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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 254 255 256 257 258 [259] 260 261 262 263 264 ... >

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,12:31    Quote Alan Fox: I agree that “no designer would do it that way” is a daft response to – well, what did you ask? – because nobody is giving the designer any attributes on which to base any supposition about the motives of any “designer or “agent”. I think that put in those terms, "no designer would do it that way" is a daft response. But of course, the context is significantly more broad. What Eric is failing to note (aside from the question(s) that prompted the responses he cites) is that the underlying assumption is that ID is the Logos of John. Ergo, if you have a designer with unlimited resources and unlimited capability, there are designs such an entity just would not do. But even if we toss aside the creationist (wink wink, nudge nudge) slight-of-hand and assume that ID stands on it's own religiously-neutral ground, we can still assess some characteristics about a supposed designer. For instance, we have several different so-called "eye designs" out there. I would think that anyone who truly thinks that ID is a viable scientific concept would be at least attempting to explain why and at least to some extent compare and qualifying some eye designs (like the Mollusca) as "good" against others (such as the Vertebrate)  as "not nearly as good". It might not reach to the level of "a designer would not do that", but I can't imagine anyone who would argue it's a design that makes sense given other, far superior designs. Basically folks like Eric want everyone to accept as a default the idea that all of this grand complexity of life around us points to some waaaaaaay advanced designer, while handwaving away unexplainable elementary engineering differences and issues as irrelevant. Nobody who has any scientific curiosity would do that (see what I did there?). ETA: typos Edited by Robin on Mar. 01 2013,12:32 -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,13:32    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 01 2013,12:31) ETA: typos You 'edited to add' typos?   -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,14:19    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 01 2013,13:32) Quote (Robin @ Mar. 01 2013,12:31) ETA: typos You 'edited to add' typos?   -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,18:37    Quote Good thing she’s a “hard-core Christian,” eh? Otherwise, one might have to actually engage the evidence she presents. Now, we can all just dismiss her with sneering contempt. Non-deliberate irony I'll engage the evidence right here right now. Well, that was easy. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2013,18:46    Do they ever do anything other than homiletics? I mean, that's what strikes me about blathering on about the wonders of Caribbean Reef Squid, the bacterial flagellum, and any and all sundry "complexity," it always sounds like a damned sermon and nothing else--including Behe's paeons to gollygeewhiz, certainly. And that's just it, a sermon will do it for them, and we're evil atheistic science deniers if we want something more. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,18:33    Niwrad's latest post and the following comments have to be among the stupidest things I've ever read. Quote Box #3 & alan #10 Most apparatuses in higher organisms are not related to reproduction: e.g. cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, urinary, immune, muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory systems. Yeah, lets pull your cardiovascular and nervous system, and see how well you can reproduce. Dafuck? The regulars are excited by this train(wreck) of thought. Quote As a simple analogy, if a car factory builds and selects devices to get the movement of the car only, it will never produce the car systems that are not directly related to movement (e.g. the steering system, the brake system, the air conditioned, the seats, the rear-view mirror, etc.). So evolution predicts disembodied genitalia, is the argument here? Edited by REC on Mar. 02 2013,18:51

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,20:10    Timaeus is a pompous ass: Quote What is amusing is that Matzke has managed to convince so many people that he is some kind of expert on evolutionary biology. Let’s look at the facts: 1. As of his own last notice here, he had not yet finished his Ph.D. in the subject. If he has finished it since, it’s only very recently. 2. As far as I know, his publication record (peer-reviewed scientific articles, not nasty reviews of ID books) is rather scanty. Years ago he was co-author on an article about the flagellum. I haven’t heard of any peer-reviewed articles since. Maybe he has them, but I don’t know what they are. 3. Matzke spends an inordinate amount of time blogging and fighting culture wars. No scientist with a serious research program has time to do this. ... Some sock at UD ought to clue him in that Matzke has coauthored 3 peer-reviewed articles in 2012 (including one in Nature and one in PNAS) and 4 in 2011 (one of them in Nature). Not bad for a grad student! And at any rate, his 2011-2013 publication record is way better than that of M. J. Behe or of any other creationist type. As a self-described academic, Timaeus could have easily found this out on his own through Web of Science. Or he could have looked up Matzke on Google Scholar. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,20:33    Timaeus continues: Quote Frankly, I wish UD would stop raising Matzke’s currency by giving him headlines. I don’t think Matzke is a great scientist, or even yet a good scientist. I think he’s a grad student with a big mouth and a fierce pride which prevents him from ever granting points in argument. We have made him into a threat that he isn’t. If we leave him alone, he will become a prof at some low- or middle-ranking university, and spend his life working within the neo-Darwinian paradigm, trying to confirm little bits here and there. He isn’t going to revolutionize evolutionary biology; he isn’t even going to say anything remarkably new. He will just become one of the mass of Ph.D.s doing routine work in a highly speculative field of science, which is not, in the final analysis, a very important field of science. There is no shame in being a grad student. All of the modern great scientists were grad students at some point. In fact, some grad students can teach tenured professors a lesson. Like Abbie Smith once did to Mike Behe. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,20:37    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2013,20:10) Timaeus is a pompous ass:       Quote What is amusing is that Matzke has managed to convince so many people that he is some kind of expert on evolutionary biology. Let’s look at the facts: 1. As of his own last notice here, he had not yet finished his Ph.D. in the subject. If he has finished it since, it’s only very recently. 2. As far as I know, his publication record (peer-reviewed scientific articles, not nasty reviews of ID books) is rather scanty. Years ago he was co-author on an article about the flagellum. I haven’t heard of any peer-reviewed articles since. Maybe he has them, but I don’t know what they are. 3. Matzke spends an inordinate amount of time blogging and fighting culture wars. No scientist with a serious research program has time to do this. ... Some sock at UD ought to clue him in that Matzke has coauthored 3 peer-reviewed articles in 2012 (including one in Nature and one in PNAS) and 4 in 2011 (one of them in Nature). Not bad for a grad student! And at any rate, his 2011-2013 publication record is way better than that of M. J. Behe or of any other creationist type. As a self-described academic, Timaeus could have easily found this out on his own through Web of Science. Or he could have looked up Matzke on Google Scholar. No wonder they can't find the designer... -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,20:52    Yes, Timaeus thinks Matzke gets far too much attention at UD, and thinks he should simply be ignored, expending over 700 words to say so. -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,23:25    Quote (REC @ Mar. 02 2013,18:33) Niwrad's latest post and the following comments have to be among the stupidest things I've ever read.     Quote Box #3 & alan #10 Most apparatuses in higher organisms are not related to reproduction: e.g. cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, urinary, immune, muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory systems. Yeah, lets pull your cardiovascular and nervous system, and see how well you can reproduce. Dafuck? The regulars are excited by this train(wreck) of thought.   Quote As a simple analogy, if a car factory builds and selects devices to get the movement of the car only, it will never produce the car systems that are not directly related to movement (e.g. the steering system, the brake system, the air conditioned, the seats, the rear-view mirror, etc.). So evolution predicts disembodied genitalia, is the argument here? Well, they are Christians thinking "no sex, no sin". -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2013,23:56    Why are the IDiots celebrating Watson and Crick day at UD andEN&V? DNA itself, especially its structure, its mode of replication as well as the mechanisms that lead to the introduction and the inheritance of mutations should be enough as proof of evolution. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,00:14    Quote (REC @ Mar. 02 2013,16:33) Niwrad's latest post and the following comments have to be among the stupidest things I've ever read.   Quote Box #3 & alan #10 Most apparatuses in higher organisms are not related to reproduction: e.g. cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, urinary, immune, muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory systems. Yeah, lets pull your cardiovascular and nervous system, and see how well you can reproduce. Dafuck? The regulars are excited by this train(wreck) of thought. Quote As a simple analogy, if a car factory builds and selects devices to get the movement of the car only, it will never produce the car systems that are not directly related to movement (e.g. the steering system, the brake system, the air conditioned, the seats, the rear-view mirror, etc.). So evolution predicts disembodied genitalia, is the argument here? Doesn't nirwad's statement go against the 'irreducible complexity' claim by IDiots? Isn't their argument that the  intertwined 'complex systems' in organisms, and especially in humans, cannot be 'reduced' or the whole organism will cease to function? And what about their argument against junk DNA? If they're going to claim that all DNA and all 'systems' in an organism are absolutely necessary for the organism to function (including reproduction) then how can they argue that any DNA (junk or otherwise) or 'systems' in an organism are "not related"? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,05:03    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 01 2013,18:31) Quote Alan Fox: I agree that “no designer would do it that way” is a daft response to – well, what did you ask? – because nobody is giving the designer any attributes on which to base any supposition about the motives of any “designer or “agent”. I think that put in those terms, "no designer would do it that way" is a daft response. But of course, the context is significantly more broad. What Eric is failing to note (aside from the question(s) that prompted the responses he cites) is that the underlying assumption is that ID is the Logos of John. Ergo, if you have a designer with unlimited resources and unlimited capability, there are designs such an entity just would not do. But even if we toss aside the creationist (wink wink, nudge nudge) slight-of-hand and assume that ID stands on it's own religiously-neutral ground, we can still assess some characteristics about a supposed designer. For instance, we have several different so-called "eye designs" out there. I would think that anyone who truly thinks that ID is a viable scientific concept would be at least attempting to explain why and at least to some extent compare and qualifying some eye designs (like the Mollusca) as "good" against others (such as the Vertebrate)  as "not nearly as good". It might not reach to the level of "a designer would not do that", but I can't imagine anyone who would argue it's a design that makes sense given other, far superior designs. Basically folks like Eric want everyone to accept as a default the idea that all of this grand complexity of life around us points to some waaaaaaay advanced designer, while handwaving away unexplainable elementary engineering differences and issues as irrelevant. Nobody who has any scientific curiosity would do that (see what I did there?). ETA: typos Much of the complexity of life is directed towards minimising the excellent designs of other organisms. Giving predators good eyesight and prey good camouflage is somewhat redundant. If a single designer, it's a bit pointless; if multiple, they can't have been operating in full isolation - they must have had a peek at each other's spec, to know what conditions to design for. But why aren't we all just photosynthetic? -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,07:37    Timaeus is digging deeper into a hole:   Quote I’m less concerned about formal fields of expertise, and completed degrees. I’m more interested in publications. Someone who really *knows* evolutionary biology will have multiple publications in the leading journals of the field, whether his degree was in biology or biochemistry or engineering or mathematics or something else, and whether he has a Ph.D. or only a Master’s. If Matzke has the potential to be a really innovative evolutionary biologist, he will already have shown it; it is not uncommon for science grad students to have several publications (at least accepted, if not yet printed) before graduating (even if those publications are often group rather than individual efforts). Where are Nick’s publications? Where has he shown that he *knows the craft* of evolutionary biology and therefore is the right person to explain it to James Tour, or to anyone else? I have seen nothing from him but sneering reviews of Behe and quarrelsome blogging. Where is the intellectual beef? Where are the calm, detached, scientific expositions, the detailed expositions of evolutionary mechanisms, free of culture-war polemics? No, you're not interested in Nick's publications, Timaeus. If you were, you would do what any academic type does: search for them. And then you would find them. Through Web of Science, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Or if you have been living under a rock for the last 10 years, by asking your friendly librarian. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,08:25    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2013,08:37) Timaeus is digging deeper into a hole:     Quote I’m less concerned about formal fields of expertise, and completed degrees. I’m more interested in publications. Someone who really *knows* evolutionary biology will have multiple publications in the leading journals of the field, whether his degree was in biology or biochemistry or engineering or mathematics or something else, and whether he has a Ph.D. or only a Master’s. If Matzke has the potential to be a really innovative evolutionary biologist, he will already have shown it; it is not uncommon for science grad students to have several publications (at least accepted, if not yet printed) before graduating (even if those publications are often group rather than individual efforts). Where are Nick’s publications? Where has he shown that he *knows the craft* of evolutionary biology and therefore is the right person to explain it to James Tour, or to anyone else? I have seen nothing from him but sneering reviews of Behe and quarrelsome blogging. Where is the intellectual beef? Where are the calm, detached, scientific expositions, the detailed expositions of evolutionary mechanisms, free of culture-war polemics? No, you're not interested in Nick's publications, Timaeus. If you were, you would do what any academic type does: search for them. And then you would find them. Through Web of Science, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Or if you have been living under a rock for the last 10 years, by asking your friendly librarian. these people are hilarious -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,11:02    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 03 2013,08:25) Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2013,08:37) Timaeus is digging deeper into a hole:       Quote I’m less concerned about formal fields of expertise, and completed degrees. I’m more interested in publications. Someone who really *knows* evolutionary biology will have multiple publications in the leading journals of the field, whether his degree was in biology or biochemistry or engineering or mathematics or something else, and whether he has a Ph.D. or only a Master’s. If Matzke has the potential to be a really innovative evolutionary biologist, he will already have shown it; it is not uncommon for science grad students to have several publications (at least accepted, if not yet printed) before graduating (even if those publications are often group rather than individual efforts). Where are Nick’s publications? Where has he shown that he *knows the craft* of evolutionary biology and therefore is the right person to explain it to James Tour, or to anyone else? I have seen nothing from him but sneering reviews of Behe and quarrelsome blogging. Where is the intellectual beef? Where are the calm, detached, scientific expositions, the detailed expositions of evolutionary mechanisms, free of culture-war polemics? No, you're not interested in Nick's publications, Timaeus. If you were, you would do what any academic type does: search for them. And then you would find them. Through Web of Science, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Or if you have been living under a rock for the last 10 years, by asking your friendly librarian. these people are hilarious Fixed That For You! :) Quote these people are hilarious, and delusional.   Quote these people are hilarious Edited by J-Dog on Mar. 03 2013,11:03 -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2013,11:15    Serves you Darwinists right that you lose for science the brilliance of niwrad, Hunter and Timaeus (whose publication record in evolutionary science must be amazing, or he wouldn't criticize it). Where have the Einsteins of this age gone?  Clearly, to UD. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,07:23    Dipping toe into TARD... Quote wallstreeter43: Yep Bornagain77, lucy should be reclassified as an ape in textbooks. Too late. Homo and Australopithecines are already classified as Hominidae, i.e. great apes. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,07:37    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 04 2013,07:23) Dipping toe into TARD... Quote wallstreeter43: Yep Bornagain77, lucy should be reclassified as an ape in textbooks. Too late. Homo and Australopithecines are already classified as Hominidae, i.e. great apes. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-448485 -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,08:55    I've found that regular old creationists, whether they be YEC tards or IDiot tards, just don't get me off like they used to do. But, man. Vegans do.  Most internet vegans make liberal (and shitty) use of The Argument Regarding Design in their justification for being vegan. And they have (on average) very different politics from the creationists I have been dealing with.  It is very entertaining to wrestle these pigs. I bring this up because they routinely claim that all humans and human ancestors were actually herbivores or frugivores or breatharians or something equally hilarious And one tard in particular told me that Lucy was vegan. I was astounded.  I linked him the Nature paper that presented some reasonable evidence of tool use and meat eating associated with Australopithecus afarensis.   Tard said "Well, her species ate meat but Lucy herself was vegan" spaghetti everywhere -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,10:13    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 04 2013,09:55) I've found that regular old creationists, whether they be YEC tards or IDiot tards, just don't get me off like they used to do. But, man. Vegans do.  Most internet vegans make liberal (and shitty) use of The Argument Regarding Design in their justification for being vegan. And they have (on average) very different politics from the creationists I have been dealing with.  It is very entertaining to wrestle these pigs. I bring this up because they routinely claim that all humans and human ancestors were actually herbivores or frugivores or breatharians or something equally hilarious And one tard in particular told me that Lucy was vegan. I was astounded.  I linked him the Nature paper that presented some reasonable evidence of tool use and meat eating associated with Australopithecus afarensis.   Tard said "Well, her species ate meat but Lucy herself was vegan" spaghetti everywhere "Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living. Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food." -- Anthony Bourdain

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,10:32    agreed. for me, anyone who can't appreciate stinky cheese or a raw steak immediately raises my suspicions but beyond that, i can appreciate dietary diversity i am talking about hard tard.  The blue crystalline stuff.  BIG ROCKS.  just sniffing the bag will do you.  this is like the bonanza of the dover trial, every day, over and over. they're new age fundies, and hey deny evolution for the same reasons (religious) as the fundies we usually mess with... so you know the game before you even play it.  but it's so refreshing to see new tard arguments. instead of nattering about information and what are the limits of RM + NS, you get "humans are 100% herbivore" followed by some real howlers.   i am nearly clear of ID tard, I only check this thread I don't look at UD anymore.  I don't need to.  animal rights creationists sustain me. Hi I am Erasmus FCD and I am a tardaholic -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,12:40    Alan Fox at UD gives Timaeus a link to Matzke's publication record on Google Scholar. It is arranged, by default, by the number of citations to the articles. Timaeus responds thus: Quote Alan Fox: Being a non-academic yourself, you are perhaps unfamiliar with the distinction between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles, between popular and technical articles, and between book reviews and original research. I can tell just by looking at this list that the vast majority of these articles are popular articles on the ID controversy, or book reviews, or other non-peer-reviewed articles. Others are articles from an earlier phase of Nick’s career, when he was a geographer, not an evolutionary biologist. Others are only projected articles or books, not yet published, and in at least one case, apparently not yet written. I’m looking for Nick’s *peer-reviewed* articles *in evolutionary biology*. It would also be interesting to know if he has any *solo* articles in that field, as opposed to 6-page articles where he is responsible for about 1/5 of the work. When you’ve whittled that list of articles down to non-popular articles published in peer-reviewed journals, get back to me with your revised list, and then I’ll do a count of total articles, total pages, and total solo articles. Then I’ll compare that output with that of several full-time professional evolutionary biologists, and see how Nick’s track record as an expert in the field of evolutionary biology stacks up. A hint, Timaeus: click the Year button! (Granted, Alan's link is in French, so that would be Année.) LOL -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,12:41    There's always anti-vax, alternative medicine, and anti-fill-in-the blank. Woo seems to be the dark side, and it seems to be the stronger side. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,16:44    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 04 2013,08:55) I've found that regular old creationists, whether they be YEC tards or IDiot tards, just don't get me off like they used to do. But, man. Vegans do.  Most internet vegans make liberal (and shitty) use of The Argument Regarding Design in their justification for being vegan. And they have (on average) very different politics from the creationists I have been dealing with.  It is very entertaining to wrestle these pigs. I bring this up because they routinely claim that all humans and human ancestors were actually herbivores or frugivores or breatharians or something equally hilarious And one tard in particular told me that Lucy was vegan. I was astounded.  I linked him the Nature paper that presented some reasonable evidence of tool use and meat eating associated with Australopithecus afarensis.   Tard said "Well, her species ate meat but Lucy herself was vegan" spaghetti everywhere There's No Tard Like The Old Tard... I'm talking Pope On A Rope, Denyse's Roman Catholic, Creator Designer Of The Inquisition, and Larger Number Than Dembski Can Count Diddler of Altar Boys - Yes, The Holy And Apostolic Catholic Church - The Old Tard Is the Best Tard. CC has been obfuscating and didling longer than dembski's been kicked out of Baylor by a factor of 100... The CC laugh at their crude imitators from the ID and Vegan camps.  And if they ever get allied with their Moslem Brothers in Holier-Than-Thou Sanctimony watch the hell out, because it's time to run to the jungle. k.e. - SAVE ME A SPACE AT THE FIRE BRO! Edited by J-Dog on Mar. 04 2013,16:45 -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,16:53    JLAFan2001: “ID posits that organisms are intelligently designed to evolve to environmental cues.” Nope. It does not posit this. Some ID proponents believe this. Others do not. Ha ha, ID doesn't say anything specific enough to be science. Barry wins again. And watch how cleverly he argues that a finch is just a finch:   Quote Now let me get this straight.  Millions of years ago there was a finch. Now there are 15 kinds of finches, but they are all basically the same kind of thing.  (That’s why we call all of them “finches.”) Now that's a skilled attorney.  My God, there's no possibility for meaningful  evolution at all, because, say, eukaryotes are all basically the same kind of thing, that's why we call them eukaryotes.  Or, one could say the same for "life." Surely Gary will eventually hook up with his fellow genius. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,16:56    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 04 2013,16:53) JLAFan2001: “ID posits that organisms are intelligently designed to evolve to environmental cues.” Nope. It does not posit this. Some ID proponents believe this. Others do not. Ha ha, ID doesn't say anything specific enough to be science. Barry wins again. And watch how cleverly he argues that a finch is just a finch:     Quote Now let me get this straight.  Millions of years ago there was a finch. Now there are 15 kinds of finches, but they are all basically the same kind of thing.  (That’s why we call all of them “finches.”) Now that's a skilled attorney.  My God, there's no possibility for meaningful  evolution at all, because, say, eukaryotes are all basically the same kind of thing, that's why we call them eukaryotes.  Or, one could say the same for "life." Surely Gary will eventually hook up with his fellow genius. Glen Davidson Once there was life now there is still life. Same thing! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,18:58    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Timaeus learns from Alan Fox that Matzke published 7 peer-reviewed articles in the last two years. His reaction: Quote Alan: Thanks for attempting to answer, but for clarity’s sake: Which articles were peer-reviewed? And how did you determine that? Jesus H. Christ... Timaeus, you purport to be an academic. Click on the fucking links and see where the articles have been published. The 2011 Nature paper is a review. Nature reviews are refereed. Others are research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. He then moves goal posts and demands a page count: Quote But let’s say your count is right. Congratulations to Nick. But since the typical paper on your list is only a few pages long, and has about four (sometimes five or more) authors, I wonder how much heavy-duty scientific work such “papers” require. I’m used to disciplines where an author generally does all the research and writing himself, and where the papers range from about 12 to about 40 pages in length. Does 1/5 or 1/4 of seven 6-page papers make one a master of evolutionary biology? Maybe in philosophy it's the page count that matters. (That would explain Torley's logorrhea.) But not in the scientific fields. Experimental papers are typically printed on 4-6 pages (plus supplemental info). It's not the page count that matters but rather the scientific findings. Matzke's scientific output is excellent for someone at his stage (grad student). And these aren't just experimental papers. A review in Nature is a sign of mature knowledge that Timaeus demands. But wait, there's MOAR: Quote By the way, Mike Behe published over 35 peer-reviewed papers over several years, in his younger days, i.e., when he was in the stage of his career Matzke is in now — the stage of trying to prove oneself competent in one’s field. So make your comparison fair. Compare Behe with his tenured critics. Ask yourself how many peer-reviewed papers Ken Miller has published since 1999, for example. Or Dawkins, since about 30 years ago. I looked up Behe's pubs on Web of Science. As a grad student at Penn (1974-79), he had published 3 papers and a meeting abstract. In the next 5 years (1980-1984) he had 8 papers. I would not say he had a superior record. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2013,20:54    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 04 2013,07:23) Dipping toe into TARD...   Quote wallstreeter43: Yep Bornagain77, lucy should be reclassified as an ape in textbooks. Too late. Homo and Australopithecines are already classified as Hominidae, i.e. great apes. Not that anyone would be surprised but Bornagain77 et al failed to apply any critical analysis to the Rak et al 2007 study. I took a look at the study here if anyone is interested. It goes without saying that the creationists at UD believe that species are immutable so they are either one thing or the other which neatly rules out, by definition, transitional forms. Edit to fix a typo -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Pages: (356) < ... 254 255 256 257 258 [259] 260 261 262 263 264 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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