characters. As for the fossil record: well, let's just leave that weak sister alone for now. To summarize, there is no consistent way to test homologies. But can't we use common sense? Not really. Take mammals as an example. Mammals are defined as creatures that are: 1) Endothermic 2) Furry 3) Possessors of a unique ear/jaw structure
All of these characteristics are questionable. Birds and < other critters > share character 1), pterodactyls might share 2), and a recent < fossil > revealed parallel "evolution" for 3), rendering that characteristic uninformative. To show you how labile these classifications can be, see < here > and compare to P.Z. Myer's simple phylogeny for winged insects.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2005,10:33
Bill,
Just a short reply for now (time to get back to work). You're completely missing the point (and I can only assume wilfully) about how phylogenetic trees are constructed. You keep trying to demonstrate how a particular line of evidence (e.g., homologies with a single protein, a particular morphological feature, etc.) cannot be relied upon to contruct a plausible phylogenetic tree.
So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Nevertheless, you are determined not to grasp it.
On the other hand, you're determined not to grasp the concept that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. A quick question for you: how far away is the closest star?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2005,10:38
Re "how far away is the closest star?"
That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it.
Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2005,11:49
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2005,16:38) | Re "how far away is the closest star?"
That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, it's not a trick question, i.e., I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system (assuming, of course, that he even believes in geocentrism -- I'm assuming he's pretending to, just to get our goats).
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2005,12:31
I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,07:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself? There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they < were ever valid > < to begin with. > By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?
Henry J wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2005,08:09
Re "Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?"
Software engineer.
Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2005,10:44
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I'm talking about weaving rope from a few dozen strands of steel. You're pretending there's no rope at all.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself? There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they < were ever valid > < to begin with. > By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, Bill, I don't know. Maybe the light originated from right in front of my eyes. Maybe the light is a figment of my imagination. Maybe there's no such thing as light. Where are you going with this?
My question about the distance to the nearest star is only weakly dependent on the speed of light. I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?
I'm not particularly fascinated with your geocentrism. My point is, anyone who denies the evidence that the earth is not the center of the earth <bs><bs><bs><bs><bs> universe is going to be hopeless when it comes to the evidence for evolution. If even the simplest, most obvious contentions can't overcome your skepticism, nothing else is going to either. So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.
.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 01 2005,11:18
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question of the ages... Why do any of us waste our time here? No one has changed a single postion about anything here. Except maybe Evopeach realizing that Hydrogen came before Helium. < Read the 4th comment. > It seems our little Evopeach has really learned something!
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Nov. 01 2005,11:39
---------------------QUOTE------------------- the earth is not the center of the earth ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to avoid any confusion over a typo, that phrase was obviously meant to be "the earth is not the center of the universe." Please treat it as such.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 01 2005,12:06
Quote (cogzoid @ Nov. 01 2005,17:18) | The question of the ages... Why do any of us waste our time here? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because the more one knows about one's opponents the better.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2005,17:56
One thing I'm clearly hopeless about is checking my own work for typos. It took me forever to find the "earth is the center of the earth" typo.
It's been a long day. Our fileserver went down 10 hours ago and we're still trying to get it up (and now you know how tired I really am).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,12:49
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 02 2005,16:36
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 02 2005,18:49) | Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, so in a geocentric universe, A. Centauri revolves around the earth once every 24 hours, right?
Posted by: MDPotter on Nov. 03 2005,05:16
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wrrroooongggg!!! Sit down, go back to the end of the line. You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies. The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,06:14
Quote (MDPotter @ Nov. 03 2005,11:16) | Wrrroooongggg!!! Sit down, go back to the end of the line. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:47
MD Potter slobbered:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wrrroooongggg!!! Sit down, go back to the end of the line. You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies. The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which is part of the Alpha Centauri star system. If you want to pawn this little red wannabee off as a real star, be my guest. By the way, do you know any optics experts? The evo community seems a little short at the moment....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know my slow responses must be frustrating, "Matlock" Murphy, but no need to rush your cross. Remember F. Lee Bailey's advice: trappeth thine enemy before thou goest for the kill. But let's keep the orbit simple and circular, to better match your reasoning: 6.88E11 m/s would be the velocity.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:49
Whoops, make that 2.99E12
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,13:07
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,18:49) | Whoops, make that 2.99E12 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which, of course, is several orders of magnitude beyond c.
But I'm assuming you think Einstein is completely wrong, so I'm not going to use that as part of my argument. Let's do it this way:
Using very rough approximations, all of which work in Bill's favor, so we can do the math in our heads as we're walking through that den of iniquity, downtown San Francisco. Let's assume:
* That p. Centauri (or a. Centauri, doesn't matter which) is only 4ly away; * That a light-year is only 5 X 10^12 miles (if you like, Bill, you can probably use any figure for a ly larger than 10^9 miles and I'll still be okay with it) * That pi = 3 (can we walk like Egyptians?)
So 4 ly times 5 trillion miles times 2 = 40 trillion miles orbital diameter times pi (which we're estimating as ~3) = 120 trillion miles orbital circumference.
Let's make a day 30 hours long to make the arithmetic radically simple (and to make matters easier on Mr. Paley), and we get an orbital speed (let's not worry about vector quantities yet) of 4 trillion miles an hour, which is in reasonable accord with Bill's figure of 6.68 trillion miles an hour.
Let's further assume, again, that Einstein's wrong, and c is not a barrier to velocity, but assume that Newton's law of gravity (which, after all, has been around a bit longer) is more or less accurate.
So, Bill, here's your homework assignment. Given an orbital radius of 20 trillion miles and an orbital velocity (we couldn't avoid vector quantities forever) in the neighborhood of 4 trillion miles an hour, would you care to solve for the mass of the earth? (Since Bill says the heavens revolve around the earth, not that the earth and the heavens are orbiting a common center of mass, we can probably assume the mass of p. Centauri is much smaller than the mass of the earth, and hence can ignore it.) I have the feeling you're going to come up with a value that's a little high to be believable. High enough to squash us all flat, I'm guessing.
I'm using English units under the assumption that Bill really doesn't like the metric system, since communists (and, worse, the French) use it (although I will note he used it himself, presumably to make the math easier). Even though it makes the formulae harder. But hey, Bill tells us he's a smart guy.
Sorry I did this all at once, but all the suspense was getting tedious.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,13:53
---------------------QUOTE------------------- would you care to solve for the mass of the earth? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,14:04
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,19:53) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- would you care to solve for the mass of the earth? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now....... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so.
But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,14:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. My calculated mass is 55 times higher. Pretty good agreement, I'd say.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right again. More to come. Cue the narrator, please.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,15:00
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,20:29) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right again. More to come. Cue the narrator, please. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, I admit it. You've piqued my interest. I await next week's episode with bated breath....
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2005,13:00
I'm a little hung over right now, so I might not be thinking clearly. But it's occurred to me that Bill's figure for the mass of the earth, 5.5 E 51 Kg, might compare with the mass of the observable universe (at least the visible, non-"dark" part of it). I wonder if that's where he's going with this...
(Oops...am I giving the game away?)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 05 2005,05:50
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm a little hung over right now, so I might not be thinking clearly. But it's occurred to me that Bill's figure for the mass of the earth, 5.5 E 51 Kg, might compare with the mass of the observable universe (at least the visible, non-"dark" part of it). I wonder if that's where he's going with this...
(Oops...am I giving the game away?) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Patience, my son. I will unveil the model when I get some free time: after all, one can't interweave art and science, unify and explain cosmological mysteries, and awe the human mind on demand. Slather on a little more Devon cream and order another latte in the meanwhile..........
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Nov. 05 2005,09:38
Who/What-ever the heck this guy is, he's something else isn't he?
Yes, GoP (hmmm...), I'm stll lurking about, and I haven't forgotten about The Master, either. But my optics is a little rusty, haha.
Awaiting the ummm, "unveilling."
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 05 2005,13:36
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 05 2005,11:50) | Patience, my son. I will unveil the model when I get some free time: after all, one can't interweave art and science, unify and explain cosmological mysteries, and awe the human mind on demand. Slather on a little more Devon cream and order another latte in the meanwhile.......... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, given the task I've set you (i.e., overturning 500 years of settled natural law, as it were), I'm not expecting an answer any time soon (unless you've already been working on this for a decade or two, in which case…).
But would you care to estimate a time frame? Another couple of years, maybe? Just so I don't have to keep checking back.
P.S. I'm actually not much of a latte lover.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,06:33
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But would you care to estimate a time frame? Another couple of years, maybe? Just so I don't have to keep checking back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Worst case scenario: A week from this upcoming Friday (Nov. 18, I believe)
Best case: This Thursday (Nov. 10)
I hope this helps.
Posted by: MDPotter on Nov. 07 2005,09:03
Ya right, you're arguing for geocentrism and I'M the one slobbering. Hysterical.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2005,09:04
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2005,12:33) | Worst case scenario: A week from this upcoming Friday (Nov. 18, I believe)
Best case: This Thursday (Nov. 10)
I hope this helps. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will you booking your hotel room in Stokholm, then? :-)
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 07 2005,09:09
I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?
He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.
It's hypocritical at best.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,09:10
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, given the task I've set you (i.e., overturning 500 years of settled natural law, as it were), I'm not expecting an answer any time soon (unless you've already been working on this for a decade or two, in which case…).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have the time frame now. And I'll make this promise: if I don't deliver at least the rough draft of my geocentric model by November 18, I will personally fly to Clichy-sous-Bois, walk to the nearest mosque, and do a spirited Ait Bogar for the residents clad in a Crusader Rabbit diaper and a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase " Paley a le beguin pour Sarkozy!"
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2005,11:38
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 07 2005,15<!--emo&) | I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't say I'm taking this guy seriously, but he has demonstrated some knowledge of orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics (more than mine, anyway), so he's not a complete half-wit.
But I'm interested to see how he wriggles out of this particular box.
(And when I say I'm not taking this guy seriously, I mean I don't think he really believes anything he says he believes.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,14:24
---------------------QUOTE------------------- He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.
It's hypocritical at best. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know why people think that this argument is mine, when I've tried to make it clear all along that I'll accept circumstantial evidence so long as it converges on a single conclusion. If someone would present consistent, independent evidence for a particular lineage, I would buy the evo account, but what I receive are a plethora of crazy and flatly contradictory trees that reflect nothing so much as the insanity of the brainpans that generated them in the first place. I think people don't read what I write so much as what they think I would write if I was the slack-jaw that they assume I must be, given the certitude of their assumptions.
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 08 2005,03:14
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 07 2005,17:38) | [quote=Steverino,Nov. 07 2005,15<!--emo&]I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't say I'm taking this guy seriously, but he has demonstrated some knowledge of orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics (more than mine, anyway), so he's not a complete half-wit.
But I'm interested to see how he wriggles out of this particular box.
(And when I say I'm not taking this guy seriously, I mean I don't think he really believes anything he says he believes.)[/quote] My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.
I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2005,05:52
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.
I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's assume that you've got my character nailed: I'm a hopelessly baffled person whose scientific judgement can't be trusted, and my arguments reflect this flaw. Or I'm an incorrigible troll. Great. Then why can't anyone refute my arguments? And what does this imply about your character? Or about your positions? In any case, I'm willing to focus strictly on the evidence; how about you? By the way, how does my stance on some issues detract from my advocacy of others? What kind of ontological voodoo are you proposing? Either I have good arguments or I don't; please focus on rebutting, rather than psychoanalysing, me. The fact that you rely on the latter makes me suspect you can't do the former. I don't see a bunch of free-thinkers here - merely religious apologists with their minds rusted shut. Prove me wrong, boys.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,06:04
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2005,20:24) | ...I'll accept circumstantial evidence so long as it converges on a single conclusion. If someone would present consistent, independent evidence for a particular lineage, I would buy the evo account, but what I receive are a plethora of crazy and flatly contradictory trees that reflect nothing so much as the insanity of the brainpans that generated them in the first place. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Bill, the tree I've presented to you is supported by exactly the kind of evidence you say you want. Now, granted, certain groupings of certain organisms using certain types of evidence will result in different trees. But that's to be expected, if for no other reason than the truly astronomical number of possible trees. And there are a lot of organisms for which the phylogenetic relationships are controversial, as you'll note if you poke around on the < Tree of Life > site. But large portions of the tree are well-established using multiple, independent lines of evidence from very different areas of the life sciences (e.g., genalysis, the fossil record, stratigraphy, geology, morphological studies). The tree on Theobald's site is well-established, well-supported, and non-controversial, which is why it's called the "consensus tree."
Granted, the phylogenetic relationships of, say, lungfish and coelacanths can be hard to figure out, but I don't think anyone denies the phylogenetic relationships between tuna and chicken, or between starfish and spiders.
Details, controversial. General structure of the tree, not. But your position seems to be that the entire tree is wrong. That's not true. It just isn't.
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 08 2005,09:35
Bingo!...My point is you filter out what you information goes against what you believe or want to believe. Even though that information is proven.
The Lunar Landings are proven but, fact, they happened but, those you cannot choose not to recognize that.
So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2005,13:18
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But Bill, the tree I've presented to you is supported by exactly the kind of evidence you say you want. Now, granted, certain groupings of certain organisms using certain types of evidence will result in different trees. But that's to be expected, if for no other reason than the truly astronomical number of possible trees. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do realise that this "astronomical number of possible trees" business is derived solely from Hubert Yockey's cytochrome c analysis, which does not account for < alternative splicing? > And without Yockey's crutch, we're back to the puzzle of weirdly discordant molecular trees which don't match each other, let alone the phylogenies derived from morphology. Therefore, no consilience.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And still you don't get it. I always back up my arguments with evidence. Which is why they get ignored, of course.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,16:05
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2005,19:18) | You do realise that this "astronomical number of possible trees" business is derived solely from Hubert Yockey's cytochrome c analysis... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is wrong. The "astronomical number of possible trees" has nothing to do with cytochrome c analysis, or any analysis at all. It has to do with mathematics.
I know you said you've read Theobald closely, Bill, but you keep providing me evidence to the contrary. As Theobald points out, as the number of taxa (or, for that matter, any kind of object -- cars, asteroids, library books) that you're trying to relate to each other increases, the number of possible genealogical "trees" you can construct goes up geometrically. Theobald presents a handy little < chart > (Table 1.3.1). I'll excerpt a few entries so you can get the general flavor of what we're talking about:
2 taxa: 1 relationship 4: 15 7: 10,395 11: 34,459,425 20: 8,200,794,532,637,891,559,375 30: 4.95 E 38
This has nothing to do with how you analyze the objects you're trying to relate to each other. It's a matter of pure mathematics.
Which brings me way, way back to what I said in this thread about six or seven pages ago. The consensus phylogenetic tree that Theobald < depicts > is based on, not a few proteins, not a few genes, and not a lot of proteins or a lot of genes. It's based on genetics, protein analysis, the fossil record, morphological studies, developmental evolution, geology, and other lines of inquiry. All of these lines of evidence converge on the tree as Theobald shows it.
Now, you've pointed out that different individual lines of evidence can show discordant trees. You won't get an argument from me there. But you're talking about individual lines of evidence showing weird relationships between two different species. There are tons of organisms, as I stated a couple of messages ago, which are problematic in terms of what their exact phylogeny is. But for the 30 major taxa in Theobald's tree (note there are no species mentioned, or genera, or families, for that matter), there is an overwhelming consensus opinion that the phylogenetic tree as pictured is correct.
The tree shows that fungi are more closely related to animals than either are to plants. It shows that birds are more closely related to mammals than either are to insects. Surely you don't deny phylogenies at this level of detail, do you, Bill? When you get down either to the level of genera, or conversely to the base of the tree (are archae more closely related to eubacteria, or to eukaryotes?) things get murky. But the worst you can say about the consensus tree is that it's a solid beginning, supported by solid independent lines of evidence. And the fact that a dozen or more lines of evidence all converge on the same tree, out of ~5 E 38 possibilities, is pretty persuasive evidence for common descent, don't you think? Even if cladistic analysis could get the number of trees down to only a million different ones, isn't that an unbelievable level of precision? How many physical constants are known to 32 decimal places? The mass of the electron is known to seven places. G, the universal gravitation constant, is known to three places.
I think you greatly overestimate the problems with phylogeny, Mr. Paley.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,17:45
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2005,19:18) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And still you don't get it. I always back up my arguments with evidence. Which is why they get ignored, of course. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"
Don't mean to be persnickety, but I just couldn't resist...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,07:15
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I know you said you've read Theobald closely, Bill, but you keep providing me evidence to the contrary. As Theobald points out, as the number of taxa (or, for that matter, any kind of object -- cars, asteroids, library books) that you're trying to relate to each other increases, the number of possible genealogical "trees" you can construct goes up geometrically. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I forgot about this aspect of his argument. Theobald's claim resembles an argument Sean Pitman once made about the relationship between the number of amino acids and the potential sequence space. He essentially stated that the ratio between useful sequence space and potential sequence space decreases at an exponential rate as you add more residues, and that this large target prohibits certain types of neutral evolution, thus rendering some types of evolution (those requiring fortuitous double and triple mutations, for example) impossible. Sean's math was sound, as was his conclusion. The problem, of course, was that Sean did not account for the existence of protein families that cluster together in sequence space, thus destroying his initial assumption of even distribution of potential function throughout the search area. This brings us to Theobald's argument. Theobald asserts that the potential number of branches in any tree increase at a factorial rate as the number of organisms increase, rendering an astronomically large "tree space". Therfore, we should embrace any theory that winnows this number down. But without biological facts to back it up, this argument suffers from the same defects as Pitman's: it assumes a uniform bodyplan distribution throughout morphological space. This is not true, as I'll demonstrate. (Hint: compare placental mammals to marsupials. Do you see any animals with similar features?). More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,07:51
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Will you booking your hotel room in Stokholm, then? :-) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A zif.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,08:15
---------------------QUOTE------------------- More later. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the problem: morphological characters do not have to be, and in fact are not, uniformly distributed throughout the sample space of all potential body types. We see this in many cases of "< convergent evolution >" between marsupial and placental mammals. No matter how the similarities came to be, the fact remains that God- or nature - is not as adventurous as Theobald implies. This suggests that there is a natural grouping of "kinds" that can be investigated in different ways, none of them requiring the notion of common descent. In other words, I have no need for that hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope this addresses your question.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,08:40
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,14:15) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- More later. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the problem: morphological characters do not have to be, and in fact are not, uniformly distributed throughout the sample space of all potential body types. We see this in many cases of "< convergent evolution >" between marsupial and placental mammals. No matter how the similarities came to be, the fact remains that God- or nature - is not as adventurous as Theobald implies. This suggests that there is a natural grouping of "kinds" that can be investigated in different ways, none of them requiring the notion of common descent. In other words, I have no need for that hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope this addresses your question. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still think you're misinterpreting Theobald's point. The number of potential trees has nothing to do with whether there's a uniform distribution of body plans, or protein conformations, or anything whatsoever. It's exclusively dependent on the number of taxa to be classified.
Someone gives you a group of 30 names of people. He tells you they're all related, but doesn't tell you how. The letters of the names have all been scrambled, so you can't use surnames as a clue. Now, he tells you to come up with all possible relationships between this group of 30 individuals. How many possible trees can you come up with? ~5 E 38. The same would be true of natural languages, or computer languages, or anything. The number of possible phylogenetic trees has nothing whatsoever to do with morphological characteristics, or indeed any characteristics. It is purely dependent on the number of taxa, and nothing else.
Now. Why do biologists think that the tree, as depicted, is accurate? For the reasons I've given you. You keep saying there's no biological evidence that the tree is correct, but I have to insist you're simply wrong there. And in any event, whether the tree is in fact correct (or could even be attempted) is only part of the argument for common descent. The other part of the equation is the nested hierarcies that all life forms fall into. There are no protostomes with feathers. There are no bacteria with mitochondira. There are no vertebrates with exoskeletons. The only known (and maybe the only possible) explanation for such nested hierarchies is common descent with modification. Therefore, whether you believe that neodarwinian evolution is the cause of common descent with modification, you simply cannot escape the fact of common descent with modification. It is simply a fact that needs explanation.
You asked me once how science knows which morphological features are the important ones. It comes down to which ones allow us to trace out a phylogenetic tree. Bats and birds both have wings, right? So they should be grouped together, right? Wrong. Because the wings don't fall into the other groupings or morphological features that birds and bats naturally fall into. Birds have feathers, avian lungs, hard-shelled eggs, etc., which group them all together. Bats have fur, placentas, mammalian inner ears, etc., which group them all together. This is why phylogenetic relationships need to be traced out using large numbers of characteristics from different independent lines of inquiry. It's the only way to develop well-supported phylogenies, and it's why it takes decades, if not centuries, to figure out the taxonomic relationships among organisms.
But again, common descent is a fact. Nested hierarchies are a fact. They are both facts wanting explanation. You simply cannot plausibly deny they exist. Now, whether God made it all happen, or unguided evolution, that's a separate matter. But you simply cannot get away with claiming there are no relationships among organisms.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,10:12
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I still think you're misinterpreting Theobald's point. The number of potential trees has nothing to do with whether there's a uniform distribution of body plans, or protein conformations, or anything whatsoever. It's exclusively dependent on the number of taxa to be classified. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly. But this is mathematically trivial; what makes the argument potentially relevant to biology is whether or not the classification process itself is truly arbitrary, absent common descent. And this depends on the distribution of morphological characters. Which is decidedly nonrandom in any working ecosystem.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nested hierarchies are a fact. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,12:37
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,16:12) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nested hierarchies are a fact. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, this is what I should have said: "Nested hierarchies" is not a hypothesis; it's an observation. There are no known exceptions to the observation of nested hierarchies, when one looks at the totality of the evidence.
Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification.
One possible explantion for common descent with modification is directed evolution, i.e., evolution directed by some sort of supernatural intelligence. Another possible explanation is embodied by neodarwinian evolution. But in either event, it is long past the point where it is possible to deny either nested hierarchies or common descent with modification.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,13:05
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And this is where we disagree. You seem to be saying that large groups of morphological characters can triangulate a tree, and thereby make it factual (at least on some branches). If so, then why do genetic phylogenies? Any discordant result must be tossed out, given the previously established tree. And if the genes do count, the morphological tree must still in some sense function as a hypothesis that needs testing. Remember, genetic testing wasn't established until the sixties. Are you saying common descent wasn't a fact until then? Or did the phenotypic characters make it factual? I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm really confused about this. (Paley braces for the inevitable witticism......)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,14:03
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,19<!--emo&) | And this is where we disagree. You seem to be saying that large groups of morphological characters can triangulate a tree, and thereby make it factual (at least on some branches). If so, then why do genetic phylogenies? Any discordant result must be tossed out, given the previously established tree. And if the genes do count, the morphological tree must still in some sense function as a hypothesis that needs testing. Remember, genetic testing wasn't established until the sixties. Are you saying common descent wasn't a fact until then? Or did the phenotypic characters make it factual? I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm really confused about this. (Paley braces for the inevitable witticism......) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, no witticisms (at least, none at your expense).
Well, you probably need an expert opinion on this question, but I think you need to look at it this way: for some phylogenetic questions, morphological analysis provides the answer. For others, genetics is the way to go. For still others, the fossil record gives brighter illumination.
It's like any large accumulation of data. Imagine you're trying to determine the weight of the electron. Most of your test results are going to converge on 500 keV. But an occasional result might give a ridiculous answer, like 3.5 geV. Another might give you 1,200 eV. You have to toss those anwers, even if, for the moment, you're not sure why they're wrong.
There are a lot of things about genetics and molecular biology that are only approximately understood. How accurate is the molecular clock when it comes to mutation rates? Well, one way you could calibrate the clock is by comparing the results to what you see in the fossil record. Or what about mutation loci and frequencies in protein analysis? You might need to confirm your results by comparison to morphological studies.
You used an example earlier of a particular protein analysis (might have been cytochrome c, I can't remember) that showed that kangaroos diverged from humans before they diverged from other mammals. Well, we know from lots of other evidence that this isn't true. So we need to find out why the protein evidence is discordant. But since we have, at this stage of the game, a really good idea of approximately when kangaroos and humans diverged, we can use evidence from other areas to try to figure out why the protein evidence gives unexpected answers.
The point is, you have to use huge datasets, coming from indpendent lines of research, to trace out lines of descent. You're looking for confirmation of evidence from as many different areas as possible. I pointed out earlier that guinea pigs and humans have the same mutation that makes the gene for producing ascorbic acid inoperative. Looking at just the genes, you might be forgiven for assuming that guinea pigs are more closely related to humans than, say, macaques are. But you'd be wrong, because it's certainly not impossible that humans and guinea pigs have the same mutation for reasons that have nothing to do with common descent; i.e., sheer bad luck.
Also, I should probably make what might seem like a fine distinction. That there is, in fact, "one true tree," at this point must be regarded as a fact in need of explanation. But a particular tree is still, necessarily, a hypothesis in need of verification. However, as I said, the large-scale structure of the tree is for the most part sufficiently supported to be considered well-settled. But again, as I said earlier, there are definitely regions of the < tree > that are still controversial. Given past successes, it's to be expected that the same lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, will eventually illuminate the true structure of the tree.
At any rate, Bill, people who actually do evolutionary biology are not concerned with the overall structure of the phylogenetic tree (although there are certainly spirited disagreements on the details). There's just too much evidence to support it. I'm wondering if the problems you have with accepting the accuracy of the tree aren't partly a matter of missing the forest for the trees. Or, maybe you're missing the "tree" for the "leaves." :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 11 2005,06:03
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, you probably need an expert opinion on this question, but I think you need to look at it this way: for some phylogenetic questions, morphological analysis provides the answer. For others, genetics is the way to go. For still others, the fossil record gives brighter illumination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.......
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Also, I should probably make what might seem like a fine distinction. That there is, in fact, "one true tree," at this point must be regarded as a fact in need of explanation. But a particular tree is still, necessarily, a hypothesis in need of verification. However, as I said, the large-scale structure of the tree is for the most part sufficiently supported to be considered well-settled. But again, as I said earlier, there are definitely regions of the tree that are still controversial. Given past successes, it's to be expected that the same lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, will eventually illuminate the true structure of the tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough. I think part of our problem is we have different definitions of consilience. My definition stresses the independence of differing lines of evidence, while yours emphasises the unity of knowledge. It's like the baseball Hall of Fame: much of the controversy revolves around differing ideas about what makes a man a hall of famer. Is it the excellence of his play, his notoriety, or his contribution to winning teams that should be given the most weight? Problem is, people don't attempt to define the basic issues; they project their presuppositions instead and wonder why others can't see things their way.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2005,19:33
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 11 2005,12<!--emo&) | Fair enough. I think part of our problem is we have different definitions of consilience. My definition stresses the independence of differing lines of evidence, while yours emphasises the unity of knowledge. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's how I picture things, if you could travel back in time (I don't know if many evolutionary biologists would agree with me here, but I think Dawkins would). The "one true phylogenetic tree," as it applies to me personally, is simply a genealogical tracing all the way back, until we reach the point where we're not talking about life anymore. Go back, say, 5,000 generations, and we're still talking humans. Go back further than that, and we're not talking exactly humans anymore. Go back 15 million years, and we're talking about lower primates. 150 million years, we're talking ancestors who are probably indistinguishable from tree shrews. A billion and a half years, we might be talking about bacteria, or maybe simple eukaryotes. And amazingly, against all odds, every single one of those ancestors, without exception, left descendants. Every one of them, in evolutionary terms, was a success.
The point, Bill, is that unless you believe in some sort of special creation, that has to be the way it happened (let me know if you can think of some alternative story). If you assume life evolved without direct intervention of a creator (or maybe even if you do assume a creator), there's an unbroken chain of living organisms extending backwards in time from me to the simplest forms of life.
And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children). All you have to do is assume that the world is as it appears to be (i.e., a few billion years old), and that there is no special creation. So you can trace my genes back from today, all the way back almost four billion years ago. That's a third of the lifetime of the universe! Isn't that kind of, well…cool?
I'll grant that none of this is very scientific. (But then, I'm not a scientist--or a lawyer, for that matter ) But for me, at least, it's an appealing concept. If you think of your own existence that way, extending backwards in time in some very real fashion almost four billion years ago, your genes coursing through uncounted generations of ancestors, I think it gives you a palpable sense of your place in the universe, and your connectedness to all life. How's that for unity?
Gives me kind of a warm feeling.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2005,08:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The point, Bill, is that unless you believe in some sort of special creation, that has to be the way it happened (let me know if you can think of some alternative story). If you assume life evolved without direct intervention of a creator (or maybe even if you do assume a creator), there's an unbroken chain of living organisms extending backwards in time from me to the simplest forms of life.
And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is an interesting viewpoint, assuming an evolutionary process of course. But I find the last remark rather ominous, and illustrative of the end result of Darwinian philosophy. I'll explain more later tonight if I get a chance, although I may start a new thread. By the way, I think I'll get my rough draft in on time, but I've been surprisingly busy lately. May I ask for a one-week extension? Asbestos diapers don't grow on trees, you know......
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2005,11:14
I don't know if I'll get the extension, so I'll assume its not in effect unless I hear from you.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2005,16:22
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2005,14:48) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is an interesting viewpoint, assuming an evolutionary process of course. But I find the last remark rather ominous, and illustrative of the end result of Darwinian philosophy. I'll explain more later tonight if I get a chance, although I may start a new thread. By the way, I think I'll get my rough draft in on time, but I've been surprisingly busy lately. May I ask for a one-week extension? Asbestos diapers don't grow on trees, you know...... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why ominous? I just mean end, in the sense, more or less of a "bookend," not like the end of the world or anything. If you're the last of your line because everyone died without leaving any children, I guess that could be rather sad, but I've made a personal choice not to have children (don't ask for my reasons unless you want to wade through a 2,000 word essay).
Anyway, yes, you can have your extension. I can certainly wait another week...
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 13 2005,19:15
Asbestos diapers?
Is there some use for those other than flameproofing your hindparts?
By the way, I think I can see where GoP is going with the whole mass of the Earth thing. Perhaps he's going to bring back Einstein and point out that in the mass quantities being discussed, time would be pretty much meaningless, as that much mass compacted to the size of the Earth would be a black hole.
He's not too far off, since the observable universe is certainly compatible with the hypothesis that it is a black hole of some sort, but that's not exactly a hypothesis that Paley wants.
Now, he could be trying to argue that the Earth and the Centauri system are both orbiting a very massive object, which is true, but that massive object appears to be the center of our galaxy.
Meh, geocentricism only makes sense in light of the idea that every observer appears to be at the center of the universe. The problem with this conclusion from a religious standpoint is that it is the ultimate in moral relativism, being as no two observers will agree on anything, and both will be right.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2005,12:14
Hyperion said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Asbestos diapers?
Is there some use for those other than flameproofing your hindparts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, look who just caught up.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, I think I can see where GoP is going with the whole mass of the Earth thing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not if your post is any indication.....
Eric Murphy said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you're the last of your line because everyone died without leaving any children, I guess that could be rather sad, but I've made a personal choice not to have children (don't ask for my reasons unless you want to wade through a 2,000 word essay).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2005,18:18
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2005,18:14) | You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know, I was talking to this woman I met a couple of weeks ago on a bike ride recently. She grew up in Texas, and moved to San Francisco when she was about 25 (she's in her early 30s now). She came from a deeply religious family, and until her mid-twenties she was deeply religious herself. Also, deeply depressed. To the point of suicide.
But as she reached young adulthood, she realized that religion just wasn't working for her. Shedding what for her was an oppressive belief system freed her spirit, and she is by all accounts a very happy, well adjusted person, with a great job, in a great relationship, living in a great city (well, at least those of us who live here think it is).
My point? Generalizations can be dangerous. I know plenty of very happy agnostics, and a lot of miserable religious people, too. I'm not sure one can make any valid generalizations correlating one's spiritual beliefs with one's overall contentment. I myself am a relatively happy person, and I am also happily agnostic.
Just out of curiosity: why do you consider Charles Darwin to be an "imbecile"? I've read On the Origin of Species, and it seems to me to be a well-written, well-thought-out exposition of the then-current state of knowledge of biological diversity, and a closely-reasoned argument attempting to explain that diversity.
Also, even if it were true that belief in non-theistic evolution brought about a spiritual malaise, would that matter--if it were true?
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Nov. 15 2005,03:47
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works). Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2005,07:10
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works). Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you are correct: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. But when two things consistently group together across different nations and cultures, I get suspicious. Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken [about darwin]? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, the man rarely appeared in public, let Huxley and Hooker handle the public presentation of his theory, and possessed indecipherable handwriting that only top echelon cult members can decipher. Means? Plagiarizing Grandpa's work. Motive? Collapse of Western Civilisation. Opportunity? Abundant. Not enough for an indictment, perhaps, but worthy of a "hmmmmmmmm...."
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 15 2005,09:06
Oy.
Seriously now, are you suggesting that social malaise did not exist prior to the discovery of evolution?
I don't think that any scientific theory or even any social movement is, in and of itself, capable of causing unrest. It is people, acting of their own free will, who choose to do so. There always have been and always will be those who choose to play off of various types of social unrest for their own purposes, and they have existed since civilization itself. Accusing "darwinism" of causing social malaise is like accusing religion of doing so because of the Inquisition or the Crusades, which would be an equally absurd statement, as obviously religious people have also done great things in the world.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2005,11:02
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Accusing "darwinism" of causing social malaise is like accusing religion of doing so because of the Inquisition or the Crusades, which would be an equally absurd statement[....] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm certainly not implying that each and every Darwinist is a social misfit, nor that every Christian is a cultural asset. Far from it. But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends. There are lots of short men and tall women, but it would be improper to conclude that women are the taller sex.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- [[.......]as obviously religious people have also done great things in the world. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And maybe someday our textbooks will mention them again.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 16 2005,14:34
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I couldn't have said it better myself.
If you get enough people together debating religion, science, philosophy and politics, you are sure to find some inane comments in the mix. I'm amazed that you consider these quotes as evidence for your point. Surely, you know better than that. One could just as easily head on over to Dembski's blog and find equally enlightened quotes from his followers (if you're willing to actually check, I suggest you read the comments on any post that mentions Islam).
Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence. What are the trends, Paley?
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,10:26
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence. What are the trends, Paley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if you recall, I did mention cross-national satisfaction surveys, but the subject was quickly changed into a debate over crime rates (which I won, in my humble opinion). But the original point still stands: the citizens of the United States, despite the evil machinations of the BED, rank as the happiest in the developed world. And yes, most Amuricans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This suggests a causal link.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,13:54
Mr. Murphy: I forgot that next week is Thanksgiving. I'm planning on visiting relatives, and won't be able to post until the following Tuesday. Sorry, but you'll get your model then.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 17 2005,13:54
---------------------QUOTE------------------- (which I won, in my humble opinion) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I expect no less from you Paley.
If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's. You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing. You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country. You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all. I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related. If "winning the debate" means convincing you of something, then I've a snowballs chance...
You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account. Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries. You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either. Humble opinion, indeed.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still fail to understand why we have to neglect the minorities of this country to massage the result that you want. Blacks and Latinos are Americans too, and they are also religious.
But, besides that. What about these cross-national surveys? I probably didn't see them. Can you point them out again?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,15:48
Cogzoid wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's. You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, but I did demonstrate that: 1) Much of the national decline was driven by a handful of big cities (a claim you initially scoffed at, by the way) 2) At least one of those cities (Boston) adopted Guiliani-style policies 3) There was a change in the American mood, as evidenced by the Republican Revolution in Congress, which proceeded to establish badly-needed welfare reform and encourage tougher enforcement of felony sentences (if bad guys stay in prison longer, they have less opportunity to commit crime; please look at the incarceration statistics) 4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.
And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing. I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hopefully this helps.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A good point, and one I didn't address. Why? Because even if true, it's the kind of solution I could never embrace. Heck, in my opinion, those unborn children should be added to the death total. But I didn't want to focus on that issue, because I knew it would sidetrack our debate. In any case, not all experts are sold on this idea; I've seen challenges to the study that inspired this claim. I'll look them up if you wish.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account. Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I claimed more than that. Even without adjusting for racial disparities, several European countries < have higher victimization rates than ours > (You really need to check out figures six and seven). And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study. And while we're at it, you never did address the Fed's crooked bookkeeping, under which Mestizos are often classified as white if they commit a crime, but as nonwhite if they're victimized. Since Mestizos are much more likely than whites to commit crimes, this artificially inflates the white crime rate. And also implies that whites target blacks for violence more than they really do. Don't kid yourself; this is very deliberate.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either. Humble opinion, indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm struggling to stay polite here - but Cogzoid, really, you have got to be kidding. There is no possible way that you could have missed my citation of The Color of Crime during our original debate - I even quoted part of it again, and practically begged for commentary. I know that lengthy cut n' paste jobs are frowned on here, but you really brought this on yourself:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings: Quote “… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”
Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.
“Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.” Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”
The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.
“Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.” Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”
“… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)
“[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.” Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.
“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”
Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.
Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.
The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.
Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, I will highlight the most relevant bit:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate. [my emphasis, natch] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these conclusions valid? I don't know. But to their credit, these banjo pickin', 'backy chewin' rednecks knew what they were up against, and stuck to Federal Crime data in forming their argument. I'll give them that, at least.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But, besides that. What about these cross-national surveys? I probably didn't see them. Can you point them out again? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you will address this response with more than catcalls, I will pony up the surveys.
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 17 2005,19:36
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, if you recall, I did mention cross-national satisfaction surveys, but the subject was quickly changed into a debate over crime rates (which I won, in my humble opinion). But the original point still stands: the citizens of the United States, despite the evil machinations of the BED, rank as the happiest in the developed world. And yes, most Amuricans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This suggests a causal link. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmmmm...interestingly enough, America is also one of the few countries which has never had an established state religion. I doubt that this is any more causally related than any of your reasons, but it is some food for thought.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2005,20:08
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 17 2005,19:54) | Mr. Murphy: I forgot that next week is Thanksgiving. I'm planning on visiting relatives, and won't be able to post until the following Tuesday. Sorry, but you'll get your model then. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, I've waiting this long. So this is going to be the Unified Field Theory of Geocentrism, right? It will explain the revolutionibus of the orbi as well as Mona Lisa's smile, right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 18 2005,05:23
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Hey, I've waiting this long. So this is going to be the Unified Field Theory of Geocentrism, right? It will explain the revolutionibus of the orbi as well as Mona Lisa's smile, right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks again. Out of curiosity, what's the highest level math you've studied?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 18 2005,09:44
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans. Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations? You're really straining the logic, my friend.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< And went up during G.H.W. Bush's term. > Fluctuations happen, what's your point? Notice the trend in '94. WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE. I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s. I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing. I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is known as confirmation bias, Paley. You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong. There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong. Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind. (Much more grave incorrect predictions if you ask me!) In Levitt's Freakonomics he points out that all parties were guilty of fear mongering over the youth crime wave in the country. He reminds a Republican politician (I can't recall specifics) about his '94 quote something along the lines of "blood will flow in the streets". Later he was accused of saying "bloodbath." He bothered to draw the distinction between the comments, like a good politician. Let's not even get into the discussion of how Republicans distort scientific findings to fit their agenda (mercury levels, global warming studies, abstinence-only effectiveness... etc).
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why? You seem to have already reached your conclusion. You just need to keep massaging the data till you've made your point. Or maybe that's what you mean by "further study"?
I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study. Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates. I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests. I don't walk around with a list of all sources that I use to form my opinions, sorry. This study seems to conflate "crimes committed" and "arrests made". But, that is a minor point overall. Blacks may have higher crime rates. I'll concede the point. However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole. Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors? Are they not religious people? Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not? I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2005,10:29
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 18 2005,11:23) | Thanks again. Out of curiosity, what's the highest level math you've studied? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pre-calculus in high school, about 26 years ago. If there's anything I'm actually good at, it's probably writing. Other than riding my bike ~10E4 km a year.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2005,10:40
Mr. P,
Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups? If one were to compare the relative crime rates committed by each of the two groups when matched for income and social status? I wonder if anyone has ever done such an analysis.
Of course, one confounding factor would be that the top 1% of white European-Americans probably have a much higher income than the top 1% of African-Americans, and if you tried to match incomes across both groups, you probably wouldn't have a big-enough sample to draw any conclusions from the data on African Americans...
But in any event, I have a suspicion that such an analysis would contradict your position that there is a stronger correlation between violent crime and ethnicity than there is between violent crime and socioeconomic status.
And remember Thomas Sowell's words (from "The Vision of the Annointed") that you can basically prove any position with some set of statistics.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 20 2005,11:52
Hi Cogzoid.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause. I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans. Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations? You're really straining the logic, my friend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're mixing the studies up, but that's OK; I get the point. My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the < crime drop in New York City, > an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Fluctuations happen, what's your point? Notice the trend in '94. WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE. I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s. I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr..
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This is known as confirmation bias, Paley. You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong. There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong. Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you've got me on Global Warming. As for the missing WMD, let me just say that I think it's cruel to pick on the mentally retarded, even when they become president.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study. Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates. I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After you left, MidnightVoice floated a similar argument. Please see my response to him. And yes, the study does anticipate your counter.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.
“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Jared's reading this, he's probably laughing his ass off at all the free publicity you're giving him, Cogzoid.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But, that is a minor point overall. Blacks may have higher crime rates. I'll concede the point. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. I've really sold you short. You definitely have earned my respect.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole. Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors? Are they not religious people? Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not? I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then again, maybe not.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) No, but let's face it: when evos talk about the "dangers" of fundamentalist Christianity, they're not referring to Joseph Lowery. They mean Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. White Christians, in other words. 2) When trying to measure the effects of a single variable (religion), it is important to match groups that are as identical as possible in all other ways. This avoids confounding factors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do realise the importance of avoiding confounding factors, don't you, Cogzoid?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 20 2005,17:09
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the crime drop in New York City, an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc. And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics. Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies. Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY. When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause. Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes. I've given an explanation. You've given Republican trunk-waving.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr.. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go. What are these accomplishments I should look at? Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want it both ways, Paley. You don't want to include blacks of our society. Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans. As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks. I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself. Either the Europeans don't post racial data on the web, or I give up too easily. I'm sure you are more capable, however. Your point is as hollow as W's head without such data.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,05:50
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc. And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY. When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause. Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes. I've given an explanation. You've given Republican trunk-waving. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You want it both ways, Paley. You don't want to include blacks of our society. Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans. As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks. I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself. Either the Europeans don't post racial data on the web, or I give up too easily. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go. What are these accomplishments I should look at? Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion.
Eric Murphy said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2005,06:14
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 21 2005,11:50) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Murphy said: [quote]Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Bill, don't you realize that your propensity to believe that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime than a similar group of European-Americans are, in the absence of data to support such a position, makes you a, well, um...racist? By definition?
One other technical question. You say:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can the "80's and mid 90's" be much more conservative than the "1988-1994 period," when the one is a subset of the other? Just curious.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,06:37
---------------------QUOTE------------------- How can the "80's and mid 90's" be much more conservative than the "1988-1994 period," when the one is a subset of the other? Just curious. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, sloppy wording on my part. I meant that the original Bush administration + Congress was less conservative than either Reagan + Democratic Congress or Clinton + Republican Congress. And the media seemed to agree with me, based on what I read at the time.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But Bill, don't you realize that your propensity to believe that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime than a similar group of European-Americans are, in the absence of data to support such a position, makes you a, well, um...racist? By definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Et tu, Murphy, et tu? My understanding of a racist is someone who believes that genetic differences impact on mental performance or emotional stability. A position that I have never argued. What I do assert is that different cultures lead to different results regardless of income. Hey, do a favor for me: look up the results of SAT scores for upper-middle class African-Americans as compared to white americans around the poverty line. See something interesting? Do you think culture might play a role in this? If not, why not? And was Bill Cosby high when he gave his speech criticizing Black culture?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,08:35
By the way, here's my < source > for the SAT claim:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks. • Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000. • Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist.
Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 21 2005,09:10
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night. Your skepticism is duly noted. What about every other major city in the US? Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You a southerner too? I was raised in Slidell. And I've got Cajun relatives that make me look cosmopolitan.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries. Which don't put the US in such a good light.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It must be nice to not need any stupid numbers or data before you reach your conclusions. If only we could all live in your world, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're not all timeless spirits, Paley. I, in fact, wasn't old enough to care about politics in the eighties. Perhaps you can euclidate the accomplishments and anti-accomplishments that I asked you for previously.
So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to. You don't see a problem with that? Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,12:00
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night. Your skepticism is duly noted. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, keep in mind the mass desertion, looting and overall incompetence shown by Nawlins finest.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What about every other major city in the US? Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted < paper. >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries. Which don't put the US in such a good light.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's. Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower < homicide rates > than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one < study > that does just that:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of eight jurisdictions (four states, three provinces and Canada as a whole), Montana had the most homicides per capita over the fifteen year period, with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6, followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at 3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at 1.3.
The first seven averages are in the anticipated range, but the rate for North Dakota is one of the lowest in the world despite an abundance of guns in the hands of its citizens.
The 15 year per capita homicide rate for the three provinces combined was 3.2 per 100,000 compared to 2.7 per 100,000 in the four states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's). This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states. Could population density be a biasing factor?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In response to criticism that the three states contained no large cities, Minnesota was added to the mix. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have a combined population comparable to that of Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pretty interesting results, eh?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to. You don't see a problem with that? Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome. Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors. Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books. Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs. Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables?
You're welcome.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 21 2005,18:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted paper. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well? What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's. Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower homicide rates than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one study that does just that: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities. To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there. Something you have yet to do.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For this to be true one has to believe that the big G or Newt had anything to do with the drop in crime in America. I do not take that assumption as blindly as you do. And you have yet to show it.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HA! Have you been to any of those states?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the murder rates flatly disagree with you. And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get. You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at. (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you never answered my questions about what accomplishments and anti-accomplishments by the Dems or Rebs resulted in the crime fluctutations.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would they fudge more or less murders as they cooked these books?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You doubt the crime rates, not me. You want to look at victimization, not me. I like to look at objective numbers, such as murders. Which are counted as bodies, not counted as arrests. And my revised contention is that being religious doesn't help us keep down murders. In fact, our murder rates our worse. I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills. I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others. And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables? Your welcome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future. I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating.
-Dan
Posted by: celtic_elk on Nov. 22 2005,04:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, here's my source for the SAT claim: [QUOTE] But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks. • Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000. • Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist.
Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies. [/QUOTE]
I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels. Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?
Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition. This is conjecture, as I don't have the data to support this at the moment, but a simple comparison of the number of students who take the SATs vs. the number of students eligible in each income bracket should prove or disprove my hypothesis.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,04:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well? What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- [Your study] succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities. To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there. Something you have yet to do. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But the murder rates flatly disagree with you. And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get. You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at. (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on.
More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,07:55
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels. Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't see why not. Many successful blacks describe themselves as "bicultural", and occasionally complain about the stress this puts on their everyday life. And I've read books where white-collar blacks express extreme frustration with the corporate (i.e. white) world, and complain about cultural isolation.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sure that this explains some of it. But then why the positive correlation between income level and SAT scores? Rich and middle-class whites somehow find a way to outscore these poverty-stricken prodigies. And don't these rich black kids have access to better schools, tutors, etc.? It seems that you're reaching here.
Posted by: celtic_elk on Nov. 22 2005,07:55
GoPaley:
Also in re: the SAT claim: the source you listed (the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) cites its source only as "The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT." I was, however, unable to find a race-and-income breakdown for this year's scores in the official College Board national report (which, for interested parties, can be found < here >). It contains racial breakdowns and income-level breakdowns, but no breakdowns combining the two. Can you provide an alternate source with the actual data?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 22 2005,10:12
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these scandals related to how they count bodies? I can't imagine that many suicides are wrongly attributed to being murders. Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates. This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
America didn't "win" it was comparable. And it was only the low population states of America that were compared to the low population states of Canada. Why didn't they use the data comparing the higher population states of America, with the higher population states of Canada? I've got a reason in mind. And no, the low population states of Canada are not a suitable proxy for the Old World countries. You're smarter than that.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And once again you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter. I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate. There are plenty of unreported rapes, robberies, and other crimes. There are also definitional issues. Some places lump frat guys taking advantage of a drunk girl as equal to a jogger getting dragged into the bushes in a city park. Are both equal rapes? There are alot of subjective statistics. Which is why the data from my sources and your sources often disagree. Which is also why victimization surveys are prone to error. But a murder results in a tangible dead body, or a missing person. It's easy to count those up. No one "feels" murdered. They either are or they aren't. All of those other crimes are surely important and wreck a persons life, but they simply aren't prone to accurate statistics.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries? Don't they all have thugs? Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America? Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.
And don't try to pass off < white thugs > as being liberal.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,12:17
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates. This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think your last sentence is potentially false. Crooked police in general do try to deflate the crime rate, and this would apply to all countries. But I think it's a fallacy to assume that: 1) All police agencies are equally corrupt and incompetent 2) All countries will attempt the same manipulations
Let's take the F.B.I., for example. Earlier I showed evidence of hanky-panky in how they classify perps vs victims. But did they do it to lower the crime rate? No, they were far too busy playing pin the tail on the honkey for that. Result: No net crime deflation. But let's look at an American city during the mid-nineties. The city's finest know that the whole world watches New York, and when good things happen there, they'd like to share in the glory. Result: the crime stats plummet. Now let's look at a European country such as Great Britain during the mid-nineties. You've got a spanking-new gun policy, you're liberalizing immigration laws, and you read the papers and see the policing success in America and Canada. You'd like a piece of the action, and what's more, you don't want to alarm the public unnecessarily. So what do you do? Well, you carry out your tried-and- failed twin strategies of yanking guns from the civilians and letting in boatloads of terrorists, fanatics, and other enemies of civilisation. Predictably, this fails. Plan B? Let's let < my source take it from here: >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."
For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.
More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.
Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries? Don't they all have thugs? Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America? Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's a big difference between intra-thug violence fueled by the drug trade and thugs attacking civilians. While both are regrettable, the second concerns me more since I don't plan on selling, or even buying, drugs.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But what shall I do when the fruits of liberal policy create them?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 23 2005,09:27
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'll let you draw your own conclusions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great source, Paley. An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to < sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets. > You'll pardon me if I don't trust every source you shill. There are online articles to back up almost ANY possible viewpoint. Just because you find them doesn't make them important.
The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today. A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.
(Just to explain, we are having multiple arguments at the same time. The drop in crime in the US in the mid-90s and how the US compares to the rest of the world.)
-Dan
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 23 2005,12:13
As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online. < This recent article > hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics. Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?
Now, I'm not going to sit here and whine about such statistical manipulation. I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2005,05:35
GoP:
How are we doing on our ToE?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,07:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online. This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics. Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Cogzoid, you're only proving my case. Your own source concedes that the hopitalization rate matches Guiliani's figures during the period of the Big Drop:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In 1993, the last year of David Dinkins's administration, health department officials created an "injury surveillance system," hoping to monitor weapons-related assaults against young men. At first, they surveyed only hospitalizations. With the decline in shootings in the city, the number of hospitalizations caused by assaults dropped sharply, right through 1999, but then leveled off.
In the meantime, seeking better information on assaults against women, health department officials expanded the survey in 1997 to include emergency room visits in addition to hospitalizations.
From then until 2002, the number of assault victims who were either hospitalized or treated in emergency rooms in the city went up in every year but one for a total increase of 19 percent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So when you say:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're just supporting my point that the Miracle was real, and not an artifact of shady bookkeeping.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Great source, Paley. An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your inability to refute their position is duly noted.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today. A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the quote came from a 2000 Inspectorate of Constabulary report, not the 1996 article you're referencing. And the report also takes current homicide classifications to task:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- "American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect that British cops would know something about British crime classification and accounting, but I've been told before that I'm hopelessly naive, so help me out, Cogzoid.
My contention that we should use as many sources as possible to triangulate the data seems as sound as ever.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,08:40
---------------------QUOTE------------------- GoP:
How are we doing on our ToE? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pretty well, although some formatting problems are forcing me to split my paper into several sections. I'll try to summarise some of the main points tonight or tomorrow.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,12:52
---------------------QUOTE------------------- GoP:
How are we doing on our ToE? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since there is a problem calculating the mass of the earth assuming Alpha Centauri and the rest of the universe orbit it, the evolutionists thing they have refuted the Biblical truth of geocentricism¡Xnot so!!!! The truth is that neither Alpha Centauri nor any other of the fixed stars orbits the earth via gravitational attraction. They are locked into a large conducting Gaussian sphere of dense ether.
Gauss Law states:
(1)
This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.
(2) =0 R<r
Now the period of this function is the distance from the sphere of the fixed stars to the center of God¡¦s creation, the earth. (Remember, this is the only section of the domain of R we care about, you can¡¦t bitch if the model does not work in the Empyrean. In addition, since this is an even-range expansion about R=0, it goes into ¡§negative R¡¨ space. This is as physically meaningless as evolutionism, but necessary for the model to work! The first terms of the series are:
(3) (4)
This is the A0 term
(5) (6)
These are the An terms.
.
(7)
(9)
Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. Now, we know the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars, it is 4.5 light-years. (The Triple Centauri System is something of an anomaly, since it serves as a revolving door for angels to pass in and out of the Empyrean, it protrudes a little.) We also know the value of the permittivity constant , and the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.) All that is unknown now is the charge outside the sphere of the fixed stars, Q.
We can find Q by calculating how the field gradient inside the sphere of the fixed stars from the 2.7K uniform temperature the evolutionistic Soviet agents Penzias and Wilson. They called this the ¡§echo of the big bang¡¨ in order to score a propaganda victory for the motherland by ¡§proving¡¨ Gamow¡¦s theory. In a paper published in Physical Review Letters in 1976 showing the relationship between Temperature and field gradient at a given temperature is:
(10)1
Here eqe1 is the field gradient at Temperature T which is 2.7K, and eq0e1 is the field gradient at 0K. Since the field has no angular variation, the field gradient can be assumed to be E¡¦®. Now, here is the formula:
(11)
Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨
Continuing with our discussion of equation 10, approaches the inverse of the fine structure constant, 137 as the crystal becomes more perfect. In addition, in perfect quintessence the Debye temperature, TD also approaches the same value. (This flows from the electromagnetic nature of the universe which you will not see in papers because it proposes a direct, in-your-face challenge to the gravity-based, big bang evolutionistic model.) The constant ƒ× is given by the formula:
(12)1
Filling in the numbers, we have: (13)
50.7413 (Real answer)
The other constant, ƒÒ can be assumed to be 1. Finally, Equation 10 with numbers comes out to be:
(14) -0.0014781
Now, when we set equation 14 equal to equation 11, and set the values for and the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars r (4.5 light-years), and set R equal to the radius of the earth. (In the absence of the sun, the temperature would be 2.7K, so I can get away with this. This is the temperature due to the electric field gradient.) We can calculate a value for Q in the Empyrean to be:
1.46088 X10^46 C
This is a very big number. I bet you¡¦re wondering how this much charge can exist. The answer is in the stars themselves. This plasma flow is how the angels keep the stars shining. How this works will be discussed in subsequent posts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,12:57
K. Nishiyama, F. Dimmling, Th. Kornrumpf, and D. Riegel Theory of the Temperature Dependence of the Electric Field Gradient in Noncubic Metals
Phyical Review Letters 37,357-360 1976
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,14:14
Sorry for all the formatting errors, but this gives a sample of my thinking. To summarize, in recognition of the relative strength of electromagnetic forces vis-a-vis gravity I have used Gauss's Law in conjunction with an equation relating temperature and field gradients to derive the cosmic microwave background value. No reference to the Big Clang required. But I will not stop here. The next section of the paper will discuss the infamous n-body problem in the context of induced dipole moments. I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2005,19:29
Actually, none of that meant anything to me, since I never even took calculus in high school. But I do have one question about your postulate of a fixed sphere of stars 4.5 ly away.
How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero?
Posted by: Swoosh on Nov. 28 2005,21:52
O. M. G.
That's classic. Thanks for the chuckles, spooky.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Nov. 29 2005,04:45
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please review Gauss. It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly. The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r} = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0. A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}. More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.
So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament. So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis. Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."
That said, your argument is of course complete bullocks, and doesn't match with certain other observed phenomenon, such as the aforementioned parallax (btw, it is the fact that the observed parallaxes are non-equal, not non-zero, that falsifies the spherical firmament hypothesis - a non-zero but equal parallax would indicate a wobbling firmament).
Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution. In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution. Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds." If you must use a term, perhaps Galileonic or something similar? That would be much more accurate.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Nov. 29 2005,08:47
Truly, er-- staggering, wisp. I especially like this bit:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The similarities are already glaring. Let's see, megalomaniac delusions of overturning whole disciplines, useless and confusing formalisms, hand-waving bluster, obfuscating use of higher mathematics to impress the rubes, utter disconnect to reality...
I'd say your "oeuvre" belongs in the same (circular) file as D*mbski's already, husk.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2005,12:26
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Please review Gauss. It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly. The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r} = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0. A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}. More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.
So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament. So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis. Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems so, doesn't it? But I'll justify my use of the Fourier series in the next installment, and solve a few conundrums while I'm at it.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2005,13:08
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it definitely wouldn't be non-equal. It might be non-zero, but if everything's the same distance from the earth, everything should have the same parallax, even if it's non-zero, due to divine sloppiness.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2005,13:36
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26) | Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:
The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?
Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…
Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.
Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."
Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?
Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere?
I'm sure I'll think of other phenomena in need of explanation, but I thought I'd give you a few to get you started.
And yes, I will expect an explanation for all of them, since there's already a perfectly good, non-geocentric, explanation for them. No one said re-writing the laws of nature was going to be easy, or quick.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2005,15:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2005,05:46
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,21:56) | That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, none of my questions are criticisms. I'm just wondering if your theory will have the breadth and explanatory power of the theory it purports to replace (I will admit that I've made certain predictions on that subject).
Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2005,07:24
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough. Actually, my first summary was a failed effort in that direction. I'll expand my abstracts a little more in the future. And by the way:
Dembski -> The Wizard
Berlinski -> The Master.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2005,15:37
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Please review Gauss. It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly. The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r} = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0. A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}. More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vickland, although still basically stupid, is intelligent for an evolutionist. Vicky, I am aware of the equations for a Gaussian sphere of thickness greater than zero. However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Indeed, they are hypersolid, to stretch a metaphor. In addition, you appear to be confused about the symbols; this is partially my fault; that registered trademark symbol is actually the derivative of the field with respect to R, which is the field gradient if there is no angular variation.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So there is no discontinuity present, ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this point you're correct. There is no authentic discontinuity, even as the thickness of the shell approaches zero. (Review your Delta functions if you have trouble understanding this.)
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The thickness is differential, my use of Fourier series is absolutely correct in light of this fact.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution. In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution. Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionism was revealed to Nimrod by Satan at the Tower of Babel. It was not invented by a 19th century retard with a rich family who had a bunch of books ghost-written for him. Although an utter dolt, Chuckie had connections to dark powers that orcs like yourself following him can not begin to understand, even with liberal use of pinhead's cokespoon. He gave his money and his soul to the purveyors of Atlantean magic in exchange for fame.
One more thing Wally--that is your first name, isn't it?--please find an optics expert for Nicky. In conclusion, all these issues will be resolved in due time, so please, I continue to beseech all of you to be patient.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2005,19:08
I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales. But if you do know what you're talking about, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you hold Mr. Wizard in such high regard. It seems like the guy isn't even very competent in his own field of information theory…
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 01 2005,11:03
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here are some clues, Eric:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unjustified call for multiple dimensions. He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily. He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions. To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length. Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume? Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Needlessly working out lenghty expansions. Don't let it impress you as much as he wants it to. His basic assumptions have yet to be justified by anything.
Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math. You surely won't go over mine. I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory. Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 01 2005,15:55
Cogzoid said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math. You surely won't go over mine. I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory. Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm glad you find science so entertaining, Cogzie. But I must admit I find some of your actions strange for such a maths wizard:
1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God). 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion. 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this. Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Unjustified call for multiple dimensions. He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily. He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions. To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length. Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume? Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the < Klein bottle >, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided < Moebius strip >! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 01 2005,18:02
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't want to revist the debate, but apparently you want to bring it up anyway. You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately. I often get bored by your condescending drivel. But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're correct, I decided to throw out the rape, assaults, car thefts, etc. data, as I feel that those things are too subjective, or inaccurately gathered. I'm allowed to refine my argument as we argue, am I not? Was I not clear when I said "I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter. I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate."
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pardon me, I thought you were just being condescending. And I generally don't reply to rudeness. I thought that I had explained my reasoning for comparing heterogeneous populations: "I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills. I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others. And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities." You gave no comment to this, perhaps you passed over it? Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry, is this a question? My apathy and surgery pain prevent me from replying to this one.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........ ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, higher dimensional objects don't have to be renderable in lower dimensions. What 7 dimensional object is our star pattern then, such that it doesn't have 3D volume. Perhaps you'd care to Euclidate. I just don't want you to get a free ride on the Theory of Everything. Why did you pick 7? Or is it because that is a Godly number?
All I can stomach at the moment, Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,05:52
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,06:55
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately. I often get bored by your condescending drivel. But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry to hear about your surgery. I hope that you have a fast recovery.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 02 2005,09:24
Thanks, Paley. I'm sure I'll be back in the saddle soon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2005,09:34
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,11:52) | Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And boy are you ever.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,10:21
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,11:52) Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.
And boy are you ever. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With all due respect, having the Commander-in-Chimp representing us is like being told you've won the lottery, but are being paid in Monopoly money...........
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2005,13:16
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,16:21) | With all due respect, having the Commander-in-Chimp representing us is like being told you've won the lottery, but are being paid in Monopoly money........... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, I'd be the first to admit that anyone who thinks the current administration is in any way implementing "conservative" policies is hallucinating.
But, what does any of this have to do with the original topic of this thread?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 02 2005,17:37
Paley,
I'm catching a slight bit of energy, and I'd like to point out some aspects about your theory. Rather than fill pages of text about it's problems, I'll just focus on a small aspect at a time. In general, I have no problem with the equations or substititions that he made, although I cannot follow it that well due to some formatting errors in the written text. An example is this:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means. I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.
My focus today will be on:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨ ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm curious about the nature of your ether. A perfect crystalline solid, eh? My understanding of crystals is that they are ordered "atoms". Table salt for example being a lattice of Na and Cl atoms, that generally are in a simple "every other" pattern. What are the "atoms" of ether made of? Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand? If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it? If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators? What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky? How do the stars get trapped in it? Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter? Is this the same as Michelson and Morley's ether? (I'm assuming you'll claim they couldn't find any because the earth isn't moving afterall.) Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether? Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies?
That's all I have for right now.
-Dan
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 03 2005,14:06
Dear Ghost of Paley,
How in the world did I ever miss your postings! This has been an enormously refeshing thread. Today was the first time I've ever seen your postings.
I'm really enjoying your fine work. I feel much humbled to see your intellect and humor shine through. I may not agree with everything, but I enjoy reading your posts.
regards, Salvador Cordova
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 03 2005,14:52
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:
Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future. I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, we want more, we want more.
Sal
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2005,22:09
Salvador
You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2005,11:54
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Salvador
You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact. One of the few transitions, I note, that can be easily found in the Evo literature.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote
Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:
Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future. I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating
No, we want more, we want more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, don't worry about that. I can tone down the sass upon request, but ain't no-one takin' away my right to say 2+2=4, even if he is a fellow Southerner, or his last name is.....O'Brien.
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 04 2005,13:29
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical. Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....
Even a slight parody of creationism is far superior to serious Darwinism (a joke trying to pretend to be a serious theory).
Ah yes, Dembski's sublime writings, good for the soul. Far superior to the plagerism Chuck committed against the creationist Blythe....
Sal
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2005,15:03
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 04 2005,17:54) | Oh, don't worry about that. I can tone down the sass upon request, but ain't no-one takin' away my right to say 2+2=4, even if he is a fellow Southerner, or his last name is.....O'Brien. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, but before this discussion goes completely off the rails: how are we doing with your accounting for the various astronomical observations I set out a few pages back? I'm waiting with bated breath...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2005,00:10
Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote, with that disarming irony
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As with evolutionary theory, evidence accumulates with your every post to establish the theory beyond rational argument.
Salvador, you wrote
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree to the extent that Mr Paley does not lack wit or literary skill. Which is why I find it impossible to believe he is serious about geocentrism. By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?
Cogzoid
I hope you can laugh and sneeze OK now. Having just had my prostate removed, I can empathise. But, looking on the bright side, forced recuperation at home for the next couple of weeks or so will allow endless opportunities to engage the rapier mind of Mr Paley.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,06:46
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Okay, but before this discussion goes completely off the rails: how are we doing with your accounting for the various astronomical observations I set out a few pages back? I'm waiting with bated breath... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I realise I've been slow to respond lately. I'll try to get something up tonight that addresses a few of the issues. Mr. Cordova will have to provide the fireworks for now....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,09:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means. I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, this is my fault. That symbol was supposed to be Pi. I will resolve the graphical issues in my posts that will explain it all.
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 05 2005,10:27
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're phrasing of my position is inaccurate to the max. It is symptomatic of a malady I see amongnst many deniers of design.
I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski. Good medine for the soul. It will clarify thy confused thinking.
When thou hast read Design Inference and No Free Lunch, I can then set you straight on your plentitudinous miscomprehensions of ID.
But you must own the books first. You can do so by making combined donation to the wedge for $110.00
< No Free Lunch > for $35.00
and
< Design Inference > for $75.00
And if you can't fork up the money, I recommend fasting every week so you can save up to make the donations. Fast and repent of Darwin, and you will see the light.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,10:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What are the "atoms" of ether made of? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are made of qunitessence, of course. Differentially sized sized crystals provide a way to preserve the material structure of the universe, but also its continuiuty. My theory has finally settled the debate between the atomists and Aristotaliens. The material world is real, but still exhibits no disorder.
I hope this sheds some light on the overall evolutionism/intellegent design debate. Evolutionists think like their atomistic predecessors that matter moves randomly in an empty void until interacting with other randomly interacting matter. Intellegent design theorists (Plato and Aristotle belong in this category, despite not having access to the Bible.) responded by claiming that intellegence is necessary for the order and purpose in the universe, but failed to fully account for thge material world. (This is the source of the evolutionistic wailing that intellegent design is a "supernatural" explanation and can hence be dismissed.) My crystalline ether theory makes it possible for final causes to be made manifest in the material universe, for thought itself can move objects of differential size. I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,11:08
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,12:46) | Yeah, I realise I've been slow to respond lately. I'll try to get something up tonight that addresses a few of the issues. Mr. Cordova will have to provide the fireworks for now.... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it's worth, Bill, I don't think you're a parody. I do think you're an instigator who likes to rile people up, and I don't think you necessarily believe everything you say you believe. You certainly don't believe the entire universe revolves around the earth. I think you've hinted at your agenda earlier, which I still think is ill-conceived. But I'm very curious to see what your next substantive post will say...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2005,11:19
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski. Good medine for the soul. It will clarify thy confused thinking. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah! Maybe this is Bill himself shilling. Perhaps the < fast-food trade > is a liitle slow this time of year.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,14:09
Sorry for the typos - I hit the "Add Reply" key when I meant to preview.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- For what it's worth, Bill, I don't think you're a parody. I do think you're an instigator who likes to rile people up, and I don't think you necessarily believe everything you say you believe. You certainly don't believe the entire universe revolves around the earth. I think you've hinted at your agenda earlier, which I still think is ill-conceived. But I'm very curious to see what your next substantive post will say...[my emphasis] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,15:09
Empirical support for the quintessence can be found < here. > Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well, but this should give a sample of my thinking:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Last year, while Kim was a graduate student, he and physicist Moses Chan used the can to squeeze ultracold helium into a crystalline solid that appears to flow without resistance--like a liquid with no viscosity. For decades physicists had mused about such a bizarre "supersolid," and others had searched for and failed to find it. So Kim and Chan's results have touched off a flurry of activity among experimenters and a debate among theorists as to whether it's even possible for a perfect crystal to flow. They are rejuvenating helium physics, a small field that has played a large role in shaping modern physics (see sidebar, p. 39).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For more enlightenment, please consult < this paper. > I think the calculations are a bit crude, but it's a good starting point for my monograph, which will also use the concept of dipole moments to explain the n-body "gravitational" phenomenon. Given the relative magnitude of < Coulomb > forces to gravity, this approach should be fruitful, and my marriage of Bose to Maxwell will lead to the unification of all physics.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:07
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,20<!--emo&) | Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm saying exactly what I mean. I don't think you're a parody (i.e., someone who believes evolution is a broadly accurate description of reality who is pretending to be a creationist, and someone who claims to be a geocentrist just to goad the scientists on this site), but I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.
In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.
But I still want to hear your explanations for the various phenomena I pointed out. I see it as an exercise for your ingenuity. :-)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:12
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,21:09) | For more enlightenment, please consult < this paper. > I think the calculations are a bit crude, but it's a good starting point for my monograph, which will also use the concept of dipole moments to explain the n-body "gravitational" phenomenon. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Busted link alert.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:18
Completely off-topic: I was at Trader Joe's last night, and saw some Guacamole called "Avocado's Number." Supposedly it was made from the meat of only five avocados, though. Off by about 23 orders of magnitude, or a bit more than my estimate of the earth's mass using Bill's assumptions.
:-)
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 05 2005,18:54
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me try to understand this. The stars are caught in a perfect crystal of dark energy. Of course, bringing quintessence into this only raises more questions. First off, what do you mean by "their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament"? Don't be afraid of concise physics jargon, Paley. I'm certainly not. Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale? That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement. Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure? Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options? Every crystal has axes. Why would quintessence crystals be different? Of course, I know the real reason they have to be. Because you are afraid of proposing a theory with falsifiable consequences.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- for thought itself can move objects of differential size. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
experiment?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're getting ahead of yourself, little breeches. What proof? You haven't even finished your theory. Besides, I haven't even started with the critiques, my friend.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Empirical support for the quintessence can be found here. Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you meant "Empircal support for super-fluid solids is < here >." Nothing is mentioned about quintessence. Nothing at all. The properties of baryons cannot be transferred to other forms of matter. Not even fermions. Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?
You forgot some questions, Paley:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand? If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it? If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators? What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky? How do the stars get trapped in it? Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter? Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether? Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want to start with a clear theory, don't you? You don't want to be accused of dodging honest questions about your theory.
So far, I've given you nothing but honest, straight questions about your theory, Paley. I'll need you to flush it out more (and correct the previous formatting errors) before I can begin to critique it.
--Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,06:24
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Busted link alert. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And this after I checked the *&^%$ link twice. Let me try again:
< A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal. > Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics. This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- [B]ut I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.
In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really, although I can see where you got that impression. Even if that had been my intention, it wouldn't have worked, since you and Cogzoid have admitted that you don't have any training in Evo biology. Now if P.Z. or Nick or Lilith had to retreat to sniping at my geocentrism, this would have established the paucity of support for Darwinism. But I'll stick to physics for now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,07:38
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale? That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement. Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure? Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options? Every crystal has axes. Why would quintessence crystals be different? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter. My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. For example, < my condensate > can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing. Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2005,07:57
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 06 2005,13:38) | Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know, Bill, statements like this put up everyone's crank-alerts. :-)
I suppose we should be flattered that a Nobel candidate would bother to visit our humble discussion group, but let's just say the likelihood of something like that actually happening are pretty slim. The chances that any Nobel candidate would really be a geocentrist are beyond slim. So—
A. You actually are a Nobel candidate, in which case I was right about you; or
B. You're not a Nobel candidate, but I was probably still right about you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,08:03
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So—
A. You actually are a Nobel candidate, in which case I was right about you; or
B. You're not a Nobel candidate, but I was probably still right about you. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahhhh.....an Evo prediction in full flower!
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,08:33
Something quick before I head out,
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't dichotomize between the two. I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley. What does "baryonic in structure" mean? Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't. And why is Darwin the constant measuring stick for a scientist. All of this stuff was developed long after his death. You might as well say "properties that founder Newton" as at least he was in the relevant field.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- For example, my condensate can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BECs aren't magic, Paley. They are a straightforward product of the BE statistics in thermodynamics and stat mech. The only pigeonhole preventer here is your deliberately obfuscating language. (By design, I'm sure.)
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citing Nobel-level physics is easy. Understanding it and using it are entirely different beasts. So far you've demonstrated that you know how to look things up, but your lack of understanding comes through in your exposition. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. And unfortunately for you, I'm not prone to having the physics wool pulled over my eyes.
You still have many questions that you need to address.
-Dan
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,11:10
I just realized that I made a mistake. I was talking about dark energy when I said "Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?" But, when Paley said: "Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter." I should've pointed out his error, instead of saying this "I didn't dichotomize between the two. I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new."
Now, let me describe the error. Dark Matter is most definitely NOT Dark Energy. They are completely different beasts with completely different effects on our universe. Despite the fact that E=mc^2, even. Dark Matter is a kludge to properly accomodate for the dispersion of rotational velocities of galaxies. The stars on the fringe of the galaxy are moving way too fast, if the visible matter is all there is. Of course, there was a recent paper about this problem being solved by a complete usage of GR in the calculation. The basic idea is that the Newtonian approximations weren't good enough, afterall. I'm not sure of how this paper has been accepted yet. Dark Energy, on the other hand, is another kludge, but on a universal scale. Dark Energy is used to explain why the universe seems to still be accelerating in it's expansion rate. Until recent data showed otherwise, we assumed we were in a universe that was slowing down it's expansion, as gravitational forces took their toll. Now it seems that not only is our universe not slowing down, but it's speeding up. This surely won't help our future star travel prospects. Paley, confused Dark Energy and Dark Matter. I did too. I hope this fixes any confusion.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal. Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics. This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This paper, once again, has nothing to do with quintessence. It describes more about our friend, super-fluid Helium.
I think you are under the impression that because you use the same words as they do that they are supporting your argument. But, you made an assumption: that there is a sphere of supersolid, crystalline quintessence. These people are writing papers about supersolid, superfluid Helium. Now you have to connect the two, before you claim any evidence for your theory. Surely, you can claim that your theory relies on these supersolid theories. But until you demonstrate some evidence of the nature of your quintessence, these Helium experiments and theories don't support your theory at all. As an example, you can make a theory that requires the earth to be hollow. But until you demonstrate that it is, theories about how basketballs are hollow do not support your theory. I'm not sure what logical fallacy this is, but it's a big one, and I hope you stop using it, now that I've pointed it out to you.
Cheers, Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,11:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley. What does "baryonic in structure" mean? Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board. Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs? I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2005,12:09
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 06 2005,13:38) | My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. For example, < my condensate > can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know, Bill. How are these properties different from any superfluid? Any crystal (e.g., table salt) can "slow light, fiddle with refractive indices..." And any superfluid (e.g., helium II) flows without friction.
Doesn't sound all that impressive to me...
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,14:22
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really should hold yourself to higher standards.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm asking you to concisely describe your crystalline quintessence. You lead, I'll follow.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sigh. I guess I'll never get a straight answer out of you. I'm not asking you to divulge info about someone else's thoery. I'm asking you about your own, Paley. Are you afraid of somehow being wrong?
So, I'll help you out. Let me know what part of this I have wrong, if any. Then you can correct that part.
Ether is made up of a crystal of quintessence particles. Each little particle is differential in size and behaves like a boson. Together they form a super-solid crystal that can flow without friction, much like the recently discovered Bose-Einstein Condensates and the recent work on Solid He4.
Now, you still have plenty more questions to answer.
Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand? What forces does quintessence interact with? Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak? If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it? If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators? What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?) Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky? How do the stars get trapped in it? Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter? Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,08:41
I'll try to fill in the details later tonight, but here are a few answers to Cogzoid's questions:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What forces does quintessence interact with? Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you haven't seen the model yet, we don't know how it all fits together. But later we will.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See above. The quark structure is different, so no, not at present. Don't worry, I'll propose some tests along with the model.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?) Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Infinitesimal" and "no", respectively. Remember, bosonic materials don't obey Pauli. And the quark alignment (along with the unique optical properties present in most condensates) would be impossible to detect with a telescope. Once again, I'll propose some tests later.
Eric - don't worry, I'll give your questions due consideration tonight (hopefully). I just think it's important to answer the primary structure questions before hitting the secondary and tertiary structure of my model.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2005,08:47
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 07 2005,14:41) | Eric - don't worry, I'll give your questions due consideration tonight (hopefully). I just think it's important to answer the primary structure questions before hitting the secondary and tertiary structure of my model. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems like a lotta work just to show that the sun goes around the earth. :-)
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,10:52
As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.
Can you hold it in your hand?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What forces does quintessence interact with?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand. The atoms that make up your skin push on each other. It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting. The electro-weak force is the force that keeps the ground below our feet "solid". Quarks have nothing to do with it. In one sentence you say I can't touch it. Then you say that it reacts to the electro-weak forces. Which is it? I hope you can see how you making such a simple and basic mistake undermines your future endeavors in my mind. Already your understanding is inconsistent with small things. How can you be trusted to come up with a consistent grand unified theory?
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2005,11:28
Quote (cogzoid @ Dec. 07 2005,16:52) | Already your understanding is inconsistent with small things. How can you be trusted to come up with a consistent grand unified theory?
-Dan ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I can't wait to see the answers to my questions. :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,12:14
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand. The atoms that make up your skin push on each other. It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present. Instead, I must repeat myself:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like, perhaps, a < photon. >
How are photons classified, Cogzie?
More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,13:22
One more thing: I didn't mean to imply that photons carry both the weak and electromagnetic forces. It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course. This also explains this comment:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hadrons are not the building blocks of quintessence, so something else must explain its interaction with the strong force.
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 07 2005,14:11
Sounds like this stuff can do it all, a kind of goo of the gaps.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,14:41
Paley, you almost make a good point. Photons react with the electro-weak force. But we can't hold photons! What gives?!
Photons, however, still react with our atoms. Put your hand between the screen and your eyes to demonstrate. One can't "hold" the photons for a number of reasons. Firstly, they get absorbed by the atoms. Secondly, they go the speed of light, so they would need to be trapped some how. A trap, maybe like the lattice of some magic crystal, would suffice.
You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand. It's all electric.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you should look up self-aggrandizing. Saying that you are over your head when you demonstrate lack of understanding of fundamental physics while attempting to formulate a GUT doesn't seem like a ridiculous comment to me.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm also teaching the non-physicists that are reading this thread, Paley. Your sarcasm is unwarranted.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley. Looking at < your website > it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force. Photons and W and Z Bosons do that. First paragraph, too. I'm dissappointed, Paley.
But, please, don't let these details slow you down. I'm still waiting for the next installment with bated breath.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,15:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley. Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force. Photons and W and Z Bosons do that. First paragraph, too. I'm dissappointed, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sloppy wording on my part, yes. W and Z bosons mediate the weak force, but they can only act on < leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception). > By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand. It's all electric.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, I've really been < misinformed: >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either bosons (named: mesons), or fermions (named: baryons) Ordinary baryons contain three valence quarks or three valence antiquarks each. Nucleons are the proton and the neutron, the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei. Hyperons such as the Ä, Ë, Î and Ù particles are generally short-lived and heavier than nucleons. They do not normally appear in atomic nuclei. Ordinary mesons contain a valence quark and a valence antiquark, and include the pions, the kaons and many other types of mesons. In quantum hadrodynamic models the strong force between nucleons is mediated by mesons. Exotic baryons have been discovered only recently. Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks and one valence antiquark. Exotic mesons are predicted by new theories. Tetraquarks consist of two valence quarks and two valence antiquarks. Glueballs are bound states of two or more real gluons. Hybrid s consist of one or more valence quark-antiquark pairs and one or more real gluons. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep, those quarks sure are unrelated to a particle's structure.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,18:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Sloppy wording on my part, yes. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not just sloppy wording. It's incorrect language. And it speaks volumes.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Gee, I've really been misinformed: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, you just are unable to read. I didn't say that quarks are unrelated to a particle's structure (a completely different point). I said that there is no "requisite quark structure" for one to be able to "hold" something (apparently you disagree). Unfortunately, your source says nothing about this, but offers great definitions for your future discourse. And you demonstrate that you still fail to understand the (important!) subtleties. And do you still have to rely on tired sarcasm? *sigh*
---------------------QUOTE------------------- leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And just so no one reading this gets confused: Neutrinos ARE leptons. I don't know why Paley seems to imply otherwise (more sloppiness?).
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,09:44
Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress.
Let's back up and take stock of the situation. Apparently, Roshi-san finds me a rather dull student who needs polishing before being permitted to share knowledge with the other daiya no genseki. Clothed with this conviction, Roshi-san's yuurei journeys to a shadow world in which he sees ignorance in a bad choice of words, fear in a mote of expression. Since I am not blessed with Roshi-san's insight, I will use the humble methods available to gaijin.
1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy? Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed.
2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"? As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction. These range from weak London forces to stronger dipole-dipole forces, which result from partial charge separation in the molecule. One particularly strong force is hydrogen bonding, which results from a positive hydrogen atom in one molecule being tugged to molecules containing lone pairs of negative electrons (they are called lone pairs because they don't participate in the covalent bonds between valence, or outer shell, electrons). Molecules with flourine, nitrogen or oxygen atoms are particularly prone to this attraction. What about intramolecular forces? Electrons play a big role here as well. Recall that the atom is composed of three particles: electrons, neutrons, and protons. Neutrons and protons reside in the nucleus, while electrons inhabit "concentric" shells that surround the nucleus. Complex probability density equations describe the regions where electrons may be found in these shells, while other equations govern the movement of electrons between shells. Much to Cogzoid's probable displeasure, I will ignore them, as well as the accompanying jargon, in favor of a common and very loose analogy. Think of the nucleus as being a small village in the center of concentric, circular towns. Or imagine the conventional model of the solar system. Let's say a villager wishes to locate an electron in a surrounding town. One might start by finding which town, or orbit, the electron inhabits. Then one would locate the hotel at which the hotel rests. Then one calls the hotel clerk to find the room number. With this information, one goes to the room, opens the door, and finds the electron sleeping on the left side of the bed. We've accomplished our goal at last! This represents the heart of quantum numbers and electron configurations. Why is this important? Because electrical interactions govern bonding as well as the structure of the atom. The problem is, they are in turn influenced by the nucleus. After all, without the nucleus, there is no atom; without the atom, no baryonic matter (you know, the stuff of Cogzoid's dreams). And what is the nucleus made of? Quarks, of course (with a little help from gluons). In fact, there is a specific quark blueprint that determines whether or not a particle will be a proton or neutron. Recall that a proton possesses a +1 charge. Why? Because protons are composed of three quarks - two up quarks, each with a +2/3 charge, and a down quark, with a -1/3 charge. Neutrons reverse this scheme, with two down quarks and only one up quark. If you sum the charges, you'll see why neutrons are, well, neutral. Now here's the interesting part. A particle isn't necessarily frozen in one identity: a neutron, for example, can decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino during beta decay (in this case, beta - decay). But if you check a Feynman diagram, you will see that there is an < intermediate > step in which the neutron emits a proton and W-boson, which in turn splits into the electron/antineutrino lepton/antilepton pair. How does this transformation happen? By a down quark "flipping" into an up quark! Although electrons themselves are considered point particles, they can be created by a quark flavor change, which in turn changes the identity of the matter in question. Of course, there are other examples, but this will suffice for now. For more detail, check < here. >
In other words, I stand behind my statement.
3) Was Paley's lepton comment appropriate? In a word, no. Although literally true - "heavier particles" such as the gauge W / Z bosons do carry the weak force - the statement, despite the insertion of the word "or", clearly implies that leptons carry the weak force. But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force. Photons and W and Z Bosons do that. First paragraph, too. I'm dissappointed, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if my mistake constitutes an impeachable sin, how should we interpret Cogzoid's blunder? Being charitable, I will pass it off as sloppy wording. Notice, however, that I corrected my mistake, while Cogzoid snipped around his. Don't worry Cogzie, I forgive you.
4) Finally, do I imply that neutrinos aren't leptons? Perhaps, but if you check the structure of the offending sentence, you'll see that I was attempting to contrast the neutrino's small rest mass with the mass of W/Z gauge bosons. In other words, I created an objection by attempting to thwart another. Oh well. I hope this helps.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,10:13
Based on the length of this discussion and the disagreements on quantum-mechanical minutiae, I'm estimating we'll get to discussion of using Cepheids to come to an agreement on the value of Hubbell's constant in, oh, 2016.
By the way, have we cleared up misunderstandings regarding the consensus phylogenetic tree, or is that still on the menu (to be discussed starting in the fall of 2025)?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,10:51
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now name calling? C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy? Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter. Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"? As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, quark structure is sufficient. But it is not necessary. One could hold < Positronium > in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time. You can see that < muonium > could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds). Look, ma! No quarks! So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand. One could imagine an even more stable material that could be held in one's hand for longer. Also, let's not be fooled. Electrons aren't required for something to be held in one's hand, either. The only thing that is "requisite" is that the material reacts with the electroweak force. Something that Paley's material does. It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Electromagnetic and Weak forces are < one in the same >. No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.
Please, continue with the theory. I'm genuinely curious where it will lead.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,12:27
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And now name calling? C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Name calling?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter. Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At best, this proves we conflated the same concepts.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yes, quark structure is sufficient. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apology accepted.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But it is not necessary. One could hold Positronium in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time. You can see that muonium could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds). Look, ma! No quarks! So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzie, you were born too late: you would have made one #### of a scholastic philosopher.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I demonstrated my understanding in the previous post. Unless you really believe that I learned all that within a day. Gee, mebbe ah hain't sech a bad student aftuh all.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Electromagnetic and Weak forces are one in the same. No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't realise it, but you just won a bet for me. But I can't let you slide on this one. From your < source: >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 102 GeV, they would merge into a single electroweak force.
Mathematically, the unification is accomplished under an SU(2) × U(1) gauge group. The corresponding gauge bosons are the photon of electromagnetism and the W and Z bosons of the weak force. [my emphasis]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"? Typos and awkward phrases happen; check out my last post, for example:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Boy that dumb Paley, what with him mixin' up his photons and protons and all.......
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Based on the length of this discussion and the disagreements on quantum-mechanical minutiae, I'm estimating we'll get to discussion of using Cepheids to come to an agreement on the value of Hubbell's constant in, oh, 2016.
By the way, have we cleared up misunderstandings regarding the consensus phylogenetic tree, or is that still on the menu (to be discussed starting in the fall of 2025)? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know, I remember that Stephen King once claimed that he had to stop writing The Stand for a while because the book had turned into his personal Vietnam. I didn't understand him then, but I think I do now. But I'll muddle on anyway.........
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,12:51
---------------------QUOTE------------------- At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force. Photons and W and Z Bosons do that. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I fail to see what I need to apologize for. It's a simple fact. And it's 100% correct. Typos and awkard phrases happen. (And yes, I saw your pRoton typo, and let it slide, because I know what you meant.) However, this is not a typo or awkward phrase. It's a correct phrase and you're still complaining. Stop stalling and get on with the theory.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,13:36
Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,13:37
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I fail to see what I need to apologize for. It's a simple fact. And it's 100% correct. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You didn't respond, although it would have given you a perfect opportunity to justify your choice of words.
I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public (not that I'm pinning this on you; you seem like a reasonable enough fellow to me). Let's return to one of Mr. Cordova's comments:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may not understand his meaning, but talk to the average American and I bet he'd give you an earful. If you guys would only listen to him, you just might make some headway. Well, that's enough of that. You don't have to respond, but I'd appreciate if some of you would think about this issue. Anyway, back to the fun, and keep those questions flowing.......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,14:01
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 08 2005,19:37) | Let's return to one of Mr. Cordova's comments:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may not understand his meaning, but talk to the average American and I bet he'd give you an earful. If you guys would only listen to him, you just might make some headway. Well, that's enough of that. You don't have to respond, but I'd appreciate if some of you would think about this issue. Anyway, back to the fun, and keep those questions flowing....... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not being a scientist, and hence never having had to defend my life's work against sniping from those manifestly unqualified to have an opinion on the subject at hand, I can nevertheless understand why evolutionary biologists might become short-tempered when going over the same old ground with someone who insists he or she "isn't descended from monkeys," who insists "there's no evidence for evolution," "there are no examples of traditional life forms," "no one can say evolution happened because no one was there to witness it," etc. It can't be very much fun. Particle physicists don't have to go through it, cosmologists don't (for the most part, YECs notwithstanding), chemists, don't. If I were a practicing "Darwinist," or evolutionary biologist, I'd probably be feeling rather peeved and humorless these days. Given that IDists are only slightly less hostile to their work than your average garden-variety YEC, I can also see why many biologists fail to make what in their eyes is no doubt a distinction without a difference.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,15:11
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not held to answering all of your questions, Paley. I was clear in my original wording. Your misunderstanding of a simple statement is not my fault.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, buddy, I'm listening to your theory. I'm not dismissing it outright. I'm just asking questions and pointing out some small inconsistencies in your language. But, at the moment we're discussing some fundamental physics which you are not contending. Hence, we are both accepting the standard model. The standard model doesn't have alot of flexibility. Don't pretend that you're making some grandiose strides in electroweak theory, and that I'm upturning my nose. You've made some mistakes and I'm correcting you. Keep in mind who is challenging who, regarding your developing of this theory.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 09 2005,07:48
A lesson on appearances versus reality:
The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and a Master's in education from the University of Cincinnati, taught high-school math before pursuing another career, but still tutors at-risk youth in his spare time. What does he do for a living? The first person with the correct answer doesn't win anything except the respect of cool people everywhere.
Posted by: celtic_elk on Dec. 09 2005,08:01
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and a Master's in education from the University of Cincinnati, taught high-school math before pursuing another career, but still tutors at-risk youth in his spare time. What does he do for a living? The first person with the correct answer doesn't win anything except the respect of cool people everywhere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's a professional athlete, probably from a team based in or near Atlantic City. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this question.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2005,08:59
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 09 2005,13:48) | A lesson on appearances versus reality:
The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this post belong in the "State of Denial" thread? I'd like to get past quarks, hadrons, nuclei, and maybe even molecules sometime before the end of the decade...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 10 2005,05:33
---------------------QUOTE------------------- He's a professional athlete, probably from a team based in or near Atlantic City. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this question. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, the sign provides a few clues, but shouldn't be taken at face value. Hopefully, the point will become clearer when his identity is revealed.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Doesn't this post belong in the "State of Denial" thread? I'd like to get past quarks, hadrons, nuclei, and maybe even molecules sometime before the end of the decade... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm working on it, I'm working on it. You won't be disappointed; it's a Duesy, I tells ya.......Come on guys, don't let me down. Surely one of you must know....Sir Toejam? Cogzie?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 10 2005,23:42
Nope, no guess from me. I'm not good at celebrity spotting in general.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 11 2005,10:11
Well guys, I have to admit I'm a little surprised. Then again, he's not exactly a household name, and an appreciation for this man's talent is usually scarce on g-loaded fora like this one. But your intellects should be able to divine my point after seeing < this page. > (You may have to click past an annoying ad to get where you want).
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 11 2005,18:12
An athlete who is educated and a good person. He sounds like a fine role model. It's too bad that there aren't more like him. But, what's your point, Paley?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 12 2005,04:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- An athlete who is educated and a good person. He sounds like a fine role model. It's too bad that there aren't more like him. But, what's your point, Paley? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That appearances can mislead. After all, very few people would give this man a chance in a streetfight against, say, an in-prime Muhammad Ali, but his accomplishments suggest otherwise (don't laugh; even world class strikers/kickboxers tend to get clobbered in mixed martial arts settings). Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. Y'all have been pretty good to me so far, and I just don't want any backsliding. I'll try to get the model together as soon as I can.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2005,07:30
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48) | When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The same could be said of IDists. When the argument devolves into special pleading and ad hominem attacks, it all turns into a monumental waste of time.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 12 2005,08:01
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you're reading other stuff than I. But mostly I see scientists attacking the claims and arguments of anti-evolution folks. And scientists back up their attacks with some hard-hitting science. For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb? It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments. I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though. Overall, I think your complaint is unwarranted. If you don't think the ad hominems are worthwhile, don't read them. There are plenty of scientists that address the arguments of creationists alone. You can spend your energies addressing these folks.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 12 2005,08:27
---------------------QUOTE------------------- For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb? It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments. I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's true that some scientists play by the rules; this is why I wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You could have also mentioned the critique of Behe/Snokes; that essay was very good. But both papers responded to peer-reviewed literature, so a higher standard of argumentation was necessary. Why can't this be the default standard for all replies? By the way, I'm not including you or Murphy in my complaint. You both rise above the usual level of discourse. So do Elsberry, Theobald, and Cartwright.
Posted by: Tim Hague on Dec. 12 2005,21:53
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48) | Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad". From the < Cambridge Dictionary >.
I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.
I also agree with the overall impression that it's the ID folk who do most of the ad-hominems against the credentials and reputations of the evolution supporters, not the other way round (Salvador vs Flank being another prime example on this board).
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 13 2005,08:43
Righti-o, we all agree. Adressing arguments: good. Ad hominems: bad. Appearances: decieving. Death and taxes: inevitable. Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2005,09:37
Quote (cogzoid @ Dec. 13 2005,14:43) | Righti-o, we all agree. Adressing arguments: good. Ad hominems: bad. Appearances: decieving. Death and taxes: inevitable. Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.
-Dan ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm still waiting for Bill's explanation for the CMB...but we haven't even found out yet whether his "quintessence" interacts with the Higgs field.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 13 2005,10:43
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad". From the Cambridge Dictionary.
I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm aware of the legal meaning, but doesn't the word also mean "to lesson the impact of"? If not, I apologise.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Adressing arguments: good. Ad hominems: bad. Appearances: decieving. Death and taxes: inevitable. Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree. Part of the delay is my fault; I couldn't resist contributing to another thread. But I'm working on it.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,07:57
****** It's Clobberin' Time! ******
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. This wave function operation can be used to determine the probability that two particles can be found in the same quantum state. For bosons the equation is:
While the analogous one for fermions is:
Now we know that 1 and 2 are the subscripts for the wave functions acting on particular particles, while a and b are their quantum states. For the fermions, even the dumbest evolutionist can comprehend that the probability of two fermions being in the same state is zero, while for the bosons it is finite*. The property that makes this possible is spin. This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
When Jesus taught ethical imperatives in parables, the evolutionists of his day responded by demanding they, “Tell us plainly.” Likewise, today’s evolutionists reject non-material realities by demanding “evidence” on materialistic terms. The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. Since things that are truly indistinguishable are alike, it follows that all of them can be in the same state and it would be impossible to tell them apart. No doubt, there will be some objections to this idea. Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. I understand this concept because it is like the Trinity. G-d is three beings, yet all of them are indistinguishable, and can exist as a single state.
Fermions by contrast, have fractional spins and hence need to be turned around at least twice to come back to the way they were. Since most ordinary matter is fermions, we tend to be more familiar with their properties. These are the material particles that can do generate magnetic fields, something that bosons can not.
This is an illustration of how a spin-1/2 particle behaves. It needs to go around twice before it is back to its old self.
This is the same sort of thing for a boson, every time it turns around it is always the same.
Now, what does this have to do with quintessence? Quintessence has a very special kind of spin. The spin of quintessence is 1+i. This enables it to turn around in hypercomplex space yet maintain certain fermion-like properties while in our own. Like a boson, quintessence particles can all exist in the same state, enabling it to have superfuild-like properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate yet still create a magnetic field that holds in place all of the excess charge in the Empyrean that is the source of the back ground temperature.
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.
This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.
* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. While perhaps getting the details wrong,< this great man > did have a powerful intuition of how subatomic physics refuted evolutionism
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,08:10
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,08:37
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,13:57) | Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the constant jibes at "evolutionists" when talking about particle physics? I doubt that many evolutionary biologists have more than the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. The differences between bosons and fermions (or even protons and neutrons, for that matter) are pretty much completely irrelevant to their field of study.
You've made your feelings about evolutionary biologists pretty plain, Bill, but the constant insults about their hazy understanding of science that's way, way outside their field of study smacks of nothing so much as crankiness. I wonder if your knowledge of, say, the Krebs cycle is any more detailed than their knowledge of the carbon cycle of nucleosynthesis.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,08:47
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,14:10) | Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...
But while we're here, I have another observation. Air pressure is higher at sea level than it is at 30,000 feet. But air does not have a tendency to move towards the center of the universe (i.e., the earth, I'm guessing), so what causes the pressure gradient?
Or do I need to wait until we're finished discussing the subatomic properties of "quintessence"?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 15 2005,09:53
You are too much, Paley. And with Jack T. Chick as a coup de grace? Thanks for making my day.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 15 2005,13:15
This is more like it:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science. Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator. When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about. It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Misunderstood, denied? By whom? Who do you think theorized spin, afterall? I can make baseless claims, too. Creationists eat babies. Hitler was a geo-centrist.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"? If not, I'd love to hear your source. And what are these non-material characteristics? I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is really a bad way of getting an intuition for spin. Spin is wierd. It is completely intrinsic angular momentum. It can be shown that for electrons to have the magnetic moment that they have (due to their spin) they would have to spin faster than the speed of light. Pretending that the little electrons are physically spinning will put you on the wrong path. Just pretend that particles just have spin, kind of like a "color" or maybe just a name. This color or name, however, also displays properties of angular momentum. It's wierd, indeed.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this? Window glass slows down light, too.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is this equation that relates quintessence flux to speed of light exactly?
How does your model account for the effect "evolutionists" call gravitational lensing?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are its properties in our space exactly? And how do they vary because it moved in "hypercomplex space"?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- * These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What violates "evolutionistic" ontology exactly?
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,15:23
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time. Remember the analogy between my theory and the structure of proteins. I must address criticisms of the model's primary structure before tackling its predictions. Paradigm-shattering, nobel-level physics (with a Fields medal on the side) doesn't come easily, even for ectoplasmic folk.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,15:49
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,21:23) | How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.
I guess I'll have to leave the questions-asking to Mr. Cogzoid, since the kinds of high-level questions I'm asking will take a few hundred years to answer, at the rate we're going.
Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 16 2005,03:44
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The hardest part of any journey is taking the first step. But I should have some more time in the upcoming week to flesh out my model. In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can't have it both ways. If I'm having such "difficulty" answering Cogzoid, then I can't be expected to address other criticisms, now can I? But don't worry: I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 16 2005,06:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, you're so right!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you so much Mr. Paley for using examples that are familiar to me, I totally understand your argument now. Since I'm so out of touch with the conservative lifestyle, maybe you can answer a question for me. I think you'll see that my question is as relevant to this thread as your above references, so here it is: Does it ever make you nervous to have a supreme being looking over your "shoulder" in the bedroom? I mean, if that's not what he's doing, how else is he going to know you're not sticking it in the wrong place?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 16 2005,08:13
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't worry, Mr. Paley. Answering honest questions about your theory shouldn't be a trap. Unless that trap is inherent in the model you're presenting. This is how science is done. You come up with a theory and others try to find reasons why it doesn't make sense. If it stands up, it stands up. If you get "trapped" then perhaps the model needs some work.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2005,12:13
To echo Mr. C: the only trap your theory can fall into, Bill, is its own shortcomings. Given the incredible range of phenomena it must account for in order to displace current theories, that trap is immensely deep.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 18 2005,00:13
Mr the ghost of Paley posted on < a Panda's Thumb thread >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Eric wrote:
I enjoyed science and math in high school, and quickly learned to avoid both in college. The undergraduate math classes were just dreadful—“Theorem. Lemma. Lemma. Proof. Theorem. etc.”. The professors would just stand there and copy proofs from the textbook to the blackboard.
Yes! Eric, yer a man after Paley’s own heart! Math has to be the worst taught subject in the curriculum. Can anyone tell me why math “teachers” at all levels spend 90% of the time transferring the textbook to the blackboard? If you understand the text, the lecture is pointless; if you don’t, the lecture reinforces your insecurities. I recommend Morris Kline for further insight on this issue. I also find the American habit of shoving algebra down everybody’s throat to be quite dreadful. Outside of percentages, fractions, and statistics, math is completely irrelevant to many people’s lives, yet every child is forced to grind through mapping, domain and set theory. Stooopid. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Could this explain why Bill is struggling to finalise his geocentrism arguments and is a bit tardy with the "gut to gamete" paper. You should have paid more attention in those math classes, Mr P.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 18 2005,14:06
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,14:14) | By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths?? At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants: < > <i>A lost Paley Ghostey</i>
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 20 2005,06:56
I go away for a couple of days, and all #### breaks loose....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths?? At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know which is crazier: Morrie's attempts to discourage others from reading my musings by exhuming and displaying old threads from the poster's graveyard, or his Kabbalistic reworking of said posts, jokes, and quotes. Frankly, I thought that Manson's interveaving of the White Album, Revelation, and hippie agitprop would forever remain the standard-bearer of moonstruck Boomer lunacy, but the Yenta has cleared that bar in his flipflops, to mix a half-dozen metaphors (where are you when we need ya, k.e.?). Now, the early suggestion that I like to drag black people behind trucks was just tacky, but the Yenta's become more entertaining as his idee fixe has bloomed kudzu-like throughout the intellectual landscape, so I won't get too offended by his attempts to shut me up, especially when those efforts reveal more about him than they do about yours truly. By the way, here are some questions that he seems to have overlooked:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- O.K. Dean, here's your chance. Please explain how:
1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions; 2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove; 3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and 4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The floor is open, hoss.....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 20 2005,15:20
Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..
apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views; ...nobody can refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should IDiots have all the fun.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 21 2005,06:42
---------------------QUOTE------------------- apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quite frankly, this is no worse than your previous efforts; the honesty is a nice touch, however.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read your ruling, then. My questions aren't going anywhere. In the meantime, here's a quiz for the lurkers:
What source really inspired Paley's use of "Master" and "Wizard"?
Hint #1: It was made into a movie that nerds love to quote
Hint #2:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have no one but yourselves to blame if you whiff on this one.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 21 2005,08:41
Paley,
I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism. You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 21 2005,09:14
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Paley,
I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism. You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.
-Dan ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzie! I hope you've almost recovered from surgery. Where would this thread be without you or Mr. Murphy nagging me for my lack of progress? To answer your question: No, I haven't given up. Think of me as Columbo (with you guys playing the < Jack Cassidy > role, of course). It's not that I try to be slow and obsessed with detail; it's just my nature. But like the detective, I hope to uncover the truth eventually. By the way, can you answer my last question? Surely someone around here knows.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 21 2005,12:37
Paley, Thanks for the concerns. I'm up to 98% recovered.
But, unfortunately, I'm not very good with trivia, so I can't answer your question.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,07:57
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Paley, Thanks for the concerns. I'm up to 98% recovered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 22 2005,08:11
Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us
---------------------QUOTE------------------- No, I haven't given up. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,08:46
Cogzie, I think this one is most appropriate for you!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science. Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator. When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about. It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, in the words of Roger Penrose,
---------------------QUOTE------------------- According to this procedure, (second quantization) try to pretend that the wavefunction Psi (Greek in the original) of some partice itself becomes an 'operator' 1 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are sort of correct here, but still confused. In the creation and anhilation operators to which I was referring the wavefunction does become an operator on itself. This is why I said "Wave function operaton", as opposed to "Wave function operator." Of course, evolutionists evade the implications of Creation, because, according to their ontology, it doesn't exist.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality. Misunderstood, denied? By whom? Who do you think theorized spin, afterall? I can make baseless claims, too. Creationists eat babies. Hitler was a geo-centrist.
Quote The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me. Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"? If not, I'd love to hear your source. And what are these non-material characteristics? I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology. As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. Your sacastic remarks concerning Hitler and cannibalism provide unintended insight into the epistemological void that is evolutionism. You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa. Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion. Read the works of < Cornelius Van Til > for more insight.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. Why does it have to be a BEC to do this? Window glass slows down light, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, some BEC's, like quintessence, are far more effective. You can read < this paper > for more details. The equations governing the velocity of light in quintessence are similar. They will be coming shortly.
1--Penrose, Roger. 2005. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. < The Road to Reality. > p. 657
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,08:54
Cogzie and all other interested parties can consult < this book > to grok the allusions 'master' and 'wizard' to which I occasionally refer.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2005,09:33
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 22 2005,13:57) | Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have to say I haven't followed the Kansas situation as close as the Pennsylvania case, but given the losing record creationists have amassed so far, I'm guessing it won't go so well for them this time, either. But as with any lawsuit, before the trial begins, it's pretty much a 50-50 proposition. Judges are, after all, humans, and therefore are hardly inerrant.
It doesn't look like the Dover case will be appealed, given the stunning defeat handed to the defendants coupled with the changes in the Dover school board, but if it goes to the Third Circuit, it's hard to imagine how the district court decision would be overturned. Generally appellate courts defer to the trial courts on issues of fact and determinations of witness credibility, which means normally a case would be overturned on questions of law. Given judge Jones's laborious application of the tests set forth in Lemon, McLean, and Edwards, among others, there's not much room for maneuver for an appellate court. If the case did make it to the Supreme Court, which seems even more doubtful, I'd expect a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Plaintiffs, depending on the makeup of the court at the time.
(But remember, I'm not an attorney.)
And in the meantime...how are we doing with that quintessence? :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,09:58
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Eric Murphy wrote: It doesn't look like the Dover case will be appealed, given the stunning defeat handed to the defendants coupled with the changes in the Dover school board, but if it goes to the Third Circuit, it's hard to imagine how the district court decision would be overturned. Generally appellate courts defer to the trial courts on issues of fact and determinations of witness credibility, which means normally a case would be overturned on questions of law. Given judge Jones's laborious application of the tests set forth in Lemon, McLean, and Edwards, among others, there's not much room for maneuver for an appellate court. If the case did make it to the Supreme Court, which seems even more doubtful, I'd expect a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Plaintiffs, depending on the makeup of the court at the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for the legal opinion. 7-2 seems a little "optimistic" to me, but that's just ghostly intuition.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Alan Fox wrote: Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us [he] ha[s]n't given up. And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure. By the way, what's your definition of a racist, and why did you play the Yenta's silly game in the other thread? I expected a more level head from you, not to mention better reading comprehension.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,10:19
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep bringing up this "ontology" and making baseless claims. How exactly is spin outside of "evolutionistic ontology"? You can start with a definition of this ontology and your source for said definition. (Or is that in the Bible, too?)
I'll wait till there is more content about your theory before I reply.
-Dan
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 22 2005,11:43
Mea culpa, Bill. I was all excited over the Dover decision. Blaming black people as disproportionately criminal rather than disproportionate victims of crime and exclusion seems racist. Racism is an unfettered expression of the innate tribal instincts we all possess, but that the veneer of civilisation sometimes manages to keep in check. But this is a forum related to evolutionary biology so I suggest we avoid the issue in future.
Excuse my cultural ignorance, but your reference to the Yenta is lost on me.
Anyway, I am looking forward to your seminal work on HGT. BTW, will you be cribbing from Professor Davison at all?
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 22 2005,17:47
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So because cogzoid's(?) Godwining jokes don't depict the truth and "go against" the bible, all the rest of his arguments are also wrong, because they also go against the bible.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ...they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa. Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion???
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,19:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion??? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because the bible says it is the final authority. Geeze, that was an easy one.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,19:42
---------------------QUOTE------------------- All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you say. (I think that's the punchline to the philosopher stumper joke.)
Sorry for being a little dense, but can you lay out these presuppositions for me. Which presuppositions do typical scientists make? And how do yours differ?
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,07:54
Moderator(s), are you getting my messages? I think there's a glitch in the email system, and I don't know how else to reach you.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 23 2005,09:15
They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,09:25
---------------------QUOTE------------------- They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't know if you're joking or not, but you're probably right in either case. Thanks.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,10:16
Since I'm still not sure if there's a glitch in the email system, and since I won't be able to access the moderator's reply shortly, I grant permission to the moderators to delete any part of the Dean Morrison rebuttal they feel necessary; I just ask that they keep as much of the original message as possible. I appreciate whatever assistance they can provide. Thanks.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 23 2005,15:25
You trying to censor me Paley Ghostey? and why did you run away from this solid explanation of why I consider you to fit the definition of a racist?
< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-64249 >
You did ask after all?
If the mods do want to bow down to Paley Ghostey on this one could they inform me too?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2005,19:49
Could I? You know, like, interject for a moment here? We've been trying to get Mr. Paley to back up his assertions, and if we want to hear his backup before the universe grows old and dies, we could use a bit fewer distractions? Sorry to, you know, sound plaintive? But I've got some questions that are about 20 pages old now that need answers? Some day? Maybe?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 23 2005,23:29
.. sorry Eric .. since I'm off for a couple of weeks anyway I'll leave Shadey Paley to you - good luck with your questions!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 29 2005,03:21
Guys, I heartily recommend that you check out my latest reply to Mr. Brazeau in the Panderichthys thread (the PZ Myers thread with the drawing of the fish "arm"). Also, I've replied to the Yenta in the "This is what happens when the facts are fairly presented" thread. And Murphy/Cogzie, I haven't forgotten about you; next week I'll have access to a real computer.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 29 2005,05:18
And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 30 2005,04:12
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for the helpful reminder, Foxy.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 30 2005,08:33
I'm looking forward to your continuing of your geocentricism theory.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 03 2006,10:19
Steve and MidnightVoice, the more I think about it, the more I'm forced to embrace your opinions. Pathetic little whitebread culture, so very useless, maybe it's time we chucked it overboard. What else can be done with a culture so helpless in < math >, < physics >, < chemistry >, < medicine > < (who would ever take whitebread papers seriously?) >, < economics >, and < literature >. And the future is < especially > < barren. > And the less said about < whitebread athletes >, the < better >. And so many < wimps >! But what else < could be > < expected >? I think I'll see what's on TV.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 03 2006,10:25
And don't forget < molecular biology and genetics. Thanks for the heads up, Midnight. >
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 03 2006,12:05
Ignorance is bliss, oh uneducated one
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2006,12:24
I don't know, Bill. At your current rate of progress, I'm beginning to wonder if your Theory of Everything is really going to turn out to be a Theory of Nothing.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 04 2006,08:44
ericmurphy wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I don't know, Bill. At your current rate of progress, I'm beginning to wonder if your Theory of Everything is really going to turn out to be a Theory of Nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check back Friday after 3 : 00. I should have something then.
MidnightVoice wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ignorance is bliss, oh uneducated one ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are my manners? Here's a more up-to-date < source >. And oh yeah, here's some < microbiology on the side >. Of course, whitebread culture is getting strong competition in < physics >, but more than holds its own in < chemistry > and < math >. For more depth, check < this site. > To see how countries rank, check < here >.
Understand that I'm not denigrating the extensive contributions of other cultures. In fact, I suspect that we'll be seeing much more input from other civilisations as time passes. Just don't forget which culture laid the groundwork in most (all?) of the relevant fields. The truth is a bit different from what we see in the media, no? At least you now see why most movies and commercials put so much effort into portraying whites, Jews, and Asians as fools, criminals, and dweebs. As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 05 2006,00:33
Ahem,
gut to gametes, Mr P?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 05 2006,08:47
Yes. And physics.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,05:04
I'm going to try and finish the new part today. My rough draft was deleted by accident, so it's going a little slower than normal. Eric, I'll try to answer at least one of your questions in this paper......
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 06 2006,06:02
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings. Why is it that YOU hate success?? After all, putting a man on the moon is one of mankind's crowning achievements to date, and it was white (Christian?) Americans that did it. And for some reason you deny that it happened.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,06:57
---------------------QUOTE------------------- HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult.
My opinions on the liberal mindset could very well be wrong. Please understand, however, that they're not casually formed. I grew up in a very liberal neighborhood (yes, I'm a Southerner, but the neighborhood was Jewish), conversed with hundreds of liberals, read scores of books by and for liberals (favorite: Gore Vidal - great essays and fiction, although he has a problem with characterization), and, as previously noted, am a recovered one. Liberalism truly is a mental illness: it prevents its adherents from noticing the simplest things, or grasping the most declarative of sentences. I hope that one day you experience the fulfillment in leaving the Cargo Cult behind. Obviously, I can't speak for all conservatives, but I feel that I've reclaimed my humanity, as well as my rich, deep pitch (the result of inner confidence. That's why liberals often sound strangled without their voice coaches). I just couldn't see six fingers on demand any more.
Must..... continue.......with paper..............
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 06 2006,08:05
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...just returning the favor. Anywho, sorry, don't let me keep you from your paper. Maybe after you get that done we can get into "what's wrong with Liberalism"
/end drive-by
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 06 2006,08:29
What are your views on meteor showers (snigger) 'Paley' (snigger)?
hhmmm??
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,10:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What are your views on meteor showers (snigger) 'Paley' (snigger)?
hhmmm?? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can someone help me out with this joke? I assume it's an effort to link me with Larry's (alleged) holocaust denial, or Larry in general. But with the Yenta, one can never be sure.....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 06 2006,11:56
I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 06 2006,14:57
Dean's content-less posts should be ignored by all. Let's see some theories, Paley!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 07 2006,07:58
We've finally reached a point of agreement. Check back Monday - I won't let you down.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,07:26
As mentioned in previous essays, quintessence has the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate and can thereby retard the velocity of light. In addition, since anything traveling in the quintessence medium can phase in and out of higher dimensions, this will explain the phenomenon of gravitational “lensing”.
The equation governing the group velocity of an electromagnetic pulse through a medium(1) is:
.
where c is the speed of light, omega is the pulse frequency, and n is the index of refraction. This equation can be used to describe the velocity of a laser through a Bose-Einstein condensate. Now, I suspect that Darwinists will maintain that even if this condensate exists, it will not slow starlight uniformly because starlight is not a laser, but rather a distribution of frequencies. This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate. This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2), or:
Since the frequency goes unchanged, it follows that the second term in the denominator of equation (1) equals zero. This suggests that light travels through quintessence space with the velocity of
m/s
Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance. To repeat for the thick-headed, the sphere of the fixed stars is not exactly of uniform thickness, and these differences produce the illusions alluded to in this paragraph.
Now, the illusion of gravitational lensing is also explained by the multidimensional properties of quintessence. This comes from the fact that light is occasionally reflected across a mirror in higher-dimensional space and reflected back again, creating a second ghost image indistinguishable from the first.
1 < Light speed reduction >
2 < Authoritative source >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,07:33
Note to nutters: I edited the last post to remove a typo, changing "feflected" to "reflected".
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,10:20
You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:21
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the subject of lateral gene transfer, it is important to realize the only evidence organisms have genes in common with other organisms is the fact that when you take some biological material from an organism--sometimes whipped through a centrifuge, somethimes not-- and run it through the gel electrophoresis gauntlet you have occasional similarities in which lanes win this electrostatic race. Who knows what this means. I could make one sample out of spit and the other out of pee and write one paper "proving" my kinship to monkeys and another "proving" my kinship to E. coli. What makes organisms "similar" in this sense is that we eat each other. Molecular fragments from ingestion can easily end up in the samples used for the static shock Nascar circuit. This is why anybody can construct any phylogenic tree he wishes based on whatever presuppositions tickle his fancy. Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:31
Here is a picture of this popular evolutionists' toy that allegedly "proves" their molecoles-to-man theory. Biological material is dissolved in colored goo and then electrodes are placed at each end of the apparatus and they have a race. The winner is in the one with the lowest mass-to-charge ratio.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,10:35
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:45
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry. Here is the Citation:
Title: Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. (cover story) Subject(s): ATOMS; BOSE-Einstein condensation; COOLING; LIGHT -- Speed; LOW temperature research; MENSURATION; QUANTUM optics Author(s): Hau, Lene Vestergaard; Harris, S.E.; Dutton, Zachary; Behroozi, Cyrus H. Source: Nature, 2/18/99, Vol. 397 Issue 6720, p594, 5p, 4 graphs, 3bw Abstract: Describes the use of sodium atoms at nanokelvin temperatures to observe light pulses travelling at velocities of only 17 meters per second. Process of loading and cooling atoms; Question of whether the atom cloud remains in the Bose-Einstein condensed state during the interaction with the probe; Proposal that with some technical improvements still lower velocities can be achieved; Observation of large optical non-linearities, in the form of an intensity-dependent refractive index. AN: 1568994 ISSN: 0028-0836
Unfortunately, you will have to pay for this if you don't have access to a University library with a subscription.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:49
Alan Fox wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just some premature celebration; sorry again for the bad link. The failure of evo theory in no way impacts on my original hypothesis, which remains absolutely solid, and crucially depends on modern research into the immune system. You won't be disappointed, only frustrated that it took an outsider to put it all together.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,11:03
By the way, finding a possible source of contamination in trad evo research is but one prong of my theory, which does not rely on evo mistakes to make its case. My work's multifaceted nature resists facile pigeonholing. Much more later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,11:05
Mr P,
Disappoinment doesn't quite cover it, If you come up trumps, I'll be flabbergasted. Best of luck.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,11:19
Inspired by our debate (not that he'd ever admit it), < John Derbyshire > has waded in with an opinion on Secular vs. Religious societies, as well as other topics. Worth reading.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,11:28
Yes, amusing article Mr P.
The "discrepancy" between claimed and observed attendance at church made me chuckle. But can you afford these distractions, with your paper to hone into shape?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 09 2006,12:18
I must say, I do love when the under-educated nutjobs scan over the latest developments in the forefront of science, claim that they were right all along, and try to cram highly technical papers that they don't understand into their kludge of a theory. The nutjobs that do this are dime a dozen, and unsuprisingly their theories never make it past the web or a self-published pamphlet. It's great to be able to converse with one, and get an idea of what makes them tick.
Now to the latest questions for Paley's theory:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where does this come from? I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure? I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casmir forces, another favorite for crackpots. Let's see what we have so far: Dark Energy, BECs, Quintessence, Casmir forces, Quantum Mechanics, Super-fluidity, Perfect crystals, superfluid solids, multiple dimensions... Did I miss anything? Most nutjobs stick to just a few of these per theory. You are nothing if not ambitious.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 10 2006,00:50
Mr The Ghost of Paley
I just came across < This site > which seems perfect for you to enter your "dangerous questions" rather than waste your time with us peasants.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 10 2006,03:32
Wow! Now I'm eager to get my hands on that cool multicolored gel-loading dye. The stuff we use in my lab just separates into two comparatively boring shades of blue.
I'd be careful with that "toy", though. Chances are, it's got ethidium bromide in it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 10 2006,11:18
Hmm. I gotta say, Bill, the more I read, the more disappointed I become. So far you've claimed that your "quintessence" can slow down light, something any ordinary sheet of plate glass can do (albeit not to the point where light essentially stands still).
But I think we're still a few decades away from your proof that the cosmic abundances of protons, neutrons, hydrogen and helium nuclei, etc. which are so exquisitely related by the inflationary big bang theory to the temperature of the CMB in fact has some entirely different explanation. And then there's still the first one on my list from back in early November, i.e., the Hertzsprung-Russell relationship.
Should I just come back in, say, 2026?
Also, at risk of completely derailing a discourse that's already essentially plunged into the gorge, I suggest you give Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read. I think Mr. Diamond has some rather compelling ideas about the relative technological prowess of various cultures and why they might be that way.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,05:10
ericmurphy wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Should I just come back in, say, 2026?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm planning on refining the redshift part of the theory, and I'd like your input on the proposed physical consequences (I already have Cogzie to quibble over the math ). I agree that it would be couterproductive to develop a global theory before examining certain aspects of the model, so I'm going to stick with one piece for now. Hopefully this will restore your confidence.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Also, at risk of completely derailing a discourse that's already essentially plunged into the gorge, I suggest you give Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read. I think Mr. Diamond has some rather compelling ideas about the relative technological prowess of various cultures and why they might be that way. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, this is an excellent book that occupies a prominent place on my bookshelf. In fact, if you want to discuss it further, one of us can create a new thread. Three things to remember: 1) I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy. 2) Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like. 3) Unfortunately, parts of his argument actually strengthen the position of white supremacists.
I'll be happy to elaborate in another thread.
Julie Stahlhut wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wow! Now I'm eager to get my hands on that cool multicolored gel-loading dye. The stuff we use in my lab just separates into two comparatively boring shades of blue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it? If you have time, of course.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 11 2006,05:54
Mr P asks Ms Stahlhut
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,06:32
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yes, I know you'll have plenty to say, and I anticipate your response. But something tells me that Ms. Stahlhut would also like to reply, and I just wanted to make it clear that anyone's free to jump in (Ms. Smith, are you listening? I recall that your specialty involves immunology - don't be shy).
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 11 2006,07:45
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) Ghost of Paley: I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In response to this - a 'content only' reply by myself:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote: Dean Morrison You meet the OED definition of a racist because of your clear statements that you would discriminate on grounds of race ( in the case of immigration to the US for example). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote: Ghost of Paley : Ummm, Yenta, Northeast Asians are not a race, the Jews are not a race, East Indians are not a race: they are ethnic groups, and each group is concentrated in a particular nation: China, Japan, Korea, India, Israel. If I wanted to use racial classifications, I would have used the terms "Asian" and "Caucasian". Yet I avoided the broader racial categories, choosing to focus on nationalities instead. Why? Because each of these groups assimilate into Western society. Many of their racial cohorts do not. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote: Dean Morrison You ran away from that challenge on the 'Pandas' site - so there it stands, unrefuted, and unrefutable - unless you are prepared to withdraw all the racist statements you have made? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote: Ghost of Paley: What racist statements? That some nationalities assimilate better into Western society? That some cultures are not suited to developed societies? If that's racist, then the truth is racist (shrug). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... go figure.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 11 2006,07:47
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 11 2006,11:10) | Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This should definitely go in a new thread, but at even greater risk to life and limb of the train passengers, I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist." By any conventional use of the term, he most certainly is not a racist. I know the passages you're going to quote, and I'm going to point out that Diamond's opinion is not with regard to any genetic or racial differential, but rather a difference in intelligence due to situation and circumstances, which is a very different thing. He certainly says nothing that would lead one to believe he is advocating black (New Guineans are not racially black, for one thing) supremacy, or any supremacy, for that matter.
Anyone who discusses race or culture is obviously treading very treacherous waters, as you, Mr. Paley, are certainly aware. Diamond himself is very aware of how his dicussion of race and culture can be misinterpreted by those with a desire to misinterpret, and he says so in the book. But the truth of the matter is that a dispassionate reading of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" will provide no comfort to those who think that any particular race has any intellectual advantage over any other race, nor to those who think that any particular civilization's successes are due to the inherent superiority of its members.
And the truth of the matter, Bill, is even if there were provable, consistent differences in intelligence, fitness, propensity to crime, etc. among races or cultural groups, that would provide no ethical support for discriminatory practices. It would still be the case that each person should be judged based on his or her own personal merits, and not by the racial or cultural group to which he or she belongs. Human beings are individuals, not statistics. Even if you could prove that, e.g. caucasians were 50% more likely to commit crimes than, e.g., asians, would that mean laws should be enforced more diligently against caucasians?
In a word: no.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,08:17
< Scroll down > to the first Jan. 9th post to see why the Yenta's lying (again).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,08:53
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This should definitely go in a new thread, but at even greater risk to life and limb of the train passengers, I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
O.K., I'll start a new thread. Actually, this book deserves its own space for many reasons, not the least being the author himself (who's an evo biologist). I don't even mind if others jump in. But it's your call here.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 11 2006,09:24
Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions. (sigh) Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.
Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 11 2006,09:45
Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 11 2006,15:24) | Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions. (sigh) Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.
Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, and that's why I hesitated even to bring up any other topic. I couldn't let the accusation leveled at Dr. Diamond to go unanswered, but even moving that discussion to a different thread is still going to slow down Mr. Paley's progress in even presenting evidence that his "quintessence" exists. Developing an internally-consistent mathematical model describing such a substance doesn't even begin to demonstrate that it actually exists, and if Bill's model cannot provide at least an equally compelling accounting for the vast range of phenomena that the current theories of cosmology, astrophysics, general relativity and quantum physics already account for, it will be what we've suspected all along: a waste of time.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,10:05
Cogzoid wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions. (sigh) Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, give Eric some credit: he's forcing me to dwell on one aspect of my model at a time, which improves everyone's focus. And I've been working on a reply to you. But my mind is modular, so our side debate over G,G, and S doesn't really slow me down - it just goes in a different box; in fact, it may speed up my reply since I can let my subconscious (or whatever) take over.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 11 2006,15:50
What is this "guts to gametes" of which we speak?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 12 2006,02:59
Julie
In response to a question by ericmurphy way back on page 3 of this thread:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The Ghost of Paley Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science. My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And we've been waiting for him to elaborate ever since.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 12 2006,11:37
For any thread participants who are not familiar with Margulis's endosymbiont model: In this model, one prokaryotic (bacterial) cell engulfs another, but the engulfed cell is not "digested" at all. Rather, it persists, the association benefits one or both cells, and the ability to maintain an endosymbiont gives a selective advantage to the host. Margulis's hypothesis was not taken seriously when she proposed it in the 1960s, but in the ensuing years, genetic tools were developed to test it. It turns out that mitochondria and plastids contain their own DNA, and have considerable structural and biochemical similarities to bacterial cells.
Incidentally, I work with a different kind of endosymbiont -- Wolbachia, a group of bacteria adapted to persist and reproduce within the cells of arthropod and nematode reproductive tissues, and to be transmitted from mother to offspring. Wolbachia is very good at "manipulating" host reproduction to make more copies of itself, usually by biasing a female's reproductive output towards making more daughters. (Males either don't transmit it, or else transmit it much less efficiently than females.) In some cases, Wolbachia infection comes with considerable cost to the host, but in others, its presence has become important to host survival or reproduction.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 12 2006,12:07
Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species? Any snappy references?
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 12 2006,13:45
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting that you should ask that. In just about every species that harbors a persistent Wolbachia infection, there seems to be a unique sequence at an easily amplifiable Wolbachia surface protein gene. We do know that horizontal transmission is possible, even though most transmission is vertical. For one thing, the most closely related infected insect species don't normally carry the most closely related bacterial strains. Wolbachia infections have been experimentally introgressed into new species; sometimes a "hybrid" between two closely related animal species is fertile if backcrossed to one of the parent species, and that's the way it's been done. There's also some evidence that parasitoids may be able to pick up the infection from their hosts, since they develop in close contact with host body tissues and fluids. Infections have also been experimentally established in insect embryos via microinjection.
There are four primary ways in which Wolbachia biases host reproduction towards making lots of infected daughters:
Feminization (F). Infected genetic males develop as females. This one's known only from some terrestrial crustaceans, and probably depends on a bacterial effect on ZW sex determination pathways. (ZW sex determination is sort of the opposite of XY. Females in these species are ZW, and males are ZZ.)
Parthenogenesis induction (PI): Infected females can produce daughters by gamete duplication, without having to mate. This is best characterized in some parasitoid wasps. Interestingly, the true wasps, bees, and ants have a sex-determination system with which classic PI just can't work. (This is another field of research for me, but I'll control myself.) :-)
Cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI): Infected females can mate successfully with any male, but if an uninfected female mates with an infected male, her embryos won't develop. This means that infected females have better mating prospects, and thus higher reproductive success. This is known in many insects, especially in numerous Drosophila species.
Male-killing (MK): Some or all male embryos of infected mothers die, so that their daughters get more resources. Since this doesn't imply parthenogenesis, MK infections tends to exist at intermediate frequencies in a trade-off situation; if it swept completely through the population, an MK infection would cause host extinction through loss of mating opportunities.
There are other adaptations known, though, too numerous to list here. There's no easy way to correlate related strains with reproductive effects; the infection "phenotype" seems to be a product of the host-symbiont interaction rather than of the bacteria themselves. Incidentally, different Wolbachia strains infect nematodes, and in this phylum, the host and symbiont phylogenies match up pretty well!
I can go on about this for hours, so I'll quit before everyone is completely reeling ....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Any snappy references? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm really an applied molecular ecologist rather than a theoretical type, so I don't have an at-my-figurative-fingertips list, but a quick web search turned up this one that at least mentions Wolbachia dynamics:
Hammerstein, Peter. 2005. Strategic analysis in evolutionary genetics and the theory of games. Journal of Genetics 84: 7-12.
Hope this helps, -- Julie
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 12 2006,23:54
Thanks, Julie, that was most informative. You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT.
BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 13 2006,00:24
Wow Julie,
the cool thing about that stuff is that it can be used to make a whole raft of evolutionary predictions that can be tested. I'm a long way from a decent library, but I'll check out the paper when I can.
Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great? (although not wonderful from the point of view of an infected organism).
I agree with Alan- this deserves a guest contribution on PT.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 13 2006,03:38
Alan wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is something that's not well-characterized yet, and in fact it's a path I'd like to pursue. It turns out that not all haplodiploid sex determination systems are alike; the underlying pathways differ, and there seem to have been multiple and diverse responses to selection on sex determination mechanisms.
Brief oversimplification: Most bees, ants, and true wasps have a single sex-determining locus (no sex chromosomes) with many alleles. Haploids are male, and diploids are almost always heterozygous at the sex locus and become female. Homozygous diploids develop as males, and these diploid males are usually inviable or infertile. This is called single-locus complementary sex determination, or sl-CSD (or just CSD). Just a few years ago, the sex locus of the honeybee was definitively identified by Martin Beye and co-workers.
Since inbreeding produces more homozygotes, homozygotes become diploid males, and diploid males tend not to reproduce, we'd predict:
1. Species with CSD should avoid inbreeding.
Support: Most species with CSD have inbreeding avoidance behaviors. For example, many bees and ants have "nuptial flights" and mate far from their natal nests. Many solitary wasp species also disperse before mating.
2. Species whose life histories promote inbreeding should have a different sex-determination system.
Support: Parasitoid wasps that tend to mate with siblings after emerging from a host usually don't have CSD; breeding experiments support this. The overall pattern, when mapped onto hymenopteran phylogeny, suggests ancestral CSD that was secondarily lost in many parasitoid lineages. However, the latter is still a topic for conjecture, because we don't have enough information to be sure.
My own dissertation research, BTW, uncovered a bizarre exception. One solitary, predatory wasp common in the U.S. has CSD (breeding experiments clinched this), often mates with siblings (about two-thirds of matings in the population I studied, based on genetic data), produces diploid males under inbreeding (confirmed by genetic markers) -- and these diploid males are fertile, fathering normal daughters (confirmed by breeding experiments and genetic markers). So, they've "found" another way around the CSD vs. inbreeding dilemma!
3. Only those hymenopterans that lack CSD should have Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis (PI), because otherwise the gamete duplication process would produce diploid males, not daughters.
Support: To date, PI has been found only in non-CSD, parasitoid Hymenoptera. However, this doesn't rule out different, unknown mechanisms for parthenogenesis induction in CSD species; we just haven't really looked yet. It also doesn't rule out male-killing or cytoplasmic incompatibility; the latter (CI) may yet turn out to be a considerable player in hymenopteran biology.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll put that on my list of things to do. :-) Gotta get a manuscript revised first, but it would be fun to do a Wolbachia essay!
Dean wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, y'know, I just love my bugs! Started getting interested at age 7, but didn't do anything about it for entirely too long (finally got my Ph.D. at age 46). I try to do my best to get younger people started on what they like rather than what they think they're supposed to like.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 13 2006,06:32
Hope you do find time, Julie, and thanks again.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 13 2006,12:28
I'm seriously considering starting up my own entomologically-oriented blog. I'll keep people posted if that actually comes about.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 14 2006,08:31
I look forward to your blog and comments.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 14 2006,09:55
See part one of my < response > to Mr. Brazeau.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 14 2006,10:21
Mt P,
I think you are spreading yourself a bit thinly, you are becoming positively wraith-like. Not to nag or anything, But...
Gut to ganetes...?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 14 2006,10:24
Or, even...
Gut to gametes.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 14 2006,13:38
Paley,
I understand that you are spreading yourself a little thin. I'm going to regroup some of my questions regarding your ToE so you don't have to ferry through pages of this thread to try to find questions to answer. These are remotely in chronological order. And I'm only asking the ones that you should be able to answer quickly.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why seven? Did you just pick that out of your hat?
You have claimed multiple times that your ether/quintessence is a crystal. What is the structure of this crystal? If you are going to claim that since it is constantly changing (and hence can't be pigeon-holed) then it is no longer a crystal. It's more like glass, which, while hard, does not have a crystalline structure.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨ ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist. Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell. I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?
And more recent questions:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where does this come from? I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure? I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.
When you get time away from your Guts to Gametes diatribe, perhaps you can answer these questions. To be honest it looks like you've realized that you're painting yourself into a corner, and rather than finishing the work, you're setting down the brush. I'm a tad dissappointed, but not surprised in the least. You'd rather argue with people that don't require as much proof or on topics that are unprovable.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 14 2006,16:40
And Bill, I think it might be the case that my questions (with all due respect to Dan's fine work in this area) might be even harder and more time-consuming to answer, because they involve more complex phenomena with more detailed explanations under the standard theories (quantum theory, general relativity).
I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 15 2006,11:02
ericmurphy wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies. I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 15 2006,12:58
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 14 2006,15:55) | See part one of my < response > to Mr. Brazeau. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.. checked this out - seems that the scientists working in that field have noticed your propensity to cut and paste stuff you don't understand, and/or have never read.
The 'papers' you work on seem to consist of whatever you can find that you think might be contentious; then cutting and pasting in a scattergun approach, in the hope that people might take you seriously.
You really are a transparent Ghost Paley.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 15 2006,13:05
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 15 2006,17) | I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies. <!--emo& I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not really questioning your sincerity, Bill. At least from my end, you seem far too intelligent a guy to really believe that the earth is the center of the universe when the uncontroversial evidence points entirely in the other direction. If anything, I'm complimenting you by assuming that what you're really doing here is setting yourself an intellectual task to see if you can bring it off. After all, as I've said before, you're trying single-handedly to overturn the bulk of scientific knowledge slowly and painfully accumulated over the last 500 years or so, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't think less of you if you couldn't pull it off.
In any event, to save you the trouble of wading back through almost 20 pages of previous messages, I'll repost my questions to you here:
The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?
Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…
Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.
Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."
Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?
Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 16 2006,19:00
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I humbly apologize for insulting you for attempting to rewrite the bulk of astronomy and biology in one thread.
Quote-mined from the first few pages of this thread:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples. -Dan
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 17 2006,07:33
Paley's theory is that all of the stars we see are imbedded in a spherical shell of quintessence that has a radius of ~4.5LY?
Seriously??
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 17 2006,08:52
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples. -Dan ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahhhh, don't worry - Paley wouldn't dish it out unless he could take it. I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 18 2006,08:40
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who says I'm trying to motivate you?
I've been thinking about your theory and my arguing about it. I've also been thinking about why I'm bothering at all. Why should I waste my time to pick apart one of the most convoluted theories I've ever heard. I've certainly read my share of nutjob theories. But, this is the first time where I've been in discourse with the guy trying to sell the theory. I was wondering how far you could get before trapping yourself. Seeing as you haven't been able to answer some of the basic questions concerning your theory, I think we've found your stopping point. Now, I do find it fun to point out the inconsistancies of your theory and watch as you invoke more convoluted mechanisms to support it. But, eventually you'll reach an impasse. It might as well be earlier than later. That way you can say "Gee, that was a foolish theory." and move on with your life. I have a feeling that this won't be the case though. You'll maintain that you're just not done with it yet, or that it's a work in progress, or that you just need some grad students to help you work out the details. I think you're going to say that because all nutjobs eventually say that. Part of being a nutjob is that you can never admit defeat.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............ ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have spiritual capital invested:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ball is in your court, Paley. You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish. I'll be waiting either way. And I've made my predictions. -Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2006,11:16
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The ball is in your court, Paley. You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish. I'll be waiting either way. And I've made my predictions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,11:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- , I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol. no kidding. I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.
one does begin to wonder how many times you can be eviscerated and still have some "guts" left for your "guts to gametes" drivel.
I'm beginning to think you closely related to holothuroids.
do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 18 2006,14:30
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know how pain can sap your energy. I hope you feel better soon. Thanks for the suggestion to go beat up on other trolls, but frankly, they aren't as much fun. It took weeks of beatings for EvoPeach to understand that Hydrogen was around before Helium. I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 18 2006,14:57
.. sorry by the way if you interpret this as a 'content free post'.
'Ghost of Paley’ has been full of beans of late at the: 105 post; 11 page; "Guns Germs and Steel" thread, that he started a week ago to talk about his favourite topic.
I've even suggested that he get back to his paper on 'Guts to Gametes' that you guys are waiting for but it seems he just can't help "spreading himself thin".
Focus! Paley Focus!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2006,15:00
Cogzoid wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I know how pain can sap your energy. I hope you feel better soon. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks. Actually, the discomfort's not too bad, but these problems leave me rather spacey (yeah, I know, how can one tell, etc, etc.). Fortunately the fish research was previously completed, or else I'd look even worse.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Peach is not without his charm, but he doesn't take to being contradicted, does he?
Sir Wiggles wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- lol. no kidding. I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Post scandalous cartoons? <shrug>
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,15:30
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it.... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oh, i read it..
*snicker*
do you really value your opinions that much?
as to sea cucumbers, when they feel threatened, they spew their digestive tract out which become sticky strands hopefully meant to dismay or tangle a potential predator.
remarkably, they manage to regrow their enitre digestive tract after a couple of weeks.
sea cucs are mostly bottom feeders; collecting and processing detritus via long feathery arms.
gee, sounds like you more and more now that i think about it.
good luck with that "guts to gametes" thing, if it's anything close to being as ridiculous as your cladistics arguments, I'm sure I'll get a laugh or two out of it.
Why DO you hang around here anyway? for the snappy political reparte?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 18 2006,16:05
Re "do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?"
They get pickled?
(Yeah, I know I should've resisted, but that was too good a straight line to pass up... )
Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,06:49
Cogzie - I still feel bleh, but look for a response tonight. I hope to justify:
1)My choice of dimensions (hint:think about permutation theory)
2)How my model relates the index of refraction to "the total amount of elementary charges in a structure"
3)my position on redshifts
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 19 2006,11:36
Not to Bleh to spout off on your favourite topic over at the 'Guns, Germs and Steel' thread you started Ghostey..
You are seriously selling these guys short......
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 19 2006,11:48
Yes, Dean, we realize that there were other threads in this forum and that Paley is posting in them. I understand that you want to keep hounding Paley, wherever he goes. But, please, stop making this thread longer than it has to be with your contentless posts. We all know how you feel about GoP. By all means, though, add content if you wish.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:06
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I explained this in my last post1. The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality!
1< Authoritative Source >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:25
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Why seven? Did you just pick that out of your hat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses.
< Here is the math. >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨
Quote Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist. Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell. I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:45
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure? I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace.
1 < Read this and be enlightened! >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,15:28
I told you I was under the weather! I recently edited the last three posts to reduce typos and fix the grammar. Get over it, Yenta.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 19 2006,16:15
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift. But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift. But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy. So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recessional velocity is not inferred by measuring the distance. Recessional velocity is measured as well as distance. < And they seem to be proportional to each other. > Your chicken-jet analogy is simply ridiculous. That farther objects are moving away at a faster rate than closer objects is a measured effect, not an inferred one. The stupidity of creationists is not exceeded by anything.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and you post it in here as justification. Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence. Which is more than a small gap in your explanation.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First off, when did Einstein and his theory of relativity determine that properties of media don't affect the speed of light? I really take offense to your mischaracterization of Einstein's theories. I expected better from you. More and more you demonstrate that you are as ignorant as the rest of the trolls. How does quintessence hold the stars when:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- it doesn't have the requisite quark structure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
??
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?! Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!! Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?! You need to explain why light in 7 dimensions has the same frequency. (By the way, what frequency is that?) Lasers aren't just light of the same frequency, the bigger importance is that they are coherent. So you'll need to explain how light becomes coherent and singular in frequency in 7 dimensions.
Finding the stupidities of your posts is becoming easier, but somehow it's more fun. You're like the little kid who gets caught in a lie and has to keep stretching the truth to explain himself (...and then Aliens took Billy's baseball and threw it through the window). I'm glad you're planning on continuing with the theory.
-Dan
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 19 2006,22:06
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift. But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift. But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy. So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, now, cogzoid- obviously, the stars are all (with the exception of a few liberal binaries) wobbling away from us at the moment, because they are appalled at our evil rejection of Christ's truth. As soon as the Antichrist is deposed, they will wobble back, and be appropriately blueshifted.
After slogging through this thread, I am amazed at the patient dissection of this patent nonsense. But I must also express my admiration for the creative wriggling of GoP- he should be in politics. Or maybe not.
And the delicate sphere of Bose-Einstein condensate, the seven dimensions- the guts. Pure poetry, this refraction of hand-picked scientistic tidbits through the strait lens of Biblical truth. An admirable creation, a sweet gossamer of cotton candy. Kudos, GoP.
But as has already been demonstrated here ad nauseum, it is not science.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 20 2006,06:08
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 19 2006,20<!--emo&) |
I explained this in my last post1. The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, Bill, your explanation doesn't work. For one thing, if redshift was coming from stars wobbling in the crystal sphere (which sounds like kind of sloppy divine workmanship to me), we'd expect to see a cyclic variation between redshifts and blueshifts, unless you're claiming the celestial sphere is slowly getting larger (maybe the quintessence is getting fatigued from exerting that immense centripetal force?). We do, in fact, often see blueshifts from objects within the Milky Way, consistent with objects moving more or less uniformly, but with measurable variation, around the galaxy's center of mass (and not around the center of the earth).
For cosmological objects, we do see predominantly redshifts, especially for objects outside the local group. We also notice that in general, the higher the redshift, the dimmer the object. Why might that be? Well, take the standard image of dots on an inflating balloon. All the dots are moving away from each other, and the further away two dots are, the faster they move away from each other. The same is true of any two particles in an explosion.
What is the simplest explanation for this observation? Why, that would be that the entire universe is expanding. If that were so, we would expect to see what we do in fact see: that the further two objects are away from each other, the higher their recessional velocity.
What do we have for confirmatory evidence? Well, Cepheid variables, for one thing. The mechanism of Cepheids is relatively well-understood, which is why we have confidence in the posited relationship between period and absolute magnitude. Therefore, Cepheids make an ideal "standard candle," and because they are generally very luminous stars, they are visible out to cosmological distances. Therefore, to within observational limits, we can use Cepheids to determine the absolute distance to galaxies within which Cepheids can be resolved. And guess what? We find that the further a Cepheid is away (assuming our relationship between period and luminosity is valid), the higher its redshift.
Type I supernovae have a similar utility, in that since we know the mechanisms in some detail, we have confidence in our belief that they all have similar luminosity. Supernovae have the added benefit of having extremely large luminosity (at some wavelengths they can been seen out to billions of light years). And what do we see? Again, the same thing. The further away a Type I supernova is, the higher the redshift. Which again is consistent with objects all moving away from each other. Of course, it's also consistent with the entire universe exploding away from the earth itself, but if you trace all those trajectories back, you find that 13.7 billion years ago, 10 ^ 60 Kg or so of galaxies and other assorted extremely heavy objects must have exploded away from the earth. Let's just say that sounds pretty unlikely.
The problem with your quintessence theory, Bill, is that it doesn't really explain anything. It does account, in a desultory fashion, for some phenomena, i.e., doppler shift in light quanta, but only in a simplistic fashion that doesn't explain very much else. Cosmological redshift, of course, explains a much broader range of phenomena, is consistent with virtually all observables (which your quintessence theory is already having difficulty with), and accounts for a broad range of phenomena, including things like the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of light elements, the shape of Einsteinian space, and the age of the universe. Your quintessence theory not only doesn't actually explain any of these phenomena or allow us to predict what they might be, it also explicitly excludes most of them (unless your geocentric theory allows for a big bang somehow).
Now, your hypothesis about quintessence's insanely high refactive index might change Hubbell's constant, but it would be inconsistent with other observations, and again, fails to explain a broad range of phenomena a much simpler theory already explains very well, and this simpler theory has the added advantage of not being contradicted (so far) by observation.
So far, I can only say I fail to be persuaded. Shall we move on to the next phenomenon in need of explanation, courtesy of Mssrs. Hertzsprung and Russell?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 20 2006,07:57
So far, the only thing Paley has demonstrated is just how much a fundamentalist is willing to delude himself to protect a fragile worldview. If you take his words at face value (that he actually believes this stuff, and isn't just making a point) then that delusion must run pretty deep in other areas of his life. Sad, really.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 22 2006,11:52
Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible. Thanks.
By the way, I just < replied > to Mr. Brazeau.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 22 2006,12:42
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does this question even mean? Why would a mathematical concept be inappropriate for your model? You might as well be asking: "Show me how the sine function is inapporpriate for my model." I guess it takes more than vocabulary to discuss mathematics.
Eric and I have given you plenty of problems with your model to address. Perhaps you can spend your time addressing them.
-Dan
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 22 2006,15:36
Could I point out that on the Mr Brazeau's thread Gop has been rumbled as a 'Google trawler'?
I'm afraid that he's the one that wishes to waste your time with 'content-less' posts. He thinks that if he can assemble a lot of words and a few links he might pass as some kind of authority. I see you are very patient with him, despite his phoney excuses, and the way he changes the subject when things get tough for him...
Paley has no 'model', no 'paper' - and not even a name that he's proud enough to attach to his ideas.
Content possibly - if 'Google-trawled' cut and paste stuff counts.
I would have thought it was pretty clear to you whether GOP can back up his assertions or not
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 22 2006,21:18
When my kids were small, they enjoyed cutting out pictures from old magazines, choosing them for color and form rather than content. They pasted them onto paper in the shape of animals, buildings, spaceships, etc. Thus, they could make, say, a cat out of pictures of dogs, or fashion models, or churches.
Of course, the snipped-out pictures did not cohere naturally- they did not refer to one another, except accidentally, and they did not start out fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle which was already designed and must merely be assembled correctly. No, my kids had a preconceived idea of what they wanted to create, and chose and snipped and fit the pieces together to suit their fancy.
By the way, Mr. Ghost has "replied" to Mr. Brazeau over at PT in the same sense that an airplane "replies" to an incoming missile by throwing out metallic chaff.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,04:49
quoth the zilch:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- When my kids were small, they enjoyed cutting out pictures from old magazines, choosing them for color and form rather than content. They pasted them onto paper in the shape of animals, buildings, spaceships, etc. Thus, they could make, say, a cat out of pictures of dogs, or fashion models, or churches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given my love affair with the hyperlink, I can see why you think I'm doing a "Gish gallop", but I've also been trying to summarise my position periodically. I also try to ask good questions when I'm confused about the professor's point of view. You may be painting with too broad a brush...........
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 23 2006,05:38
Perhaps I should break it down a little. Let's start with just the Cepheid variables. Where do they fit into your model, Bill? They fit really well into standard astrophysical and cosmological models; I'd be curious to see where they fit into your model.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,06:36
ericmurphy wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps I should break it down a little. Let's start with just the Cepheid variables. Where do they fit into your model, Bill? They fit really well into standard astrophysical and cosmological models; I'd be curious to see where they fit into your model. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First I need to explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed blueshifts. Give me time and I'll detail it tonight.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 23 2006,06:46
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,12:36) | First I need to explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed blueshifts. Give me time and I'll detail it tonight. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was under the impression that your model didn't predict blueshifts at all. Or perhaps it predicted stars that oscillate between redshift and blueshift with a 24-hour cycle?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,07:12
ericmurphy said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I was under the impression that your model didn't predict blueshifts at all. Or perhaps it predicted stars that oscillate between redshift and blueshift with a 24-hour cycle? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the part I'll address tonight.
And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 23 2006,08:18
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's what I said, with the complaint emboldened:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and you post it in here as justification. Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence. Which is more than a small gap in your explanation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 24 2006,09:18
I hate to nag, but…
I've been re-reading this thread, and noted that Bill originally promised his model for November 18. (Of 2005, not 2006, I believe, although he was never explicit about that.)
I've granted him several extensions since then, but only up through the end of November, as far as I can tell. He can only feel fortunate he doesn't have a Federal District Court judge breathing down his neck with an Order to Show Cause. :-)
Not trying to give you a hard time, Mr. G. But I would like to see your model a little more fleshed out before we all grow old and die. So far we've sort of, in a way, established the number of dimensions informing the cosmos (although according to the paper you cited the actual number should be a rational number, not an integer, which I'm having a hard time picturing), but I've got a list of observations in need of explanation stacked up like 747s above O'Hare on a snowy Thanksgiving...
Time to hit the No-Doz, Bill, and make like an undergraduate during finals week.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2006,07:34
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I hate to nag, but… I've been re-reading this thread, and noted that Bill originally promised his model for November 18. (Of 2005, not 2006, I believe, although he was never explicit about that.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't realise that the entire model was due by Nov. 18. In my defense, the time machine is broken, so I couldn't get all of your ojections ahead of schedule. Eric, you just have to accept that I'm very deliberate, and prefer a good answer to a quick one. Sorry. But I should have a reply soon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 25 2006,09:02
I also understand that you're attempting single-handedly to overturn 500 years of well-settled physics. Obviously this isn't something that can be done in a few months (or a lifetime, for that matter). So I'm not expecting a finished model. But you've got to toss us a few bones to gnaw on now and then, just so we know you're still working on it.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 25 2006,09:54
Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what progress with your "guts to gametes" paper, Mr. P.
You seem to have been distracted by Mr. Brazeau. If you want to give up on the enterprise and admit defeat, we'll all understand.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2006,14:56
Yes, I'm still working on both papers; when I've given up I'll let you know. My work schedule and sinuses have conspired against me lately, plus you wouldn't want me to shortchange Mr. Brazeau? That would be selfish, and I know you guys aren't that. Hopelessly deluded: yes. Selfish: no. I do appreciate your continued patience. Take my thoughtful intervals as a commentary on your scientific insight.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 25 2006,15:49
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 25 2006,20:56) | That would be selfish, and I know you guys aren't that. Hopelessly deluded: yes. Selfish: no. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm…this coming from a guy who insists the entire cosmos revolves around the earth…
BTW, I saw something recently about ice storms in Georgia and immediately thought of the Rev. Paley. But then I remembered there's that other Georgia.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 26 2006,15:53
Must.....concentrate......on paper.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 26 2006,16:04
You can do it, Paley. I'm rooting for ya.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2006,08:54
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift. But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift. But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy. So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere. This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate. This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2006,09:02
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?! Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!! Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzie, check out < this website > for a good introduction on how this can work.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,09:46
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 27 2006,14:54) | You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere. This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate. This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait a minute. I know I'm not a mathematician, but what does a frequency of 2 Pi/24,000 years mean? That sounds more like a period to me. A frequency should be expressed in Hz, or cycles per minute/hour/year/century or whatever unit you want to deal with. What's the frequency or period in units we can use? A perriod of 2 PI/24,000 years is a lot less than a year; it's on the order of two hours.
And furthermore, where do you derive this frequency from in the first place? Where do you see observational evidence that the universe is in fact vibrating? If the period is, as you claim, greater than the age of the universe, then how do you know that there's even a period at all? What if current trends continue without ever reversing?
And how does this model explain differing recession rates? If everything is the same distance from the earth, shouldn't the recession frequencies be the same, and more to the point, all in the same direction? Why do we see some blueshifts?
Also, your claim that the observation that the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate is hardly a "big hole" in the inflationary big bang theory. Granted, it's not clear exactly what is driving the expansion, but it's not like the theory is in danger of being scrapped. For one thing, strong evidence in favor of increasing expansion is only 8 years old. But already several hypotheses are on the table accounting for observation, and none of them involve positing a crystalline sphere 4.5 ly in diamter comprising the entire universe.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 27 2006,10:05
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well I'm convinced (not), but WTF does it have to do with evolution?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The mathematics behind this... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What math? Where?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ACLU ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F U
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 27 2006,10:22
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You haven't proved a single thing yet, Paley. Where did this 2pi/24,000 year frequency come from? Was there a measurement made to support this number?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate. This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy. This Dark Energy is sometimes called < Quintessence >. So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept. How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest? You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to < more receptive sites >.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to some members of the ACLU! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I'm not a member of the ACLU, so you can give me a shot. Where are these mathematics that you speak of?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Cogzie, check out < this website > for a good introduction on how this can work. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't understand crank-speak very well. Can you translate? I skimmed the site and couldn't find anything about electrons being an infinite source of energy. Perhaps you can fill in the relevant details or highlight the parts of the theory that are relevant.
There are plenty of questions you haven't addressed in pages 40-41.
I must say, I'm perplexed at why it takes you so long to produce the maths that support your theories. You've already reached your conclusions, you consider your theory proved, yet you can't produce the math to justify any of your claims? Simply amazing.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,11:42
Bill, I was wondering if I could possibly, respectfully make some suggestions for your model. Generally, astronomy and cosmology are observational sciences. In other words, for the most part, astronomical and cosmological models are constrained by observation.
But so far, it doesn't seem that your model takes observation into account at all. I understand that you're trying to achieve mathematical consistency in your model, but the history of astronomy is littered with internally consistent models which fail to comport with observation.
It might be a good idea to leave off the math and physics sites for a while, and spend some time perusing the astronomical sites. Your latest post claims to have "conclusively proven" your model, and yet you have not yet accounted for a simple fact of observational life: many astronomical objects out there demonstrate blueshift. So far your model seems to have ignored this stumbling block. I don't think your model can progress (let alone be said to be "proven") until it overcomes this relatively glaring shortcoming.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 27 2006,11:54
The talkorigins site just added an article about < the the Big Bang > to its FAQ list.
Henry
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 27 2006,12:27
Warning- practically content free post follows-
nice to see youve got yourself an Avatar sorted out Gop old boy - glad to see I've been an inspiration to you. Nice try at the 'Socratic Irony' but never mind; the Panda is cute anyway - and a picture of a bloke covered in a sheet could be open to misinterpretation I suppose.
Now tell me - do you think this stuff up when you're on: or off: the medication?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps these guys had 'forgotten to consider' this because they didn't know you were going to make it up at the time.?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,13:58
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 27 2006,14:54) | One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate. This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I followed the link Henry provided, and came across the following:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Taking this as an indicator that this sort of energy exists, we can explore what effect this might have from a cosmological standpoint. Regardless of the expansion of the universe, the zero-point energy density remains constant and positive. This leads to the rather curious (and non-intuitive) conclusion that the pressure associated with dark energy is negative. If one plugs a component like this into the standard BBT equations, the effect of the negative pressure is larger than that of the positive energy density. As a result, in a universe driven by dark energy, the effect of its gravity is to accelerate the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing it down (as one would expect for a universe with just matter in it). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems the "evolutionists" have anticipated your problem with their theory, Bill.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,18:53
For those keeping track at home:
The good reverend's last substantive post before today's was on January 19th, eight days ago. The last substantive post before that was on January 9th, eighteen days ago. Given that so far we haven't been blessed with a coherent accounting for doppler blueshift, let alone cosmological redshift, it's going to be a long, long time before we get an actual coherent, well-integrated cosmological model.
I know it sounds like I'm harping, but I've never really believed the Rev. would be able to overturn 500 years of well-settled, thoroughly confirmed astrophysics and cosmology (to put it mildly). Nevetheless I'm dying to see what he comes up with. My guess is that I'll be able to throw up objections to his theory for basically the next 200 hundred years, if I live that long.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 28 2006,10:19
Cogzie wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy. This Dark Energy is sometimes called Quintessence. So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept. How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest? You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to more receptive sites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No dishonesty - just a lack of respect for the evidence supporting Dark Energy. After further review of the SDSS data confirming the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, I concede that researchers have found positive evidence for Dark Energy at last. I shouldn't have ignored this part of the Big Clang model and I apologise for my carelessness. However, my model will explain the source of Dark energy.
ericmurphy wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Wait a minute. I know I'm not a mathematician, but what does a frequency of 2 Pi/24,000 years mean? That sounds more like a period to me. A frequency should be expressed in Hz, or cycles per minute/hour/year/century or whatever unit you want to deal with. What's the frequency or period in units we can use? A perriod of 2 PI/24,000 years is a lot less than a year; it's on the order of two hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The number should read: (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Sorry for not making this clear before. And yes, I will include the derivation of this figure in a future post. The equation is a simple ODE. I suspect you'll be disappointed Cogzie.
More later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 28 2006,10:26
Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- More later. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 28 2006,11:16
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But aren't you enjoying my debate with Mr. Brazeau? And I am contributing (albeit slowly) to my geocentric model. Actually, I'm happy about being wrong about the level of evidence for Dark Energy. Along with the Redshift, this is the first observation that my model will explain.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 28 2006,11:23
Too technical for me. And I am deaf to the music of the spheres. Biochemistry was my field, so I hope to be able to follow your argument better with HGT.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 28 2006,12:32
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 28 2006,16:19) | The number should read: (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Sorry for not making this clear before. And yes, I will include the derivation of this figure in a future post. The equation is a simple ODE. I suspect you'll be disappointed Cogzie.
More later. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. 2 Pi/24,000 years means to me the same thing as (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Which works out to approximately 2.29 hours. Unless it's supposed to be a frequency (which is what you implied in your original post), but a frequency is customarily expressed as so many oscillations per unit of time, e.g., 10.48 oscillations per day (which appears to be what (2Pi)/(24,000 years) is equal to).
In any event, period and frequency are essentially the same thing presented in different units. I can't think of how I would interpret (2Pi)/(24,000 years) as being anything other than a period of a bit less than two and a half hours, which I think we can all agree is quite a bit less than the true age of the universe, and not four times the age of the universe, which is what the Rev. stated in his earlier post.
That being the case, we wouldn't expect to see stars oscillating between redshift and blueshift every 24 hours; we'd expect to see it every couple of hours. Since this doesn't happen, I think we can essentially rule out Bill's model as contradicted by observation. Unless I'm completely misinterpreting Bill's language, but regardless of where he derives (2Pi)/(24,000 years), it doesn't appear he's any closer to accounting for doppler shift, or cosmological redshift, than he was back two and a half weeks ago.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 28 2006,15:39
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 2 Pi/24,000 years means to me the same thing as (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Which works out to approximately 2.29 hours. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric, you are quite wrong here. 1/time has the same meaning as a frequency. You're getting confused because you're not realizing that the unit "years" is in the parentheses. He left it in this form so it would be easy to see the period, which is, indeed, 24,000 years.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 28 2006,18:26
Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 28 2006,21:39) | Eric, you are quite wrong here. 1/time has the same meaning as a frequency. You're getting confused because you're not realizing that the unit "years" is in the parentheses. He left it in this form so it would be easy to see the period, which is, indeed, 24,000 years. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, I guess I am confused. So is he saying that the unit is whatever one wants to call a slice of time of 24,000 years' duration? It's been a long time since pre-calculus, and longer since trig, but doesn't 2Pi basically mean one cycle? In which case he's saying one cycle per 24,000 years? I guess I still don't see how the period of oscillation is four times the true age of the universe, unless the good reverend thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old.
In any event, I'll leave the hard math questions to you, Dan, and I'll ask the easy non-math ones, like how does Bill believe astronomers are right about dark energy, but wrong about comparatively simple things like stars with a parallax of more than a parsec and a half or so, and where does parallax come from in the first place?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 29 2006,09:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In any event, I'll leave the hard math questions to you, Dan, and I'll ask the easy non-math ones, like how does Bill believe astronomers are right about dark energy, but wrong about comparatively simple things like stars with a parallax of more than a parsec and a half or so, and where does parallax come from in the first place? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're asking great questions, keep it up. I just wanted to keep you from wrongly hammering on a point for too long.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 29 2006,11:08
In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on dimensional analysis.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 29 2006,14:45
Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 29 2006,15:31) | You're asking great questions, keep it up. I just wanted to keep you from wrongly hammering on a point for too long. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I appreciate the correction, Dan. But the funny thing is, despite being off by a factor of either ~16 orders of magnitude (for the real age of the universe) or ~8 orders of magnitude or so (for Bill's age of the universe), all my other objections stand.
So, Bill, where does the blueshift come from?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2006,05:19
Re "where does the blueshift come from?"
Maybe it got washed with the jeans in hot water?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,09:50
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What math? Where? Quote ACLU
F U ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My dear Ved,
Is the phrase "F U" part of the liturgy of the mother church of evolutionism referred to in my post? It wouldn't surprise me, for the linguistic performance of members of that group tends to be stunted at that vocabulary level.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,10:05
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,15:50) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What math? Where? Quote ACLU
F U ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My dear Ved,
Is the phrase "F U" part of the liturgy of the mother church of evolutionism referred to in my post? It wouldn't surprise me, for the linguistic performance of members of that group tends to be stunted at that vocabulary level. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill, I'd be careful about slinging arrows at the scientific community, when doing so will provoke easy comparison to the linguistic performance of members of the various fundamentalist churches, especially those in the American "Bible Belt" (and I'm talking about English and other natural languages, not glossolalia).
Now, about them blueshifts...
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 30 2006,10:39
Nah, me know other words.
Me just didn't feel the need to use any others. It seemed appropriate at the time (sorry mods) to counter yet another of your cheap shots. What more is there to say about it? You don't admire the elegant simplicity of my intelligently designed reply?
I'm starting to think that all of your so-called theories are nothing more than a springboard from which you can rail against all your percieved enemies. What kind of scientist mentions, in the middle of his discourse, that people in the ACLU are stupid? What on earth does the ACLU have to do with your quintessence sphere?
I'm not a scientist. I don't even pretend to be one. But you don't find me on this board saying that cranks or conservatives or theists are stupid. Heck, I even like some of your prose, your way with words sometimes gives me a chuckle. Granted, it's usually because you're weaving insults into your theories... though the comment I was responding to was just dumb. Not your best work.
Posted by: MDPotter on Jan. 30 2006,10:39
GoP babbled:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on delusional analysis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fixed that for ya.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,11:35
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, about them blueshifts... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,12:25
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,17:35) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now, about them blueshifts... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, how does it explain differing redshifts, which range from z=~0 to z > 3? And how does it explain the fact that different ranges of redshifts also correspond to different categories of astronomical and cosmological objects? I.e., redshifts > 0.1 are rare for intragalactic objects, redshifts > 1 are rare for anything other than extremely energetic galaxies and quasars, and redshifts > 3 are almost unheard of for anything other than quasars.
And as for blueshifts, there is no obvious correspondence between azimuth/right ascension and approach/recession velocity. If the sphere is vibrating with harmonics (I'm assuming that's what you mean when you say it's not vibrating simultaneously), there should be some fairly straighforward pattern of red- and blueshifts.
The patterns of red- and blueshift, are well-accounted for, however, by reference to the dynamics of stellar orbits around the galaxy's center of mass and to the large-scale structure of the galaxy.
Further, extremely high blueshifts are extremely rare, but extremely high redshifts are extremely common. What up with that?
Also, your implied age of the cosmos (~6,000 years) is plainly wrong. The evidence that the earth is ~4.5 E 9 years old and that the universe is 1.37 E 10 years old is essentially unassailable. In other words, for you to be right about the age of the earth, we'd have to jettison virtually everything we know about astronomy, geology, chemistry, paleontology, biology, cosmology, relativity, and quantum physics. In other words, we'd have to jettison virtually all of science.
I think there's the same problem here there was with your misunderstandings of phylogentic relationships among taxa, Bill. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to how evidence from very different and independent lines of reasoning can all converge on the same answers. You spent a lot of time arguing about discordant results obtained from gene and protein analysis, while completely disregarding an immense body of evidence derived from totally separate lines of inquiry, like morphological comparisons, the fossil record, plate tectonics, and cladistics.
I was recently reading this < article > on TalkOrigins about various YEC claims. One thing that jumped out at me was that the various methods the YECs used to estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years. Didn't that give the YEC guys pause as to the validity of their methods? All the various methods--stratigraphy, paleontology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, paleomagnetics, theories about planetary formation--converge on one value: ~4.5E9 years. The YECs' methods generated estimates all over the map. The only thing they had in common was that they were all at least an order of magnitude lower than the accepted value.
That should have set off some warning bells, I would have thought...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,12:28
Mr. Potty wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- GoP babbled: Quote In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on delusional analysis.
Fixed that for ya. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr. Potty appears highly skilled at the art of character interchange via keyboard. Perhaps we need to recruit him in a "man-vs.-machine" showdown against Dawkins' weasel program on who can write the works of Shakespeare the fastest. However, this might be too much trouble on a first try. Instead, he could compete with < his perceived ancestors > in a race for the holy grail of literary greatness via keyboard plonking.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 30 2006,13:08
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, your implied age of the cosmos (~6,000 years) is plainly wrong. The evidence that the earth is ~4.5 E 9 years old and that the universe is 1.37 E 10 years old is essentially unassailable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ > < http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/ > < http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Redshift > < http://tinyurl.com/bo7a7 >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 30 2006,13:10
46 pages for someone to propose the age of the earth is ~6,000 years?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,13:27
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 30 2006,19<!--emo&) | < http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ > < http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/ > < http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Redshift > < http://tinyurl.com/bo7a7 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Evidence for the Big Bang >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,15:27
Martin wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Secondly, the phrase ‘all three fish classes’ is simply Arnason et al.’s mistake re-stated. It assumes the correctness of the ‘fish typology’ as a natural group. However, there is ample evidence that tetrapods are descended from some ‘fish’ and that taxa of interest to us here belong along that branch. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And maybe one day Arnason will find it. Let's review some complaints of the < original Arnason study: >
1) No tetrapods 2) Not enough lungfish/coelacanth species 3) Bad root, partly due to 1)
Let's take the last part first. < Here's an unrooted tree > from < from an earlier study. > As one can see, the lamprey creates trouble when used as an outgroup, because of the tendency of its mitochondrial DNA to cluster with tetrapods (I can cite other sources for this claim). On the other hand, its nuclear DNA behaves better under the evolutionary whip. So should this organism be used? Depends on the researcher's presuppositions. To address the first two points, let's examine fresh studies. After making the very adjustments that Martin et al. demand, our dear Aranson finds that the results don't < improve: >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- (1) Morphological and molecular trees of gnathostome relationships commonly depict lungfishes and tetrapods as sister groups. However, in many cases, the placement of the rooting point of these trees has depended on arbitrary assumptions. Traditionally, these trees show Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) as the sister group of remaining gnathostomes, a position that is inconsistent with the palaeontological age of the Chondrichthyes, which is younger than that of bony fishes.
(2) Analyses of mt data sets do not identify the commonly accepted gnathostome tree. Instead, when the tree is rooted with a non-gnathostome outgroup it splits into one tetrapod and one piscine branch. Chondrichthyes fall among other lineages on the piscine branch. The mt tree is inconsistent with the common notion of evolution from cartilaginous fishes to ray-finned fishes and from here to lobe-finned fishes (lungfishes and coelacanths) and tetrapods
(3) Gnathostome mt distances are consistent with a basal split between tetrapods and all gnathostomous fishes. The distances do not suggest that the evolutionary rates of the chondrichthyan mt genomes are anomalous compared to other mt genomes.
(4) The mt tree suggests that lungs and air breathing are ‘‘primitive’’ conditions among extant gnathostomes. If so, tetrapods and basal lineages on the piscine branch have retained this condition, while the swim bladder and the absence of this organ in some piscine lineages, constitute derived conditions.
(5) Some nuclear data sets favour the mt tree, while others don’t. The correct tree of basal gnathostome relationships is not known, but the mt trees are reproduced by currently acknowledged phylogenetic approaches. The amount of data that can be extracted from mt genomes is finite. Therefore, by necessity, extended analyses of deep gnathostome relationships must be based on the establishment of larger nuclear data sets and a more comprehensive taxon sampling. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, Bichirs and ropefish were the basal piscines, leading to the oddly creationist mantra: "a tetrapod is a tetrapod, and a fish, a fish". Hey guys, take a look at Table One: I think you'll find enough Dipnoids and 4pods to keep you occupied. And finally, another < side of Brinkmann. >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The gene order of the mitochondrial genomes of the South American and Australian lungfish conforms to the consensus gene order among gnathostome vertebrates. The phylogenetic analyses of the complete set of mitochondrial proteins (without ND6) suggest that the lungfish are the closest relatives of the tetrapods, although the support in favor of this scenario is not statistically significant. The two other smaller data sets (tRNA and rRNA genes) give inconsistent results depending on the different reconstruction methods applied and cannot significantly rule out any of the three alternative hypotheses. Nuclear protein-coding genes, which might be better phylogenetic markers for this question, support the lungfish–tetrapod sister-group relationship (Brinkmann et al. 2004). [Paley's emphasis] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While Arnason may be sliding over to the dark side, ya'll still have Brinkmann, at least. Heat therapy, anyone?
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 30 2006,15:37
Disclaimer: the following post is partially content-free.
Not that I want to prolong the agony here, but perhaps Mr. Ghost is unaware that the distance to relatively nearby stars (within about 100 light years) can be measured without recourse to redshift: directly, by parallax, using the ~300 million kilometer diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun as the base of the triangle.
Of course, I suppose that these apparently nearby stars are vibrating in the celestial sphere too, sideways, with a period of one year. Yes, that must be the explanation. Funny that the stars that seem nearer, based on type and redshift, are the ones with this wiggle.
In fact, this celestial sphere must be a-wigglin' and a-jigglin' like jello! Maybe my brother was too pessimistic when he said:
I don't know but I been told Can't get to heaven in a jello mold
All this celestial jiggling, in just the right places and frequencies and quantities to simulate the observations made by scientists unencumbered by empyreae, freefloating Bose-Einstein condensate, and cramped timetables, can only mean one thing: magic. And that means God.
Where is Occam when we need him?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 30 2006,15:56
Flippin' Heck!
looks like Gop's gone back to Googletrawling for fish again - at least the formatting in of his last post shows his method. <ah! - sorted now I see - appears that Gop couldn't post at the Panda's Thumb - what is it with Trolls and technology?>
And Gop's invention of the wobbly 'quintessance' to fudge a set of data consistant with a much simpler explanation reminds me of the old argument that fossils were laid down in a nice orderly way by the devil to make us all doubt the existence of the creator.
Any doubts that Gop is totally bonkers should have been laid to rest by now.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2006,17:15
Re "estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years."
Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.
Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,20:38
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2006,23:15) | Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. Lord Kelvin figured prominently in their arguments:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This age is attributed to Barnes (14). Barnes (14) summarizes and supports the arguments developed first in 1862 by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who calculated that the Earth could be no less than 20 million and no more than 400 million years old (127). Kelvin’s calculations were based on the presumption that the Earth was cooling from an initial white-hot molten state, and his calculations determined how long it would take for the observed geothermal gradient to reach its present configuration. Kelvin also calculated that the Sun is probably no more than 100 million years old and almost certainly no more than 500 million years old (126). These upper limits for the age of the Sun were based on his estimate of the available supply of gravitational energy, which, he concluded, would not last many millions of years longer. Nuclear reactions, which we now know are responsible for the Sun’s fires, were unknown in Kelvin’s time. The value of 24 million years, preferred by Barnes (14) and listed by Morris and Parker (97) as the age of the Earth, is attributed by Barnes to Kelvin but was, in fact, first published by King (73). Lord Kelvin (82), however, agreed with King’s value and adopted it as a likely upper limit for the age of the Earth. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(< Dalrymple >, internal citations omitted)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,20:43
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,21:27) | And maybe one day Arnason will find it. Let's review some complaints of the < original Arnason study: >
1) No tetrapods 2) Not enough lungfish/coelacanth species 3) Bad root, partly due to 1)
etc. etc. etc. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the point of your post is that portions of the phylogenetic tree are controversial, you'll get no argument from me (or from any evolutionary biologist, either).
If your point is that the phylogenetic tree is completely wrong, well, all I can say is…you're completely wrong.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 31 2006,05:57
ericmurphy:
This was finally explained to me, because I couldn't understand what Ghost was trying to say either.
Nobody is contending that phylogenetic trees are easy to construct or not subject to dispute. There is a great deal of controversy.
What Ghost is saying is, at the cutting edge of science, you would expect this sort of debate - very few of the results have come in yet, and those that have come in aren't particularly reliable, so there's lots of scope for debate.
Ghost's point is that over the last decade or so, a very large amount of additional results have become available, adding a wealth of genetic and molecular analysis evidence to the existing morphological evidence. And yet these trees are NO CLOSER to resolved than they were before. Which lineages are included in the sample change the apparent relationships among other lineages. Different analytical techniques using the same data produce very different trees.
Ghost's argument is that when a wealth of additional information becomes available, and when that information is a great deal more reliable, and we STILL can't build trees any more robust than ever, maybe the problem is that our assumption of trees is wrong in the first place. We can't produce good reliable trees because there are no trees to produce - the data stubbornly refuse to fit our wrong assumption.
To which two counter-arguments have been presented over at PT. First, that there has indeed been a trend toward a solid consensus as more information comes in; the tree model seems to be working just fine. And second, that EVEN IF the tree model is wrong, this lends absolutely no positive support to the 'poof' model.
Ghost has at this point been reduced to claiming the consensus as to phylogenetic trees isn't very solid, and for the good reason that God didn't do it that way. Instead, God created 'kinds' that have been generally milling around their Platonic centers. And therefore attempts to find that one 'kind' evolved out of another is doomed to the kinds of problems cladists are suffering; they're looking for what didn't happen.
Now, if only we'd read the freepin' BIBLE, we'd have known this all along and saved ourselves all this confusion and heartburn.
Posted by: MDPotter on Jan. 31 2006,06:29
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,18:28) | The Gibbering Puddler babbled: Mr. Potty appears highly skilled at the art of character interchange via keyboard. Perhaps we need to recruit him in a "man-vs.-machine" showdown against Dawkins' weasel program on who can write the works of Shakespeare the fastest. However, this might be too much trouble on a first try. Instead, he could compete with < his perceived ancestors > in a race for the holy grail of literary greatness via keyboard plonking. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Potty, lol, ever clever! Right back at ya Gobbler. However, chimps are not my 'perceived ancestors', (although I'm willing to believe they could be yours), but that is a common misunderstanding among people who don't know what they're talking about. And how could I ever compete with 46 pages of your ill-conceived idiocy? It's you who is in willing competition with the chimps to tap out something intelligent -- Shakespearean, even -- through deliberate keyboard poking. Poke... here I refute physics... poke ... and biology ... poke .. and astronomy... Babbling puddles of ghostly gibberish, quinitessential spheres of bullshit with a pale white glow.
Babble on Paleface.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 31 2006,07:03
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 31 2006,11:57) | ericmurphy:
This was finally explained to me, because I couldn't understand what Ghost was trying to say either. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I've explained this at great length to the good reverend previously. While there's a great deal of controversy as to the root of the tree (we're talking organisms that diverged a billion and a half years ago or more), and there's plenty of controversy about various twigs and leaves, huge portions of the tree are very well established. Bill seems to have a huge hangup about where, e.g., lampreys and hagfishes fit at the base of the craniata clade, but he doesn't seem to understand that lampreys are more closely related to humans than 97% of the organisms out there.
There's not much controversy in the field that hagfishes are more closely related to humans than either are to, say, digger wasps. And all three are more closely related to each other than any are to mushrooms. In broad outline, the phylogenetic tree is well established in < this form >. Bill seems to be hung up on the indisputable fact that sometimes the genetic and protein evidence is difficult to figure out, and uses those difficulties to argue that there is no phylogenetic tree at all. Which is clearly wrong.
Further, as Dr. Theobald has pointed out, given the astronomical number of phylogenetic trees that could be constructed, the fact that two trees derived from different lines of evidence converge at all is strong evidence that common descent with modification is a fact in need of explanation, not a hypothesis in need of evidence.
It's like arguing that because scientists don't have a clear understanding of the interpretation of quantum physics, that quantum physics must be completely wrong.
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 31 2006,07:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And Gop's invention of the wobbly 'quintessance' to fudge a set of data consistant with a much simpler explanation reminds me of the old argument that fossils were laid down in a nice orderly way by the devil to make us all doubt the existence of the creator. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck's bells, Mr. Morrison, I thought the same thing. But then I realized, why stop there? This is God we're talking about, and He can do Anything.
So why should He settle for a jiggly jello data tweaker with all those pesky observational and logical unpleasantries? No, there's a much simpler explanation, which not only overturns five hundred years of physics, but millenia of philosophy: God is beaming all this stuff directly into our brains. Whether our brains exist in a "real" world or in a big Vat in God's Basement is immaterial. This explanation neatly takes care of any conceivable objection, and is free of fiddly mathematics.
Mr. Ghost, I'll mention you in my Nobel acceptance speech. Before I do, however, maybe you can explain to me why God would mess with our minds like that. Thank you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2006,07:01
Zilch wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So why should He settle for a jiggly jello data tweaker with all those pesky observational and logical unpleasantries? No, there's a much simpler explanation, which not only overturns five hundred years of physics, but millenia of philosophy: God is beaming all this stuff directly into our brains. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, metaphysical assumptions drive my model...so what? Every hypothesis resides in a philosophical matrix, including those derived from a naturalistic point of view. One can't test a piece of a theory without implicitly probing the rest. That's how the model becomes consistent not only with itself, but with the rest of the universe. Which is pretty much science's goal.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 01 2006,09:00
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 01 2006,13) |
Yes, metaphysical assumptions drive my model...so what? Every hypothesis resides in a philosophical matrix, including those derived from a naturalistic point of view. One can't test a piece of a theory without implicitly probing the rest. That's how the model becomes consistent not only with itself, but with the rest of the universe. Which is pretty much science's goal. <!--emo& ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The philosophical assumptions of your model are pretty clear, in the same way that Einstein's assumption of a static universe led to his insertion of the Cosmological Constant (which, no matter how hard we try, won't seem to go away).
But the other half of the equation is in two parts: 1) the model must match observation; and 2) the model must in some way provide a conceptual framework for the range of phenomena it seeks to explain.
So far, your model isn't doing so well on 1), and I'm pretty sure it will never be able to achieve a better framework under 2) than currently exists under less, shall we say, outlandish models (although the existing models are certainly not slouches in the outlandishness sweepstakes).
Posted by: zilch on Feb. 01 2006,10:14
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So far, your model isn't doing so well on 1), and I'm pretty sure it will never be able to achieve a better framework under 2) than currently exists under less, shall we say, outlandish models ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ericmurphy- On point 1), I must disagree. The advantage of having a model created by magic is that it can match any observation without even breaking a sweat. To wit: it was objected that some stars are blueshifted. The ghost model complied with observation by developing wobbles, presumably in just the right directions and velocities to match the observations. Other, as yet unanswered objections will find their proper wobbles in the fullness of time, I'm sure. On point 2), I agree. I assume by "framework" you mean something like "a theory which fits observations and explains them coherently". Here the ghost model fails dismally. The presumed wobbles that result in what we observe have no theoretical explanation in the ghost model. The formulae presented so far are cherrypicked puzzle pieces, not ramifications of a central naturalistic theory. "Naturalistic" is necessary, because of course if magic is invoked, there are no holds barred, and my "God is beaming everything" theory is superior because it's simpler and accounts for everything better.
In other words, the ghost model is jello. But real jello is governed by physics, and wobbles the way it does because it's all connected together, in fact and in theory, and the theory explains the jiggles in a coherent way. Empyreal jello is not all connected together in theory- its jiggles and twitches are governed by a magical String Puller, and the explanations for each twitch (when proffered at all) are simply googletrawled to match the observations.
And even though it's moderately entertaining to take Bishop Ussher's age of the Earth as a piece of hard data, and come up with a magic filter that tweaks the physical data just right so that it fits, I see no reason to prefer a 4.5 lightyear empyreum over, say, one 100 lightyears across, with no jiggling, but whose light is distorted by a field just outside the Kuiper Belt. Fishing for formulae to fit any fantasy is rather like proving that the Bible is true, or false, through numerology: with a bit of ingenuity, it can be done; but it proves nothing.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 01 2006,11:03
Quote (zilch @ Feb. 01 2006,16:14) | ericmurphy- On point 1), I must disagree. The advantage of having a model created by magic is that it can match any observation without even breaking a sweat. To wit: it was objected that some stars are blueshifted. The ghost model complied with observation by developing wobbles, presumably in just the right directions and velocities to match the observations. Other, as yet unanswered objections will find their proper wobbles in the fullness of time, I'm sure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I suppose if your standards are low enough, you can always come up with a model that will fit some observation. But I'm willing to bet that Bill will never be able to come up with a model that will fit some observations without being contradicted by others. It's just too big of a tap-dance, too much like a game of Wack-a-Mole.
But it will be entertaining to watch him try.
And as for the blueshift, his model no more accounts for actual observed blueshifts than ID "accounts" for bacterial flagella by claiming they were designed by a designer.
Posted by: zilch on Feb. 01 2006,11:17
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But I'm willing to bet that Bill will never be able to come up with a model that will fit some observations without being contradicted by others. It's just too big of a tap-dance, too much like a game of Wack-a-Mole. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric, you might well be right that the tap-dancers in any such model would be stepping on each other's toes constantly, if they were constrained by coherency. But if the formulae don't have to fit together, they can overlap and contradict one another, so that the dancers can simply, magically, dance through one another like so many ghosts. I imagine that's no problem for the denizens of empyreae.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 03 2006,08:21
HET - ÃOBOPÈTÜ writes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Eric, you might well be right that the tap-dancers in any such model would be stepping on each other's toes constantly, if they were constrained by coherency. But if the formulae don't have to fit together, they can overlap and contradict one another, so that the dancers can simply, magically, dance through one another like so many ghosts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not if the formulae are being picked apart by specialists and knowledgeable amateurs.
Posted by: cogzoid on Feb. 03 2006,11:25
Picked apart is right. I'm hoping to see you try to answer some questions in the future.
-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 03 2006,11:52
I'd like to get the doppler blueshift/redshift and cosmological redshift stuff out of the way so we can move on to the rest of my questions. At this rate, it's going to be ten years before I need to think of any new ones…
Posted by: cogzoid on Feb. 06 2006,13:30
Paley,
How long must we wait for answers before we accept your inability to answer questions as a concession? Are you waiting for scientific papers on tachyons so you can kludge that into your theory?
Certainly you should be able to address the questions that deal with showing your work. Unless, of course, you skipped all the work and jumped straight to the conclusion!
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 06 2006,13:50
I've been busy lately, sorry...I've also been trying to integrate dirichlet functions into my model, and it's taking longer than I thought. I'm still working on it.....
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 06 2006,16:39
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 06 2006,19:30) | Certainly you should be able to address the questions that deal with showing your work. Unless, of course, you skipped all the work and jumped straight to the conclusion!
-Dan ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's pretty clear by now—isn't it?—that that's exactly what's happened. Mr. Bill has obviously reached the conclusion—geocentrism—first, and now is trying to develop a model that will justify that conclusion.
Does this remind you of any other group of "theorists"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 07 2006,12:52
Sorry for the delay, but I'm trying to wed several portions of my earlier theory with newer parts, all while anticipating possible objections.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 07 2006,17:26
Every time someone points out a huge leak in Gops Googletrawler he has to go and fish for more patches. He seems to think that if he can find an obscure enough term it might frighten you guys off:
< Dirichelt functions indeed >
Sticking plasters on wobbly jello an elegant model does not make GoP. I suppose when you've left a great big pile of obscure Googletrawled references on the floor you'll want to stand back and say ha! - understand that!
Why do you bother when your first principle is that you know about the position of the world is from Scripture? Don't tell me you worked out your Geocentresm from Dirichlet functions backwards through wobbly jello and whatever else you've been entertaining these guys with back to the inescapable conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the universe? How could you - you're still making it up as you go along for Chrissake!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- "If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected," he said... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now guess who said that Gop ?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 10 2006,13:31
In order to keep this thread from scrolling right off the first page of ATBC, I thought I'd ask the good Rev. for a status update on his attempt to explain the various lengthenings and shortenings of wavelengths out there.
It would be great to get that stuff out of the way, so we can move on to a brand new theory of nucleosynthesis, since the old one obviously isn't going to work in a cosmos nine light years wide.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 13 2006,10:45
So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.
Again, I understand that overturning half a millennium of science takes time. But I think we were all under the impression that you already had at least the framework of a theory already put together. Your piece-meal attempts to address our objections to your theory (none of which, I might add, have been adequately addressed yet), leaves one with the impression that you're just starting to come up with the bare outlines of a theory attempting to reach a preset conclusion.
All in all, the more we look at it, the less any of it looks like actual science.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 13 2006,12:43
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it - I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 14 2006,06:56
So the answer to the original question is....
after 16 - odd pages .....
Ghost of Paley can't back up his assertions.......
as you're so busy Gop - I won't be expecting you to be spreading your objectionable opinions elsewhere will I now???
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2006,07:53
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 13 2006,18:43) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it - I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material.... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 14 2006,11:23
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ghost of Paley can't back up his assertions.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....and people wonder why I'm so unrelenting - look what happens when I drop my guard.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 15 2006,01:51
So what was it that made you decide to throw the towel in GOP? Couldn't find a way to cobble together Dirichelt functions onto your model? Or just out of your depth?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 15 2006,16:05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|