tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3954357622942664882..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Science journal tries to fix problems with transparency and trustworthinessLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90135068666262024112016-07-28T05:58:01.331-04:002016-07-28T05:58:01.331-04:00Jon Scott was one of the top creationists in the e...Jon Scott was one of the top creationists in the early days of the internet. Unusually, he was well versed in science. He talks movingly of the day his world fell apart. A dinosaur with feathers!<br /><br />http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/inspiration.html<br /><br />"I kept updating the archive and working on it straight through 1998, the year in which Caudipteryx zouii and Protarchaeopteryx robusta - two creatures which scientists described as obviously non-avian dinosaurs (which means they weren't birds), but which had feathers! I simply emphasized their avian qualities and either explained away or dismissed as unimportant their reptilian characteristics, and went on happily spreading the myth of creationism. <br /><br />Yes - I had the evidence, the information, and the knowledge of how evolutionary biology works - yet I did not have the intellectual integrity to admit to the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and kept denying that this incredibly intricate law and set of 'trends' in nature could possibly have any validity.<br /><br />Then, in september of 1999, the bomb dropped. I picked up my issue of the National Geographic and saw what else on a page advertising an upcoming issue; but Sinornithosaurus millenii! It had long steak-knife-shaped teeth like a T. rex, a long, muscular tail, hyper-extendable "switchblade" claws on the hind legs like Velociraptor mongoliensis, a narrow snout that looked almost like a bill, a bird-like pubic structure, and worst of all - feathers! <br /><br />I simply stared at the page for a few moments, muttered "oh shit!" to myself a few times, and got up to check the N.G.News web site. This wasn't just some artistic depiction of what a reptile/bird might look like - and it was no hoax. It was a small dromaeosaurid ("raptor") with killing claws, razor-sharp teeth, and a pair of wing-like arms complete with plumage. My heart sank, and my gut churned. This was it - the one proof of evolution I had always asked for but never thought would come to light. In my mind, I was betting that even if evolution were true, the chances of finding such a beautiful example of transition would be slim enough to be dismissed as impossible. And yet here it was - proof.<br /><br />I stepped outside to compose myself, and stood there looking at the world around me."<br />later<br />' "This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world." 'Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18245824732239901064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5587986305242624252016-07-26T08:51:51.315-04:002016-07-26T08:51:51.315-04:00Velhovsky, you've managed pretty quickly to re...Velhovsky, you've managed pretty quickly to reach the point of simply being boring. You answer no questions, just keep asking roughly the same ones while pretending you haven't read the answers (I was going to say "read and understood," but that might be a bridge too far). Yeah, we get it, your "thing" is to dismiss without comment or thought all the evidence as if it doesn't exist.<br /><br />So will you answer any of the questions John or I have asked? (Not even sure why I'm asking, as I don't expect your answers to be any more rational or interesting than your questions. Still, hope springs eternal.)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32603288425781856162016-07-25T22:51:43.078-04:002016-07-25T22:51:43.078-04:00Why can't you just tell us what you represent?...Why can't you just tell us what you represent? Why should we have to search for subtle clues?<br /><br />The point of the otters was that you can find mammals in all conceivable intermediate conditions between terrestrial and fully aquatic. Otters (and I'm thinking of freshwater otters here) are just a little way along that trajectory. If you can't believe that otters are weasels that decided to swim a lot, I don't know what to do with you.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79675959673369920682016-07-25T19:31:12.367-04:002016-07-25T19:31:12.367-04:00I'd suggest that for clarity as to who is talk...I'd suggest that for clarity as to who is talking to who, all of us should quote the comment we are responding to or the name of the person we are responding to. Or both. I'm guilty of forgetting that too. Sorry. <br /><br />@John Harshman<br />"Ah, so you're a creationist. I hadn't realized that."<br /><br />I don't care who you think I am. If you are smart enough, which I have no doubt about that you are, you will figure out soon enough what I represent. I hope.<br /><br />"What do you think of otters?"<br /><br />So, is this the best you can do?<br /><br />What are you trying to tell me John? That otters used to be land mammals and due to evolutionary processes you can't explain and the mechanism of evolution you have not clue about they became aquatic otters? Is that your theory? Please tell me John Harshman that your theory has teeth; more grip on reality. Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8362736666255748872016-07-25T11:55:39.599-04:002016-07-25T11:55:39.599-04:00Cruglers, when western science began, the assumpti...Cruglers, when western science began, the assumption was design. Within that design framework, people tried to figure out what the world is like and how it works. They were very successful in explaining these things without reference to a designer. Also, they learned many things that contradicted the design story they knew (Genesis). Gradually, design was shoved aside; it wasn't necessary to explain anything.<br /><br />At this point, design continues to be an unnecessary hypothesis. Therefore, if one wants to to propose that the universe is designed, one has to provide positive evidence that it is. So far, nobody has done a convincing job of that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91768645304701203972016-07-25T07:18:23.675-04:002016-07-25T07:18:23.675-04:00For evolutionists it may look like a piece of cake...<i>For evolutionists it may look like a piece of cake, on paper only, but proving their claims is another thing.</i><br /><br />So you don't take the fossil record or genetics as evidence? If you're completely unfamiliar with logical scientific concepts of evidence and proof, as it appears you are, then I suppose you could feel that way.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57431494796561103822016-07-25T07:15:47.927-04:002016-07-25T07:15:47.927-04:00I'm just curious how Darwinism aligned with qu...<i>I'm just curious how Darwinism aligned with quantum mechanics in the 20th century, because I tell you right now it doesn't align with 21st century quantum mechanics at all.</i><br /><br />Before we even get to evolution, why don't you tell us all what you think the fundamental differences are between quantum mechanics in the 20th century and the same in the 21st?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11833234683806797182016-07-25T07:12:31.185-04:002016-07-25T07:12:31.185-04:00I'm just curious as to what evidence convinced...<i>I'm just curious as to what evidence convinced you that the natural processes in nature do not require design?</i><br /><br />There is a huge pile of such evidence. Since we don't have all year, I'll just pick one: quantum physics. All the experiments that have ever been done, down to more decimal points than you can count, show the universe functions on <i>probabilities</i>. So you can't design anything and be assured of the outcome; there's a roll of the dice fundamentally at the bottom of everything. Just to repeat for emphasis: The way the universe works, you can't plan or design in advance for any particular outcome. So any "theory" that relies on planning or design is wrong.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82625060322237756522016-07-24T18:19:44.008-04:002016-07-24T18:19:44.008-04:00I'm just curious as to what evidence convinced...I'm just curious as to what evidence convinced you that the natural processes in nature do not require design?Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41250382076091328472016-07-24T09:29:35.869-04:002016-07-24T09:29:35.869-04:00I really didn't know he was a creationist. The...I really didn't know he was a creationist. There are many flavors of loon: IDiot, Third Way, etc.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64742937506367785452016-07-24T07:18:03.924-04:002016-07-24T07:18:03.924-04:00@John: Is that directed at me, or at Velhovsky? Be...@John: Is that directed at me, or at Velhovsky? Because I'm certainly not and Velhovsky is so obviously one that I find the question puzzling either way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40990784953353472062016-07-23T23:44:47.694-04:002016-07-23T23:44:47.694-04:00Ah, so you're a creationist. I hadn't real...Ah, so you're a creationist. I hadn't realized that. What do you think of otters?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42564332488313977312016-07-23T19:23:37.006-04:002016-07-23T19:23:37.006-04:00I'm just curious how Darwinism aligned with qu...<i>I'm just curious how Darwinism aligned with quantum mechanics in the 20th century, because I tell you right now it doesn't align with 21st century quantum mechanics at all.</i><br /><br />Would you mind explaining what you think the issue is more precisely? What are the new findings in quantum mechanics that cause a problem for evolution? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73670314666180276182016-07-23T19:06:29.222-04:002016-07-23T19:06:29.222-04:00John Harshman,
The answer you are looking for is...John Harshman, <br /><br />The answer you are looking for is not forthcoming for the following reasons: <br /><br />If evolution <b>you believe in</b> were true, we would have at least some evidence for it including the mechanism (s).<br /><br />Unfortunately, not such evidence exists, so why would you expect me to have answers for something that is your delusion, not mine? Don't you think that if the mechanism of evolution was a well know fact, I would mention it here and others more than once?<br /><br />Here is an example as to why your theory stinks:<br /><br />How do you evolve a land-walking-mammal into an aquatic one?<br /><br />You, and your buddies would probably say natural selection acting on mutations. Larry would say neutral theory, genetic drift etc. <br />This all may sound great but only for an untrained eye because there is a huge difference between coming up with possible mechanism of evolution of a land-walking-mammal evolving to an aquatic one and reality. Scientific reality, to be exact. <br />For evolutionists it may look like a piece of cake, on paper only, but proving their claims is another thing. <br /><br />So, to sum this up John, I don't have an answer you are looking for, because there is no plausible evidence that the evolution you believe in has happened, could have happened and is definitely not happening right now. <br /><br />So, unless you provide evidence that the "standard mechanism of evolution is true" or meets one criteria of scientific requirement, we might as well call your standard mechanism of evolution a wild guess or a naturalist miracle. <br /><br />Which one do you prefer, John? Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61457442185578615672016-07-23T01:09:29.248-04:002016-07-23T01:09:29.248-04:00To update: you still have no answer.To update: you still have no answer.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28178098288460704472016-07-22T21:49:38.566-04:002016-07-22T21:49:38.566-04:00Spare it John. If evolution was a fact and its mec...Spare it John. If evolution was a fact and its mechanism was well known you wouldn't be so reserved, would you? You, and your buddies, would be in my face...<br /><br />Well, you don't have that luxury and you never will. I guarantee it.<br /><br />BTW; Have you ever considered a more peaceful environment rather than trying to push people to believe what you believe? Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17124402947809662222016-07-22T21:41:14.626-04:002016-07-22T21:41:14.626-04:00judmarc,
Are you suggesting that quantum mechani...judmarc, <br /><br />Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics was already tested by Darwinists in the 20th century and possibly rejected due to whatever.<br /><br />Link me to some papers. <br /><br />I'm just curious how Darwinism aligned with quantum mechanics in the 20th century, because I tell you right now it doesn't align with 21st century quantum mechanics at all. Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90410608174995542642016-07-21T01:08:16.273-04:002016-07-21T01:08:16.273-04:00So, to summarize, you once again refuse to answer....So, to summarize, you once again refuse to answer.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4948502246746714022016-07-20T22:51:28.249-04:002016-07-20T22:51:28.249-04:00All I know is that people like you will deny the c...<i>All I know is that people like you will deny the change at first and then... you will have to embrace the changes, like epigenetics...</i><br /><br /><br />heh heh. Notice the connection<br /><br />.. the connection between religious end times predictions (that never come true, as it happens) and end times predictions regarding science (that is, the end f evolution naturally).<br /><br />Epigenetics!!SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55293330572848984902016-07-20T20:29:31.603-04:002016-07-20T20:29:31.603-04:00Quantum mechanics and non-Darwinian evolution: Wel...Quantum mechanics and non-Darwinian evolution: Welcome to the 20th century! :-)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26407450281433383662016-07-20T18:33:30.378-04:002016-07-20T18:33:30.378-04:00We both know that the "standard evolutionary ...We both know that the "standard evolutionary mechanism"-whatever that is in your mind-is under fire. You are running a dangerous course of being left behind (if you care) if you stick to it. <br /><br />Some "appear" not to care about the upcoming changes in the evolutionary thinking. Some mock it. Others outwardly scorn those who dared to stir the pot. <br /><br />Well, in the end, I very well know that there will be changes as to what the mechanism of evolution is. How drastic? I don't really care. <br /><br />All I know is that people like you will deny the change at first and then... you will have to embrace the changes, like epigenetics influence, the non-Darwinian changes that have been documented for a while now. <br /><br />Here is the new one if you didn't have enough to contemplate: quantum mechanics. I hope you are good at that. If not, maybe educating yourself in this field is not a bad idea. It looks not only exiting but also controversial. Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71731882984649085282016-07-20T00:03:07.100-04:002016-07-20T00:03:07.100-04:00Would it matter if you lose the next round?
There...<i>Would it matter if you lose the next round?</i><br /><br />There are rounds? I asked a question, you refuse to answer. That's about all.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61095371085115779032016-07-19T17:36:43.873-04:002016-07-19T17:36:43.873-04:00"I was asking for your opinion, since you rej..."I was asking for your opinion, since you reject the standard mechanisms."<br /><br />Fair enough. However, I would like you to come up with a<i> sensible</i> standard mechanism of evolution and then prove it that's really the standard, and where. Do you know what I mean? How many people do you think would be able to support your view of the "standard"? <br /><br />"I didn't say I expected your opinion to be sensible. So do you think you can answer the question?"<br /><br />When you sensibly manage the above, I will try to do my best from then on.<br /><br />"By the way, that wasn't a very coherent or rational comment."<br /><br />Would it matter if you lose the next round? Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5891767055718952052016-07-19T12:16:35.385-04:002016-07-19T12:16:35.385-04:00I'm sure you will have no problem with that in...<i>I'm sure you will have no problem with that in the end when it goes beyond randomness.</i><br /><br />We're quite happy with non-randomness. That's what selection is. And mutation may also have non-random aspects. Some mutations may be more likely to occur than others. But none of it needs any guidance. If you know how to do probability math correctly, any serious question about the adequacy of unguided processes to explain evolution was answered a long time ago.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34318854694413533482016-07-18T19:07:51.943-04:002016-07-18T19:07:51.943-04:00I was asking for your opinion, since you reject th...I was asking for your opinion, since you reject the standard mechanisms. I didn't say I expected your opinion to be sensible. So do you think you can answer the question?<br /><br />By the way, that wasn't a very coherent or rational comment.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.com