tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3601884569759778897..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A Challenge to Jonathan WellsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36661597822223364412008-05-31T16:54:00.000-04:002008-05-31T16:54:00.000-04:00> There is another Larry here, me -- Larry Fafarma...> There is another Larry here, me -- Larry Fafarman. Please be specific about which Larry you are talking about. <<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should be addressed as Larry "Dunghill" Fafarman as it is one of your favorite words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72886129135008047752008-05-02T23:54:00.000-04:002008-05-02T23:54:00.000-04:00anthony022071 said... >>>>>Larry said: That quote ...anthony022071 said... <BR/><BR/>>>>>>Larry said: < "This is an incredible admission from a creationist . . . . . <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>That quote was from Larry Moran. There is another Larry here, me -- Larry Fafarman. Please be specific about which Larry you are talking about.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11339710371931468932008-05-02T23:31:00.000-04:002008-05-02T23:31:00.000-04:00Larry said: Why is what he said an "incredible adm...Larry said: < "This is an incredible admission from a creationist. Egnor admits that the bacteria evolved. He then goes on to define some bizarre version of "Darwin's theory."1 But the cat is out of the bag. What we see here folks, is the recognition that there is a distinction between Darwinism and evolution by natural selection." ><BR/><BR/><BR/>Why is what he said an "incredible admission"? He said "That evolution occurred — that is, that the population of bacteria changed over time — is obviously true". This is the definition of evolution that you claimed not to understand and do not accept.anthony022071https://www.blogger.com/profile/11295965181663302013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26152209005981296942008-03-20T13:01:00.000-04:002008-03-20T13:01:00.000-04:00>>>>>> Thank you Larry for bringing this up; it de...>>>>>> Thank you Larry for bringing this up; it demonstrates that if these heroes of yours are your best source for "science" you are scientifically illiterate. And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously? <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>You obviously missed my point, that point being that just giving a random list of publications is not a valid answer to an argument.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40824960864191416862008-03-20T12:29:00.000-04:002008-03-20T12:29:00.000-04:00Ah yes, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, O'Leary, et...Ah yes, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, O'Leary, etc., the ultimate in creationist scientific illiterati. Where's the science??? They provide an exquisite mangled mess of misinterpreted science, bad philosophy, and the poorest quality math and statistics, liberally mixed with dogmatic, marginalized religious fundamentalism. What more could one ask for as a perfect demonstration that creationism is not science?? Thank you Larry for bringing this up; it demonstrates that if these heroes of yours are your best source for "science" you are scientifically illiterate. And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15922546223228083292008-03-20T11:28:00.000-04:002008-03-20T11:28:00.000-04:00Still no answer to my arguments about the co-evolu...Still no answer to my arguments about the co-evolution of total co-dependence. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?<BR/><BR/>"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."<BR/>-- Gov. Arnold SchwarzeneggerLarry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17949913820251528792008-03-19T12:55:00.000-04:002008-03-19T12:55:00.000-04:00Quoth Jason:No, O unsurprisingly dishonest one, he...Quoth Jason:<BR/><I>No, O unsurprisingly dishonest one, he didn't. He admitted that bacteria change over time.</I><BR/><BR/>and Anonymous wrote:<BR/><I>Changes in gene frequency is not evolution. It's simply a variation</I><BR/><BR/>Back when I had time to read talk.origins, it seemed that about once a month, some creationist would make a comment that boiled down to "That's not evolution! That's just allele frequency change over time in a population!"<BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see that this tradition is alive and well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54018972446975592642008-03-19T11:39:00.000-04:002008-03-19T11:39:00.000-04:00Anonymous -- Giving a list of publications is not ...Anonymous -- <BR/><BR/>Giving a list of publications is not a satisfactory answer to my comments. I could just as easily give you a list of publications written by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Denyse O'Leary, etc.. <BR/><BR/>I invite you to explain how the co-evolution of total co-dependence works.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29109511633773691622008-03-19T11:07:00.000-04:002008-03-19T11:07:00.000-04:00Larry, Larry, Larry (or PC2, PC2, PC2, or ______)Y...Larry, Larry, Larry (or PC2, PC2, PC2, or ______)<BR/><BR/>Your postings are extremely rambling, distorted and display an abysmal of understanding of science and scientific method. I have conferred with a number of colleagues and friends with expertise in a variety of medical sciences, physical sciences and education, and, as we have concern for your mental health and general well-being, we offer the following suggestions to assist you:<BR/><BR/>Education is good, so we recommend that you enroll in a properly accredited educational institution (a grade 5 or 6 level would likely be appropriate).<BR/><BR/>Seek qualified psychiatric help.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps there is a medical procedure that can reverse the effects of that nasty frontal lobotomy. We have heard rumors to the effect that those Scientology guys have some sure-fire medical cures, based on state-of-the-art science that is every bit as good as the “science” promoted by creationists (YEC, OEC and IDC).<BR/><BR/>Whenever you feel the urge to post another rambling, irrational diatribe against evolution/science, take a deep breath and read any of the excellent material by Miller, Gould, Dawkins, Ruse, Coyne, Rosenhouse, Matzke, Forrest, Padian, Kitcher, etc. that explains in great detail how evolution works and why it is high quality science (and also points out the fatal flaws of creationism, and explains why no form of creationism is science).<BR/><BR/>As additional reading assignments, we strongly recommend (for your summer reading pleasure) the following excellent books and websites on science and scientific method that can act as an antidote to the insidious antiscience creationism viral infection:<BR/><BR/>Park, R. L. (2000): Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, New York, 230 pp.<BR/><BR/>Plait, P. C. (2002): Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing “Hoax”. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 277 pp.<BR/>http://www.badastronomy.com/<BR/><BR/>Sagan, C. (1997): The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books, 457 p<BR/><BR/>Schick, T. and L. Vaughn (2002): How to Think about Weird Things – Critical Thinking for a New Age. McGraw-Hill, 310 pp.<BR/><BR/>Shermer, M. (2001): The Borderlands of Science: Where Science Meets Nonsense. Oxford University Press, New York, 360 pp.<BR/><BR/>Shermer, M. (2002): Why People Believe in Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition and other Confusions of our Time. Henry Holt/Owl Books, New York, 349 pp (revised & expanded).<BR/><BR/>Wynn, C. M. and A. W. Wiggins (2001): Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends - and Pseudoscience Begins. The National Academies Press, 240 pp.<BR/><BR/>Coker, R. (2001): Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience. <BR/>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Caringly YoursAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-691148682264458002008-03-19T10:35:00.000-04:002008-03-19T10:35:00.000-04:00SLC driveled (quoting Ed Brayton) -- >>>>> He's g...SLC driveled (quoting Ed Brayton) -- <BR/>>>>>> <I>He's gonna be added to the legal team that is threatening to sue me and bring me down, or he's going to convince ScienceBlogs to fire me.</I> <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>BTW, I don't understand how Fatheaded Ed Brayton was ever accepted by ScienceBlogs and Panda's Thumb. He has no credentials in any technical field (science, engineering, mathematics, and computer science). He admitted that he is not even a college grad. He is just a fast-talking storyteller.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36376484194840539002008-03-19T09:28:00.000-04:002008-03-19T09:28:00.000-04:00"All he has to do is admit that evolution by natur...<B><I>"All he has to do is admit that evolution by natural selection is not what he means when he uses the word "Darwinian."</I></B><BR/><BR/>"Evolution by natural selection" is a vague, untestable belief.<BR/>Changes in gene frequency is not evolution. It's simply a variation, which doesn't say how the system itself came into existence. Before Darwin knew that animals "change over time". However, Darwin didn't come to explain how animals change over time, but how animals came into existence. Using situations where "change over time" happens as suporting the notion that dinosaurs turned into birds it.....well.....nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Essencially, belief that biological systems are the result of an unguided, impersonal, undirected natural force was not necessary in the experiment. Atheists need that. Scientists don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86133422470109144262008-03-19T08:41:00.000-04:002008-03-19T08:41:00.000-04:00Anonymous said, >>>>>> Larry F, it appears that yo...Anonymous said, <BR/>>>>>>> Larry F, it appears that you do not understand or "believe" in macroevolution. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I><B>Macro</I></B>evolution is not the issue here -- the issue here is whether Dardel's research is a study of <I><B>micro</I></B>evolution, which creationists and ID'ers have long accepted.<BR/><BR/>SLC driveled, <BR/>>>>>>> Attached is a commentary from Ed Brayton relative to Mr. Fafarman. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Fatheaded Ed Brayton is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger who "wins" debates by censoring comments.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous driveled, <BR/>>>>>> Larry, we have absolute confidence that no sane, rational person could ever make the serious mistake of thinking you could be right about anything concerning evolution. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Just for that, I am going to unleash my theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms -- e.g., bees and flowering plants. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. When corresponding co-dependents traits in both organisms are fatal in such absence, co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible, and even when the co-dependent traits are not fatal or harmful in such absence, the appearance of only one of the corresponding co-dependent traits would be of no benefit in natural selection. Also, there may be irreducibly complex multiple sets of pairs of corresponding traits involving multiple organs — for example, a bee must not only be able to digest nectar but must also be able to find the flowers.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85076812908679974242008-03-18T21:30:00.000-04:002008-03-18T21:30:00.000-04:00Re Larry FafarmanAttached is a commentary from Ed ...Re Larry Fafarman<BR/><BR/>Attached is a commentary from Ed Brayton relative to Mr. Fafarman.<BR/><BR/>"The upshot of all this is clear: Larry Fafarman needs serious therapy. His obsessive compulsive nature subverts any chance his mind has of forming even a mildly accurate picture of reality. He creates these bizarre legal theories, none of which have ever won anything in court, and he sits in his house all day long desperate for people to listen to him. So he spams every blog and forum with his lunatic ideas and gets banned, then in his mind he is converted into Don Quixote, bravely tilting at all the dragons windmills that do him such injustice. He doesn't have delusions of grandeur so much as he has delusions of relevance. And he convinces himself that he's on the verge of winning against we who torment him so. He's gonna be added to the legal team that is threatening to sue me and bring me down, or he's going to convince ScienceBlogs to fire me. It's alternately amusing and sad, and sad only because there is a real person at the other end of this pathetic behavior and he really is nuts. Not just a little clueless or "kooky" but genuinely mentally ill and in need of psychological help."<BR/><BR/>Mr. Fafarman is indeed a sad case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24087811892503128382008-03-18T18:37:00.000-04:002008-03-18T18:37:00.000-04:00Larry F, it appears that you do not understand or ...Larry F, it appears that you do not understand or "believe" in macroevolution. This must mean that you dismiss the entire fossil record (as it does not support your beliefs) and the hard work of all paleontologists. And you wonder why no one in the scientific community takes you seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35007079858362470092008-03-18T16:22:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:22:00.000-04:00Oh, and my prediction is that the answer to the qu...Oh, and my prediction is that the answer to the question <I>"what happens when living things formerly considered as belonging to a single species are reclassified as two species</I> will be something along the lines of <I>"Doesn't matter, as we've never seen it happen"</I>.<BR/><BR/>Which is a lie, of course, but that's my prediction of the ID creationist answer.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and that's one more prediction than ID has.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04673652496537383297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77957468181666549042008-03-18T16:17:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:17:00.000-04:00Second the motion. Larry, we have absolute confid...Second the motion. Larry, we have absolute confidence that no sane, rational person could ever make the serious mistake of thinking you could be right about anything concerning evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11355866327606282142008-03-18T16:09:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:09:00.000-04:00"Has it ever occurred to you, dunghill, that Sleaz..."Has it ever occurred to you, dunghill, that Sleazy PZ and Pander's Thumb could be wrong and I could be right?"<BR/><BR/>If I may be so bold as to answer for g.tingey - Nomichael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8644526904125551102008-03-18T14:29:00.000-04:002008-03-18T14:29:00.000-04:00G. Tingey driveled,>>>>>"Larry Fafarman" !!!(The p...G. Tingey driveled,<BR/><BR/>>>>>>"Larry Fafarman" !!!<BR/><BR/>(The previous commenter) is on PZ's killfile, for being mentally ill - he's also banned from Panda's thumb.<BR/>Anything he says is trash. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>"G. Tingey"!!! A stupid fathead. Anything he says is trash.<BR/><BR/>See? It is easy to make insults and ad hominem attacks. Anyone can do it.<BR/><BR/>Has it ever occurred to you, dunghill, that Sleazy PZ and Pander's Thumb could be wrong and I could be right?<BR/><BR/>It is the cogent opposing comments and commenters that are censored. Unpersuasive opposing comments are allowed to remain as examples of the supposed weakness of the opposition.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37695712298276257592008-03-18T14:10:00.000-04:002008-03-18T14:10:00.000-04:00Jason,Only one species of bacteria exists?Jason,<BR/>Only one species of bacteria exists?michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53337283882378112842008-03-18T13:31:00.000-04:002008-03-18T13:31:00.000-04:00No, O unsurprisingly dishonest one, he didn't. He ...<I>No, O unsurprisingly dishonest one, he didn't. He admitted that bacteria change over time. But guess what - they remain, as always, bacteria. He's not admitting that bacteria or any other species change so much over time that they become new species.</I><BR/><BR/>Jinxy! Hooray! Things haven't been the same since you and your heterosexual life partner Minn left us.<BR/><BR/>(I am aware this will be meaningless to everyone but Jason and I - apologies for this)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25665170414161970692008-03-18T13:04:00.000-04:002008-03-18T13:04:00.000-04:00jason wrote:He's not admitting that bacteria or an...jason wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>He's not admitting that bacteria or any other species change so much over time that they become new species.</I><BR/><BR/>Just curious regarding what happens when living things formerly considered as belonging to a single species are reclassified as two species, or living things formerly classified as two species are reclassified as belonging to a single species. Does someone (the Designer, perhaps?) somehow inform them that it is now OK/not OK to evolve? "All right, you're now two distinct species. Everyone out of the gene pool!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53983135795536683022008-03-18T12:47:00.000-04:002008-03-18T12:47:00.000-04:00"Anything he says is trash."But he IS funny. No no..."Anything he says is trash."<BR/><BR/>But he IS funny. No no, seriously, it's such a coincidence that I LOL'd at the EXACT SAME TIME that Larry did after reading "the Station for Experimental Evolution." Oh man, I'm still wiping away the tears. I think, I think it's the <I>relevancy</I> that makes it work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38001039556993810152008-03-18T12:46:00.000-04:002008-03-18T12:46:00.000-04:00"This is an incredible admission from a creationis..."This is an incredible admission from a creationist. Egnor admits that the bacteria evolved."<BR/><BR/>No, O unsurprisingly dishonest one, he didn't. He admitted that bacteria change over time. But guess what - they remain, as always, bacteria. He's not admitting that bacteria or any other species change so much over time that they become new species.Jay McHuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01708225059286944653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-566479929098777912008-03-18T12:37:00.000-04:002008-03-18T12:37:00.000-04:00He's also a holocaust denier.He's also a holocaust denier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89963899641139393782008-03-18T12:35:00.000-04:002008-03-18T12:35:00.000-04:00"Larry Fafarman" !!!(The previous commenter) is on..."Larry Fafarman" !!!<BR/><BR/>(The previous commenter) is on PZ's killfile, for being mentally ill - he's also banned from Panda's thumb.<BR/>Anything he says is trash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com