news aggregator
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Zachriel
Quote kairosfocus: So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to empirically warrant their claims.
Kairosfocus has been going on about the avian lung for some time now. As with most IDers, they confuse their ignorance or inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist. There is ample evidence of the evolution of birds, and of evolution generally, yet there will always be mysteries concerning the exact sequence of events.
In this case, all it takes is a valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Take a look at this highly simplified schematic:
Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system. In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical.
As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds).
As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds.
Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008.
Quote kairosfocus: So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to empirically warrant their claims.
Kairosfocus has been going on about the avian lung for some time now. As with most IDers, they confuse their ignorance or inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist. There is ample evidence of the evolution of birds, and of evolution generally, yet there will always be mysteries concerning the exact sequence of events.
In this case, all it takes is a valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Take a look at this highly simplified schematic:
Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system. In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical.
As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds).
As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds.
Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008.
Categories: AE Public BB
Connection Issues
My connection to the servers in Texas from my home systems is unreliable. For the moment, my only reliable link to various of my web sites and my usual email is via my Android phone. Fortunately, I’m grandfathered into an unlimited data plan and have a Bluetooth keyboard. But that is still not a long-term [...]
Categories: Pro-Science News
Board Mechanics
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
I'm having a connectivity issue from my home network to AtBC and other sites on the server. If you have experienced a problem connecting from certain networks in the past week, please send me a description of the problem that you have seen. I'm having difficulty convincing my ISP that this is serious.
Email to w e l s b e r r at g m a i l dot c o m (remove spaces, convert to symbols as indicated). The problem is affecting my normal email, too.
I'm having a connectivity issue from my home network to AtBC and other sites on the server. If you have experienced a problem connecting from certain networks in the past week, please send me a description of the problem that you have seen. I'm having difficulty convincing my ISP that this is serious.
Email to w e l s b e r r at g m a i l dot c o m (remove spaces, convert to symbols as indicated). The problem is affecting my normal email, too.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Reciprocating Bill
Gordon drives a 2" nail into his own forehead:
Quote Perhaps, Hawthorne explains best:
Quote Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’.
Liz takes note:
Quote That is logical nonsense. First I am to assume that “one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”. Then, based on this “assumption”, I am supposed to conclude – that I can’t infer an ought from what is.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more blatant case of assuming your consequent.
This is UD. I'd have to think about that. But it's up there.
Gordon drives a 2" nail into his own forehead:
Quote Perhaps, Hawthorne explains best:
Quote Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’.
Liz takes note:
Quote That is logical nonsense. First I am to assume that “one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”. Then, based on this “assumption”, I am supposed to conclude – that I can’t infer an ought from what is.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more blatant case of assuming your consequent.
This is UD. I'd have to think about that. But it's up there.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Kattarina98
kf's triggerfinger is itching: Quote Dr Liddle,
Pardon, but you have now knowingly crossed a serious line. ...
If you insist on spreading poisonous falsehoods while refusing to seriously address the long since objectively established inherent amorality of the evolutionary materialism you have chosen to embrace, I can do but little about that. ... This is a sad day, to have to now draw a line with you, but you know what you will need to do to unweave the rhetorical spell you have now cast.
Of course, he can't ban mildmannered Dr Liddle, but wouldn't he love to ...
kf's triggerfinger is itching: Quote Dr Liddle,
Pardon, but you have now knowingly crossed a serious line. ...
If you insist on spreading poisonous falsehoods while refusing to seriously address the long since objectively established inherent amorality of the evolutionary materialism you have chosen to embrace, I can do but little about that. ... This is a sad day, to have to now draw a line with you, but you know what you will need to do to unweave the rhetorical spell you have now cast.
Of course, he can't ban mildmannered Dr Liddle, but wouldn't he love to ...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 14 2012,05:20) Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus. I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 14 2012,05:20) Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus. I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
Categories: AE Public BB
Feminism
Post by Verbena
Forgot to add
... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!
Forgot to add
... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!
Categories: AE Public BB
Feminism
Post by Verbena
Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X
Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data. I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..
Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X
Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data. I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Kattarina98
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
Categories: AE Public BB
Book club
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
My favorite is "Nightwatch". Maybe this might explain why I enjoyed "Snuff" so much. I am really attached to Sam Vimes, and to a lesser extent, Willikins (Jingo FTW!).
I think Sir Pterry has become more complex in his plots and character developments. I guess I've adapted to it...
My favorite is "Nightwatch". Maybe this might explain why I enjoyed "Snuff" so much. I am really attached to Sam Vimes, and to a lesser extent, Willikins (Jingo FTW!).
I think Sir Pterry has become more complex in his plots and character developments. I guess I've adapted to it...
Categories: AE Public BB
"Anti-Science": Unpacking a Distorted Label, pt. 2
Click here to listen. On this episode of ID The Future, we return to the topic of the anti-science label and how opponents of intelligent design try to stifle the debate by using this unscientific term. Tune in to...
Categories: Anti-Science News
ARN's Dennis Wagner on the Top 10 Science Stories of 2011
Click here to listen. On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin talks with ARN Executive Director Dennis Wagner on the Access Research Network's Top 10 Science Stories of 2011. Gaining top honors on the list was the...
Categories: Anti-Science News
Law Professor David DeWolf on the History of the Santorum Amendment
Click here to listen. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University School of Law and author of the 2009 law review article "The 'Teach...
Categories: Anti-Science News
What Would the World Look Like if the New Atheists Won the Day?
On Christmas I had to run into the office briefly and discovered two new atheist books I'd ordered had arrived: Sean Faircloth's Attack of the Theocrats and Penn Jillette's God, No!.
Casey Luskin
http://www.discovery.org/p/188
Categories: Anti-Science News
No, Copernicus Did Not Remove Us from the Hub of the Universe
The significance of the earth and humanity, or our insignificance, does not hinge on age or "central" location.
Jay W. Richards
http://www.discovery.org/p/9
Categories: Anti-Science News
Was Ben Stein "Expelled" by Kyocera and Ad Agency for His Views on Intelligent Design?
The company's message to him indicated that he was dropped for various unnamed policy positions they found him identified with on the Internet.
Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News
Washington Post Columnist Endorses Teaching the Evolution Controversy
"Introducing a contrary theory like intelligent design and having students discuss its differences from Darwinism would enliven the class. It would also teach the scientific method."
David Klinghoffer
http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News
Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?
Shapiro is as dismissive of Darwinism as any ID proponent. On the other, he constantly gives public notice that he is not on the side of ID.
William A. Dembski
Categories: Anti-Science News
Darwinist Smarty Catches Us
We've got another hot tip for him, too.
Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News
