My latest attempt was on the post, Suzan Mazur’s Paradigm Shifters is now available from Amazon, where I tried to explain that Denyse O'Leary's version of Darwinism is not the best description of evolutionary theory and that many of Suzan Mazur's "Paradigm Shifters" have missed the revolution that occurred in the late 1960s.
Didn't work.
Now someone named "Florabama" has posted a comment that illustrates the problem we're up against. I thought I'd share it with Sandwalk readers. It may not be possible to teach such a person anything about science.
Professor Moran, I thank you for coming over here and revealing the vacuousness of your argument and personal character — both — in just a few posts. To do both so quickly says a lot. You are efficient if not very thoughtful nor creative (Donald Trump is much better at insults and he’s not very good).
This is a fascinating time to be alive. Each and every pillar of “Darwinism” (no doubt the most influential ideology in the last 150 years) has been knocked out from under it leaving it and you Professor, hanging, in der luft, and arguing with the scientific consensus on things like junk DNA and the inability of random mechanisms to create super complex biological systems while you and your colleagues scramble to find alternatives to the long dead Darwinistic mechanisms which were nothing but just so stories all along.
What’s so fascinating to me is that it has been science itself that has left your position so bankrupt. No one even argues that Neo-Darwinism is still a viable position any longer.
From the front page of The Third Way of Evolution:
“The commonly accepted alternative [to ID] is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation.”
I know, I know. Before you say it. You have all the answers, NOW. Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. We got it. But, the point is that your own colleagues say that “Darwinism” (their word not mine) “ignored contemporary evidence” and made “naturalistic assumptions” hence you must move on down the road and find new alternatives now that the “contemporary molecular evidence,” is available Better get moving before Mazur writes ANOTHER book. (Y’all sure don’t like her very much but she’s neither a creationist nor an ID proponent — just the messenger that keeps telling us about the fractured state of evolutionary thinking). Oh well!
Anyway, wasn’t that what your ID critics said all along? That you IGNORED evidence to the contrary? Well, I’m sure ignoring evidence is just a thing of the past, right? But here you sit, arguing with Encode, and in the meantime the DarwiNazi Mafia enforces a strict ban on disseminating anything other than the long dead, old Darwinism to high school students least the thinkers among them begin to question the narrative. Can’t have questions, can we? Can’t reveal the cracks in the dam.
Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for them, we now live in the information age. The dam has broken and try as you might to enforce party allegiance, the information is there for the taking and each and every time you enforce censorship, you encourage thinkers to look behind the curtain.”Just what are they hiding?” A bit of catch 22 for you, isn’t it?
This is why you have lost. Science has nibbled away at your position until there’s nothing left and you have been forced to “evolve.” You are left just exactly where you were before — appealing to Neutral Theory and random genetic drift — instead of natural selection and random mutations — without ever demonstrating how any of these processes can build super complex machines. In loving memory of the late Yogi Berra, this is “deja vu all over again.” Meanwhile in the lab, beyond the power of just so stories, Summers et al is beginning to define the edge of evolution, and not to put too fine a point on it, it just ain’t all that.
Science continues to march forward leaving you and your bankrupt ideology behind. That must be very scary for you seeing that you have devoted your life to a failed idea. My sympathies. Meanwhile each and every day, science reinforces what everyone with an ounce of common sense knew already — a designer is required to create complex machines, biological or otherwise. And you are left, like a chihuahua barking at the heals of the postman, arguing with the science that you claim to revere.
“I’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk. Most of the ENCODE leaders admitted as much in a PNAS paper published 18 months after their original papers appeared in September 2012.”
As we say in the South (about someone who is patently pathetic),
“Well bless your little heart.”
The “consensus among knowledgable experts?” Well lets see, Professor. Who would those experts be? Would they by chance be the ones who agree with you? Not very good at logic are you?
How do we know Encode was wrong?
Knowledgable experts agree!
Who are those knowledgable experts?
They’re the one’s who agree with me.
Got it!
No professor. Encode knocked out ANOTHER of your icons. No matter what the current number, more DNA is functional than you believed, and its important to note that you “BELIEVED” it was non-functional based not on the science but on your ideology — as an article of faith — and your faith has now taken ANOTHER big hit from science while ID proponents just yawned and said, “hey, that’s what we expected.”
I also note that as has been shown on this very site, Encode is just the beginning. New functionality continues to be shown for what was once thought junk and as already stated — even if the “junk” is simply a spacer — it is still functional. Calling it “junk” is just expressing an article of faith. Thinking people dismiss you and your bankrupt religion and are open to the evidence that has always pointed to design.
From the moment Pasteur put the nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation to Crick recognizing that,
“…the odds of a simply polypeptide chain putting itself together by chance are greater than all the individual atoms in the universe…” (Life Itself)
Naturalism was D.O.A. The tide has been rising on you ever since and it continues to get worse (if you can get worse than D.O.A. Crick was at 10^80 but Meyer puts the number at 10^1000 plus) and yet you irrationally hang on to your faith — against all odds. Hey, it’s good to be a man of faith.
If things keep going like they’re going, it won’t be long before “Darwinism” (in quotes to encompass all the latest iterations and avoid semantic distractions) will take its rightful place next to alchemy in the hall of failed ideas. What a wonderful time to be alive, indeed.
So this hyperactive, pompous, condescending word-slaw basically pares to down to yet another cape-flapping monologue about the imminent doom of Evolutionism and how soon! The world! will be the creationists'! Muaaahahaha!
ReplyDeleteThe most disappointing thing about creationists is that they're just not original. Evolution has been on its last legs for the last 150 years, apparently, yet here it still is, strolling about happily.
"Evolution has been on its last legs for the last 150 years, apparently, yet here it still is, strolling about happily."
DeleteIt's called "The Walking Dead." It's a zombie with no life in it. Science has completely destroyed it, but Marxism is what is keeping it alive. Without evolution Marxism is dead as well. But the non thinkers of the world have all their eggs in the basket of Marx -- the U.S. govt in particular. Russia has thrown out Marxism and now is rebuilding the churches it destroyed. You evo loving non thinkers just don't get it so you hang on to the heels of this zombie and keep on keeping on as if nothing happened, just like when Piltdown Man was taken down. You have one excuse after another.
Florabama just cleaned your clock and you just sit there in denial and all you have is ridicule. Well, it isn't working any longer. The U.S. govt has been collapsing for over 50 years and it's still happily walking around, but like Russia it's not long for this world either.
It's people like you and your scientists who are driving us into the Dark Ages of the post modern era. In the not too far distant future they will look back at all this and see that evolution is to science what revisionist history is to history. They will say "That was the Dark Age of science."
Malcom Muggeridge: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.”
Say "goodbye" Max.
DeleteHeat ? What heat, Max ? Talking such nonsense leaves most people cold ...
DeleteMax, why should he remove comments, unless they were offensive or obnoxious like this one? In this case I'd give him every right to delete it.
DeleteDeleting your offensive and obnoxious comments doesn't mean you're right Max. You can hide behind the 'deleting comments' smoke screen, but at the end of the day, you're only fooling yourself.
Instead, little children should believe that humans, birds and whales were poofed into existence by an invisible magic being. And they should not grow out of this infantile belief.
Deletemax preached:
Delete"Piotr, Yes, little children should believe that humans, birds and whales were spoken into existence by God because that is how it happened."
Hey max, were/are cancer and other diseases in children and adults "spoken into existence by God"? Were/are cancer and other diseases in animals "spoken into existence by God"? How about plant diseases? Is there anything that "God" didn't/doesn't speak into existence? Which so-called "God" are you talking about? Who or what spoke that so-called "God" into existence? How about all of the other so-called 'Gods'? Were they 'spoken into existence"? Did they and do they speak things into existence?
How do you know that humans, birds and whales (or anything else) were "spoken into existence by God because that is how it happened"? Were and are you there when "God" spoke and speaks things into existence? Do you have any idea of how crazy you are?
By the way, max, thank you for your contributions to the fact that people who push 'intelligent design' and condemn evolutionary theory are religious kooks.
DeleteWell, your post is pretty scary, though not for the reasons you have in mind.
DeleteArticle blurb reads: Major scientists from a dozen countries present evidence that a paradigm shift is underway or has already taken place, replacing neo-Darwinism (the standard model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations) with a vastly richer evolutionary synthesis than previously thought possible. About The Author Suzan Mazur is the author of two previous books, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry and The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza. Her reports have appeared in the Financial Times, The Economist, Forbes, Newsday, Philadelphia Inquirer, Archaeology, Astrobiology, Connoisseur, Omni, Huffington Post, Progressive Review, CounterPunch, Scoop Media and other publications, as well as on PBS, CBC and MBC. She has been a guest on Charlie Rose, McLaughlin and various Fox Television News programs.
ReplyDeleteWhat disturbs me is the thinking so small. Surrendering to a "vastly richer evolutionary synthesis" is like the ID movement giving up! Even Salvador lost the spirit. He now sees no science in ID. Over time we like traded places. This isn't right.
No science in ID? You really don't understand the difference between ID and Creationism. Let me explain it to you. I prefer just to use the term "design" as Intelligent Design is redundant. Design is the evidence. I realize that simple statement explodes your non thinking brain. But that is all there is to it. Everything is designed. The ONLY argument you have against design is denial.
DeleteThe ONLY argument you have against design is denial.
DeleteWhich is, it is well known, powerless against the mighty force of Assertion.
Max shows us the evolution of the ID proponent:
Delete"Intelligent Design is redundant. Design is the evidence" and ` The ONLY argument you have against design is denial.`
Actually the only argument needed against design is lack of evidence in FAVOR of design.
Negative attacks on evolution, doesn´t mean ID/ D is true. You need positive evidence, and up 'til now, no ID proponent has coughed up the evidence. Would like to give it a try Max?
All pro-ID arguments paraded so far boil down to this:
Delete[a picture showing something complicated, borrowed from real scientists]
Wow! Look! Design!
Max says: "Design is the evidence."
DeleteAnd I say the problem is that the "theory of intelligent design" has a well constructed "premise" that requires the ID movement to get on the same page and coherently explain how "intelligent cause" works:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Talking about the odds of something randomly occurring has become boring, even to those like me who do not argue with that and are simply waiting to see what else you have.
Where is your testable model to explain how intelligent cause works?
Max, your last paragraph is probably the stupidest thing I've read this month (and I've had a look at UD a few times, so it isn't for lack of competitors).
DeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteYou left some pretty bad trail @UD. Do you really believe that your problems will just disappear? Well, we all know by now you have no shame... Now it is you turn to pass the test of sanity...
Professor Moran. You seem to be obsessed with Creationists with your conflating ID with Creationism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, seeing as you are so fixated on Creationists, I have found some common ground between an Evolutionist and a Creationist.
Evolutionists rely on Story Telling aka Fairy Tales.
Steven Rose Evolutionist, New Scientist , 24th Feb 1998 page 42 .
"Evolutionary stories are , almost by definition , JUST SO STORIES , like Rudyard Kipling's explanation of how the elephant got its trunk ."
"Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."
Creationist, David Coppedge.
Jack Jones: "found some common ground between an Evolutionist and a Creationist" is "Evolutionists rely on Story Telling aka Fairy Tales."?
DeleteWhat is self-evident enough to all for there to no longer be any (as you say) need for Story Telling aka Fairy Tales from either?
jack jones, an IDiot-creationist who is too cowardly to answer questions, says that Larry is "conflating ID with Creationism". Hey jack, just like all the other IDiot-creationists you completely ignore the ninth commandment in your chosen, so-called 'holy book'. Aren't you afraid that your chosen sky daddy will toss you into a lake of fire for eternity, or do you ignore that commandment because even you know that the bible is BS and that sky daddy doesn't exist and can't punish you or anyone else?
DeleteHey jack, what is that crap by "Creationist, David Coppedge" supposed to prove? And aren't you claiming that ID isn't creationism? Do you actually believe that quoting a creationist (and an especially crazy one) helps you show that ID isn't creationism?
Deletehttp://americanloons.blogspot.com/2015/10/1487-david-coppedge.html
DeleteJack Jones says,
DeleteProfessor Moran. You seem to be obsessed with Creationists with your conflating ID with Creationism.
Read this post and let me know why you disagree with my definition of creationism.
The creationism continuum
I'm especially interested in your response to Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the intelligent design movement when he says ...
"The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a "creationist" is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose."
Looking forward to an intelligent discussion of the meaning of the word "creationist."
Not holding my breath.
Jack, you forget that the authors of that pro-ID text book "Of Panda's and People" replaced "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design" on a word for word basis. They replaced "creationist" and "Creation Scientist" with "Intelligent Design Proponents". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889
DeleteYour issue isn't with us... it's with the creationists.
"you forget that the authors of that pro-ID text book "Of Panda's and People" replaced "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design" on a word for word basis. They replaced "creationist" and "Creation Scientist" with "Intelligent Design Proponents". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889"
Deletetalkorigins commits the genetic fallacy. If an ID book came from a Creationist book then that would not mean they are the same thing, astronomy arose out of astrology but that does not make them the same thing.
"Your issue isn't with us... it's with the creationists. "
Your issue is that you commit the genetic fallacy.
It could be worse. You could have the anger issues of The whole truth or Diogenes.
Seeing them having their retarded meltdowns is more evidence for Degeneration than Evolution.
hahahahaha
jack the creationist said:
Delete"If an ID book came from a Creationist book then that would not mean they are the same thing..."
There's no "If" about it, jack. Besides yourself and other dishonest IDiot-creationists, who do you think you're fooling?
"...astronomy arose out of astrology but that does not make them the same thing."
Hey jack, can you point out an astronomy book that is a copy of an astrology book except that where the word astrologer was used in the astrology book it was changed to astronomer in the astronomy book?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@JackJones
Delete> talkorigins commits the genetic fallacy. If an ID book came from a Creationist book then that would not mean they are the same thing, astronomy arose out of astrology but that does not make them the same thing.
It didn't just come from a creationist book. It was a creationist book where they used CTRL+F to replace all instances of the word Creationists with Design Proponents.
The text remains non-committal on the age of the Earth, commenting that some "take the view that the earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology"
The book raises a number of objections to the theory of common descent, such as the alleged lack of transitional fossils, gaps in the fossil record.
This is creationist shit through and through
In other words Jack,
DeleteNo True Scotsman.
Would you like a list of ID Proponents (the leaders of the ID Movement, not rubes like yourself and the posters on UD) saying that ID is based on Christian theology?
Cause we can do that to.
I know it won't change your mind. Nothing will. Which is a shame.
Professor Moran quoting Philip Johnson
Delete"The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a "creationist" is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose"
Key words, "Broadest sense"
You are using the term in a narrow sense of those who are opposed to the idea of Macro Evolution, as in Common Descent.
You are being deceptive.
You make it Evolution Vs Creationism, when the debate is chance vs Design.
The law of Biogenesis shows that in nature, life could not have originated by chance.
Therefore we know that life had to originate outside of nature by design and thus chance loses the debate.
When people are skeptical of the larger evolutionary claims then it is not because the evolutionary faith supports chance, we know it fails to account for the origin of life.
The reason they are skeptical, is because they are fed just so stories and conjecture instead of hard science.
The Evolutionary camp is in a mess when it comes to an Evolutionary theory and its teachings.
If your faith of large scale evolutionary change were true then the potential would already have existed in life that came into being by design. So it is pointless you using existing life to try and support your religious faith in chance.
As life could not have originated by natural means as the law of Biogenesis shows, then the evidence supports an origin outside of nature by a source that is not governed by natural law.
Now....You are entitled to your faith that chemistry acted differently than it does today, you can engage in that special pleading, But based on what is known about how nature operates then you are believing ancient mythology that goes back to Anaximander and others, he believed in the silly idea of life originating spontaneously too.
Design trumps Chance as the law of biogenesis shows, You can believe in chance but don't pretend it is based on what is known about how nature is known to operate.
It is your religious faith that is based on non reason. Believing "shit happens" as chance worshippers do, does not provide any basis for scientific investigation. It doesn't provide any basis that your sensing faculties correspond with reality and it does not provide any basis for trying to enforce honesty from scientists.
"shit happens" provides no foundation for science at all. But you and your dumb chance following fans are welcome to believe in it.
Hi Jack, you wrote:
Delete"But you and your dumb chance following fans are welcome to believe in it."
How very kind of you, but why the rants? Does it make you feel better after the rant? Because almost every one of your comments is a rant about 'chance' and 'shit happens'? Do you think your designer created rants for you to feel good about?
While we're on the subject of designers, I'm really wondering which designer would design rants for you to feel good about?
Jack Jones says,
DeleteYou are using the term in a narrow sense of those who are opposed to the idea of Macro Evolution, as in Common Descent.
You are being deceptive.
You are lying.
If you've been paying attention, you'll know that I think of Michael Behe as a creationist and so are people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins.
You make it Evolution Vs Creationism, when the debate is chance vs Design.
Actually it's Rationalism vs Superstition.
I don't want my blog to degenerate to the level of Uncommon Descent so could you please restrict your comments? You should only post a comment when you have something intelligent to contribute to the discussion.
"You are lying."
DeleteIf you equate the two as being the same thing then why not just use the term ID?
It wouldn't be needed if you see them as the same thing, it is misleading because the way you are using the term is not how it is commonly used in the Evolution vs Creationism debate.
"If you've been paying attention, you'll know that I think of Michael Behe as a creationist and so are people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins."
Yet Ken Miller wouldn't be commonly thought of as a Creationist, He is more of a marketing rep for Darwinism, Francis Collins wouldn't be thought of a Creationist as he believes in Common Descent and Behe believes in Common Descent.
So if you were given the benefit of the doubt then it is still misleading.
"Rationalism vs Superstition"
Rationalism- "a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge"
Your faith in dumb chance cannot ground reason.
As for Knowledge, Your faith in life originating spontaneously in nature is a rejection of what is known for how nature operates.
"rather than on religious belief"
Your are religious.
You chance believers are really amusing in your ignorance of just how religious you are.
Tolstoy put it best.
"The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me?
.. It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart."
The fact is that you believe in ancient mythology with your faith in life originating spontaneously.
"or emotional response."
Well your faith that life arose spontaneously is not based on reason or knowledge for how nature operates, it is based on an emotional need for it to be true.
Jack Jones says,
DeleteIf you equate the two as being the same thing then why not just use the term ID?
You are so fucking stupid that I'm surprised you can even type.
jack's main complaint about evolution/evolutionary theory is obviously the monkey to man thing. He focuses on and disagrees with common descent because he believes that he's way too special to be evolved from and related to monkeys and other icky 'lower life forms'. To 'specially created in God's image' narcissists like jack, accepting that he's a product of evolution would mean that he's not exceptional, supernaturally-specially created, and 'God'-like, and that just won't do.
DeleteIf all scientists were to put humans in the 'specially created in God's image' category and everything else in the 'evolved/common descent' category, I think that more religious people would accept evolutionary theory or at least not get uptight about it.
Max,
Deletenot only is your behavior very rude and obnoxious, you seem to think only you are allowed freedom of speech.
But you, Jack and this floor chap, demonstrate the typical behavior of ID proponents. This behavior seems to me to be the main reason ENV doesn't allow comments, with friends like these, you don't need enemies.
Max,
DeleteIf Larry deletes your posts, you may justly pride yourself on having made a correct prediction -- an extremely rare feat among creationists. But you have contributed nothing to any of the discussions conducted here, so I'm afraid you won't be missed, and your martyrdom will be in vain. Censorship is one thing, and carting dirt away is another.
Well, we might have told you so. Your efforts were well intended, but I suggest, as an admirer, that you give up. They declare victory even though they have lost. They declare the scientific community is behind them just b/c they found succor from a few cranks and nincompoops who happen to have a PhD. I like how Bertrand Russell had put it:
ReplyDelete“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
I can't help it. I have this mental picture now of a fearsome DarwiNazi Mafia of chihuahuas.
ReplyDeleteYeah DarwiNazi is a winner. I feel honored to have witnessed its birth in that thread
DeleteDon't underrate chihuahuas. Size isn't all that matters.
Deletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11448690/Adolf-the-dog-that-looks-like-Hitler.html
"I'll take on the Alpenkorps by numbers, but I draw the line at DarwiNazi chihuahuas, boss." [Where Beagles Dare]
Actually, when they resort to mockery couched in Palinesque folksiness - "y'all" (you can almost see the wink) - they make it clear that's all they have to offer. And while you may not have changed any minds, you obviously rattled them or they wouldn't be bothering to go after you at such length.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Larry misunderstands 'directed' to mean fairies lighting the way for mutations, then yeah he oughta give it up.
ReplyDeleteBut I think Larry's misunderstanding go deeper than that.
I wonder Larry, is excess reproduction a result of random genetic drift?
Have the IDiots ruled out fairies as the agents of Intelligent Design? Could you point us to the peer-reviewed publication in which that was accomplished, Steve?
Delete'Directed' does mean fairies lighting the way for mutations. Steve, where, under the ID paradigm, is there evidence against fairies directing mutations? What kind of evidence could even be imagined to falsify Intelligent Fairy Theory, under the ID paradigm?
DeleteIt's just that the ID fairies are Biblical, angry, vengeful, murderous, vote Republican, and really hate gays for some reason.
What's the point of believing that fairies make mutations unless they like you more than other people, and hate the same people you hate? That's ultimately the whole point.
Why do you think IDiots are so $%&*king arrogant? They think the fairies like them better.
Diogenes drooling all over his keyboard, Says "Biblical, angry, vengeful, murderous, vote Republican, and really hate gays for some reason."
DeleteThey probably don't hate you, They just find your lifestyle disgusting. We can see what motivates your faith in a living organism arising spontaneously in nature
You hate people judging you for your lifestyle and you fear that you will ultimately be judged for it.
Do you really think your fear in being judged for your perverted lifestyle justifies you being a dummy that holds to a living organism originating in nature by dumb chance?
Perverted lifestyle? Do you even know anything about Diogenes' private life at all? And what's perverted about it?
DeleteTell us how you really feel! :)
Wingnuts like Jack Jones prove how insecure of their own faith they are. If he really believed we'll be judged by god he wouldn't be hating so much on those who don't buy that crap...
DeleteMatthew 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged
Obviously Jackass knows deep inside it's all a huge pile of bullshit, he judges us, contradicting his own sacred book, because he knows full well there's no god to judge anyone so someone has to, right Jack?
@Steve
DeleteIf it's not fairies lighting the way then please provide the mechanism for how this invisible designer tinkers with genomes.
I wonder Larry, is excess reproduction a result of random genetic drift?
DeleteThis is a nonsensical question demonstrating a lack of understanding of both genetic drift and "excess" reproduction.
Its offensive to this YEC how this critic profiles Prof Moran. Its stupit to profile persons when they represent hugh numbers, in one way or another, on contentions.
ReplyDeleteHowever on all sides its a contact sport and rough and ready. not my way or identity but heaps of others.
Prof moran has often said there has been change in the last decades on matters in evolutionism and recent ID/YEC critics miss this.
How to answer this?!
ID/YEC read and hear a common general explanation of how evolution created diversity and complexity. Its always the same thing. Genetic Drift and so on is never emphasized as replacing the usual idea. Irs always DARWIN started the selection on mutations/time equals bio origins. This is the essence despite details that change. IN fact evolutionists will insist evolution has remained a true hypothesis and only scientists disagree about its mechanism spectrum. YET still the Darwin equation.
Prof Moran seems to say the last decades changed IT as einstein changed Newton about conclusion in physics.
Yet the literature stresses its not that big a change but details added.
Another point to add is that the critical denial of evolutionary mechanisms is not affected by the last decades change of emphasize .
Id/YEC criticisms work the same. Maybe sloppy about timelines but again mostly its the old Darwin equation.
by the by. it seems to me on this blogs SINCE Prof Moran has stressed drift etc THAT now this is how evolutionism is defined. Education has taken place. I never knew drift etc replacedish the old way.
in fact to me its a retreat to a trench in the back. The creationist criticisms on the front trench were right.
They don't know what the theory is Robert, The evolutionary community is split on just what the theory is. Professor Moran says the theory is one thing, Coyne says it is Neo Darwinism, others say that Neo Darwinism has failed etc
DeleteLet's just say they believe in evolutionary fairy tales and are arguing with each other whose fairy tale is correct.
hahahahaha
Jack Jones
DeleteI'm unsure. Ot seems a common claim of selection on mutation/time is said everywhere but in these tighter circles of evo bio thought they stress other things. Anyways I don't think it matters on the big theme. ID/TEC hits the theme even if, maybe sometimes, missing points.
The Robert Byers I know and love has never been unsure of anything in his life.
DeleteIncoherent, incomprehensible, unclear, confused, unintelligible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled, muddled but never unsure.
Give us the real Robert Byers back.
Come on. Its not that bad. Once in a while my brain is ahead of the typing.
Deleteor the other way around. Whops you might say thats garbled and company.
Yet it makes sense to me. if that helps it.
Wow. I gotta hand it to you Larry, you really know how to rile up the crazies.
ReplyDeleteI say, where's Vincent Torley now? Seeking an expert opinion again or keeping a low profile after letting the side down? They let the usual cur pack (Mung, Andre, Joe G. vel Virgil Cain) yelp and snap at the intruder's ankles.
ReplyDeleteThis pompous and delusional Florabama fellow stays silent most of the time, but I recall him speaking up before when Mazur and Altenberg 16 were mentioned. He must be a fan of both.
Yeah, I'm still puzzled by the fact that the smart ones like Vincent Torley and Jonathan McLatchie don't do more to police the crazies.
DeleteIt's one of the reasons why Intelligent Design Creationism is seen as a social/political movement and not genuine science. That, plus the fact that many of the posts on ID sites have nothing to do with advancing the science behind intelligent design.
Look at two recent posts on Evolution News & Views (sic) for example,
Human Cloning Advance: Ban Now or Cry Later
Weighing the Impact of California's New Physician-Assisted Suicide Law
If the IDiots wonder why we don't believe them when they tell us that ID is all about science then all you have to do is point to posts on the leading ID website.
Although, to be fair, evolutionists will often also write on issues of morality, ethics and religion (e.g. Jerry Coyne.)
DeleteThe main difference is that any differences among evolutionists will be openly acknowledged and debated (this blog being a prime example), rather than swept under the rug.
I don't know why you keep calling Jonathan McLatchie who struggles with common descent and thinks that Adam and Eve were real people one of the smart ones.
DeleteJack Jones said:If an ID book came from a Creationist book then that would not mean they are the same thing, astronomy arose out of astrology but that does not make them the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIt already has been pointed out, but: #1: Is that the best argument you can make? #2: retarded meltdowns? Nonsense. That perennial modus belongs squarely right in the sphere of creationism.
The fact that creationists regularly are doing their best to rdicule and denigrate scientists only reveals how little they know and understand of science. Creationism is founded on the Bible. Take that away and they have nothing.
Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868 said: "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, BY THE NATURAL LIGHT OF HUMAN REASON: let him be anathema."
DeleteHe was way ahead of his time.
Someone even further ahead of his time was Bishop Nicholas of Cusa. Writing about the problem of knowing and understanding a deity that no human being could look upon, and whom few if any had heard, he said:
Ignorance will enlighten us in incomprehensible ways.
By that standard, I'd say you're one of the most enlightened folks here.
Jack Jones said:Let's just say they believe in evolutionary fairy tales and are arguing with each other whose fairy tale is correct.
ReplyDeleteI think you are talking from religion and ignorance. Using a word like fairytale about a scientific theory that is accepted as good science both by American scientists and in most of Europe but still is warred on in America just shows how far behind the USA still is.I see that as belonging to the legacy of Calvinism. Fairytales? I know where you find them!
What I find striking about that discussion, Larry, is not so much the scientific ignorance on display by the IDiots, as their inability to understand simple written English. At one point you write this ((Comment #47):
ReplyDeleteI’m quite sure the scientific consensus among knowledgeable experts is that most of our genome is junk. Most of the ENCODE leaders admitted as much in a PNAS paper published 18 months after their original papers appeared in September 2012.
But even if the current consensus favored function that wouldn’t effect the point I was making which was that you need to understand modern evolutionary theory if you care about the issue. Most ID proponents care a great deal about the issue.
This prompts the following reply from "Andre" (Comment #49):
Prof Moran now accepts that there is no junk but we still don’t understand ?
He is making progress.
Maybe the problem is that you are trying to teach the IDiots biology, but they first need to go back to primary school and learn to read for comprehension.
It's very frustrating, all right. I actually had this naive notion that the level of debate would become much more interesting if ID proponents would just learn a bit more about evolution.
DeleteI'm continually surprised by their inability to stick to the basic rules of logic and their irrational fixation with being right all the time.
I suppose "naive" is the right word here because I've been trying since back in the days of talk.origins over twenty-five years ago. Any sane person would have given up ages ago.
Or, Larry, as Warren Buffett put it, "irrational exuberance." Not always a bad thing. I've been dealing with these dishonest creeps at the state and local school board level for decades and there's only one thing you need to know about creationists: they're all dishonest. Willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest.
DeleteIt's not about learning evolution, science, history or anything. Their agenda is authoritarian and ideological. Face it, children of all stripes learn science, evolution and history. It's not the learning, it's the desire to learn. I'm quite certain that the denizens of the Disco Tute, propagandists all, are quite familiar with the theory of evolution, inside and out. How else could they be so surgical in their constant, deliberate misrepresentations? As George Marshall pointed out, Meyer wasn't sloppy in his work (although proofreading certainly isn't Luskin's strength!) rather Meyer's work represents a "systematic failure of scholarship." I think that once you stop expecting science and start expecting scam your frustration level will drop!
It's a regular problem with Andre. From the same thread:
ReplyDeleteAndre (#64): So what you are saying here is that mutations are not random? Welcome to the club most of us have been saying so along. I think you’re almost an IDiot. [It's hard to see which part of Larry's earlier comments justifies such a conclusion.]
Larry (#71): The probability of DNA damage or replication errors is not the same for each of the four base pairs (A/T, T/A, C/G, and G/C). That’s been known for many decades. ... All known mutations fall within the probabilities of naturalistic events even though they are not “random” by the definition you are using. [Andre seems to think that random = equiprobable. He also thinks that randomness can't be modelled.]
Andre (#73): So it’s random but not really? What else are you willing to do in your mind to deny that there is purpose and guidance when it comes to the operation of living systems?
When you talk about anything with Andre, you discover that he's having a conversation not with you but with a straw man he's erected just next to you, and only Andre, in his mind's ear, can hear what the straw man is saying.
@ Piotr
DeleteThat goes back to one of Larry's points: Why don't any of his fellow IDiots help Andre out by correcting him? If I think anyone here at Sandwalk is misunderstanding a point made by a creationists, I will correct him. I know other's will do the same for me. That's how things are supposed to work in a scientific community.
Intelligent Design aspires to be a scientific community, as well. But they never do that. They allow their fellow members to commit the most egregious errors and fallacies, and rarely correct them. How odd.
@lutesuite,
DeleteThat's why I asked where Vincent Torley was. He at least had the guts to debunk Tomkins's pseudoscience when he himself saw it for what it was. But I can imagine it made him rather unpopular with some of the the regulars.
IDists occasionally see a glimmer of light. Sal Cordova seems to understand thermodynamics. I wonder if you took just the not wrong piece from each Idist, you could assemble a whole person.
DeleteSal Cordova seems to understand thermodynamics.
DeleteVery amusingly, Sal believes in something he calls "DNA steganography," which says that if we truly work out the genetic code for each form of life there will be a part of the code that actually spells out the message "Built by God," or words to that effect.
It's old news by now.
Deletehttp://dailycurrant.com/2013/02/01/message-god-hidden-dna-sequence/
Hmm, February 1st - would have thought April 1 was the more appropriate date.
DeleteJack Jones sounds very much like Joe G/Virgil Cain/Frankie, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to check if someone is Joe G wearing a disguise. Just mention "nested hierarchy" or "lost bet" and see if his brain explodes.
DeleteOr about wavelength and frequency.
Delete@Aceofspades
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you keep calling Jonathan McLatchie who struggles with common descent and thinks that Adam and Eve were real people one of the smart ones.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
ReplyDeleteIt's very frustrating, all right. I actually had this naive notion that the level of debate would become much more interesting if ID proponents would just learn a bit more about evolution.
I'm continually surprised by their inability to stick to the basic rules of logic and their irrational fixation with being right all the time.
If they didn't do what they do, if they learned, they wouldn't remain creationists. I see the same in the branch of pseudoscience I critique. The proponents must resist learning in order to maintain their belief.
I've told you guys plenty of times, most believers don't care about this debate. An honest person will admit you can't make much of a scientific argument from the Genesis account. The consensus seems to be you can't teach a creationist science, yet here you all are day after day spending time refuting them. Professor Moran's posts about strictly scientific issues go largely ignored. Let's be honest guys. If this were an issue of a great magnitude like you all pretend that it is it would go beyond posts constantly being directed at the Discovery Institute. If the world was full of Christian groups trying to destroy science I'm sure you wouldn't discuss the same group over and over and over again. The way i see it, although i don't think it was his intention, Professor Moran's blog has become a meeting place for antitheism with a side of science. Different strokes for different folks........I guess.
ReplyDeleteHey Beau,
DeleteWhy do you care what a bunch of antitheists think about IDiot creationists ?
If as you say it's not "an issue of a great magnitude" ?
Say, what's your take on what your IDiot buddy Jack Jones said:
They probably don't hate you, They just find your lifestyle disgusting. We can see what motivates your faith in a living organism arising spontaneously in nature
You hate people judging you for your lifestyle and you fear that you will ultimately be judged for it.
Do you really think your fear in being judged for your perverted lifestyle justifies you being a dummy that holds to a living organism originating in nature by dumb chance?
Isn't that the most christian thing you have ever heard ?
What part of Genesis do you think he dredged that out of ?
I don't know Jack so i can't speak to that. Philosophy has a tendency to have a wide variety of views. Surprisingly so does science. I'm not smart enough to understand the actual science but it's apparent that there is plenty of disagreement within evolutionary thinking. That seems to fuel the creationist's doubt in evolution.
DeleteBeau,
Delete"but it's apparent that there is plenty of disagreement within evolutionary thinking."
I don't know what qualifies as "plenty" to you, but I do expect to see a lot of disagreement among any groups of scientists. The central question is not whether there's disagreement, but whether the disagreement is about evolution being a real thing. It doesn't matter if Larry thinks that most of what we see is the result of drift, and Dawkins thinks it's all the result of positive selection. What matters is that there's enough fuel in that discussion to get to the data and check and see if an answer can be achieved. But we should not mistake that to doubt about whether evolution has occurred and continues to occur. Thinking that arguments, however strong, between scientists about one or another mechanism doesn't mean that evolution is false. It just means that we have still something to discover about it.
"That seems to fuel the creationist's doubt in evolution."
Bullshit. The only fuel is their religious beliefs. Real scientific disagreements are excuses that creationists use to propel their bullshit, but it has nothing to do with their "doubts" about evolution in the first place.
I'm not smart enough to understand the actual science but it's apparent that there is plenty of disagreement within evolutionary thinking. That seems to fuel the creationist's doubt in evolution.
DeleteOh. So there is complete agreement among creationists as to whether common descent is true, whether the earth is 4 billion years old or 6000 years old, whether the "intelligent designer" is the version of God described by Judaism, Catholicism, Protestatism, Mormonism or Islam, etc. You think?
Science isn't the only thing you're not smart enough to understand, Beau.
Beau I don't know Jack [...]
DeleteSorry, couldn't resist. Turns out even quote mining isn't beneath me!
Maybe Beau Stoddard will be able to list for us some of the areas of science in which all the questions have been answered and in which there is absolutely no disagreement. Or maybe it's all of them, with the one exception of evolutionary biology. Odd that all those physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers keep drawing pay cheques, when there's nothing left for them to do.
DeleteProf. Moran you have the patience of a saint. Sorry I was so snippy with you about Dover, I wasn't myself. As for the ID crowd, their unwavering belief in their own "inerrancy" sure sounds like religious faith to me, rather than confidence in the science.
ReplyDelete