Arrival of the Fittest – keiths style

I tire of keiths and his revisionist history. In a recent thread…

Glen: The real question is if Mung has read and comprehended Losos’ book.

keiths: Yes, which brings to mind what happened with Andreas Wagner’s book, Arrival of the Fittest. Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.

keiths:

I challenged him:

Mung,

Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.

How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.

Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.

And:

Think of it as being similar to an ideological Turing test. I’d like to see if you even bothered, or were able, to understand the book before dismissing it as no threat to ID.

keiths: To no one’s surprise, Mung squirmed, stalled, and then skedaddled.

Here’s what actually happened:

Mung: Thanks Alan. Nice summary. Didn’t petrushla claim the book is some sort of magical “ID killer” or some such?

I’m hoping someone will raise things from the book relevant to ID, since it seems to come up as a book that ID’ists really ought to read. My questions is why?

No one ever did, not even keiths, God bless his soul.

keiths: I think Mung v. Wagner is going to be as embarrassing for you as Mung v. Weasel was.

Mung: keiths, there’s an open invitation to anyone to take an argument from the book they find compelling and defend it. You could start with his discussion of intelligent design, if you can find it.

keiths: Instead of this inane running commentary, why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.

Mung: Promises. Promises. keiths. And we know how good you are at keeping those. This thread is your chance to shine. You and Petrushka. Have at it.

And shine they did. As in shined on. So what really happened is that keiths claimed that he would be “happy to explain.” He never did, of course. The main point here being that keiths made a claim and failed to support it and then he blamed me for his failure to support his claims. Typical keiths. So here’s his chance to step up to the plate and make the case that Wagner’s book is “bad news for ID” [keiths] and even “death to ID” [petrushka].

Prediction: He won’t. And this thread will die, like Alan’s. And then keiths will point to this thread as evidence that I “skedaddled” yet again.

77 thoughts on “Arrival of the Fittest – keiths style

  1. keiths:

    Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.

    The truth, of course, is somewhat different than the tale spun by our good friend keiths.

    Mung: The OP hardly does justice to Chapter 7, From Nature to Technology, and like the Epilogue, it is utterly ID-friendly.

    So my actual claim was that Chapter 7 is ID friendly, and the Epilogue. In the hands of keiths, this becomes a claim that the entire book is ID-friendly. Pathetic, really.

  2. Mung,

    My offer — and challenge — still stands:

    Mung,

    Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.

    How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.

    Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.

    You did indeed “squirm, stall and skedaddle”, as I said. No such summary ever appeared.

    Here’s your chance to do better.

  3. Neil Rickert: I tire of people who argue for the sake of arguing.

    As an admin, you should tire of people who constantly break the rules.If you tire of being an admin, email Elizabeth and let her know, so that she can replace you.

  4. Mung,

    I don’t understand the implications for ID.

    That’s painfully obvious.

    So again, here’s the deal:

    Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.

    How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.

    Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.

    If you can’t even summarize those ideas, much less refute them or dispute their dire implications for ID, then your flailing is of no interest to anyone except as a source of amusement.

  5. keiths: If you can’t even summarize those ideas, much less refute them or dispute their dire implications for ID, then your flailing is of no interest to anyone except as a source of amusement.

    So if I don’t “summarize” for you, you’re going to be of absolutely no use?

    Forget the fact that both you and petrushka made positive claims of your own, you don’t actually have to defend those claims. That’s your position?

    What about your alternative? “OR dispute their dire implications for ID”? Are you next going to deny that you offered that as an alternative?

    I’d be happy to dispute them, if only you would say what they are. I’ve made that clear from the beginning. You’re stalling. Stop stalling.

  6. dazz: What’s there to understand? Honest question there

    You’d have to ask keiths and petrushka. They are the ones claiming the book is “bad news for ID” [keiths] and even “death to ID” [petrushka]. Ever since they made those claims I’ve been asking them to make their case.

    keiths has managed to find a way to weasel out. But what about petrushka?

  7. And then there’s the easily demonstrable fact that keiths moved the goalposts.

    His initial offer:

    keiths: Instead of this inane running commentary, why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.

    I’ve finished the book. I still don’t understand – or won’t admit that I understand – why the book is “bad news for ID.”

    So please stop stalling and please stop moving the goalposts, and kindly explain why the book is “bad news for ID.” And please do so happily.

  8. Mung: I’ve finished the book.

    Does Losos explain what he means by fate and destiny?

    To me this is just proof that organism have built in abilities to adapt…nothing else…

  9. Mung,

    I’ve finished the book.

    Great! Now you can move on to the next step:

    Alan’s review barely touches on what I think are the most important ideas in the book: those concerning the “libraries”, the “networks”, and the extent to which the networks extend across the libraries.

    How about summarizing those ideas for us in your own words? That will serve the dual purpose of 1) filling a gap in Alan’s review and 2) demonstrating that you actually understand what Wagner is saying.

    Having summarized those ideas, if you still don’t (or pretend not to) understand the implications for ID, I’ll help you out.

  10. Mung:

    I’ve finished the book.

    J-Mac:

    Does Losos explain what he means by fate and destiny?

    He’s talking about the Wagner book, J-Mac. Did you even read the OP?

  11. Stop stalling keiths.

    keiths: Instead of this inane running commentary, why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.

    I’ll assume you weren’t lying when you wrote that. Fair assumption?

  12. Squirm. Stall. And AT THAT POINT… LoL.

    keiths, your demand for a summary was an “amendment” [to put it kindly] to your initial offer, which said absolutely nothing about a requirement for a summary.

    A reminder:

    keiths: …why not step away from the keyboard and finish the book first? At that point, if you still don’t understand — or won’t admit that you understand — why the book is bad news for ID, I’ll be happy to explain.

    If you were lying then, I have no reason to think you aren’t lying now. Were you lying then? How do I know you aren’t lying now?

    All you have to do is admit you were lying, and I’ll happily provide the summary.

    Stop stalling.

  13. The Great Mung: utterly defeated by Weasel, utterly defeated by Wagner, and utterly defeated by the geography of Texas.

  14. Mung fiddles. keiths dances. The Meltdown!

    I was at least willing to assume that keiths wasn’t lying. His logic seems to be that he wasn’t lying in his first post because in some later post he revised the terms.

    Either way, it’s all my fault that he doesn’t defend his claim. 🙂

    Prediction: He won’t. And this thread will die, like Alan’s. And then keiths will point to this thread as evidence that I “skedaddled” yet again.

    1 for 1 so far.

  15. Mung,

    After the previous thread, in which you were afraid to post a summary of the key ideas in Wagner’s book, you have now started a new thread, in which you are still afraid to post that summary.

    And you thought this was going to work out to your advantage, somehow?

  16. This thread isn’t Mung v. Wagner.

    It could be, if you ever actually manage to defend your claim. Or if petrushka ever manages to rise from the ashes and defend his claim. Neither of which is likely.

    Squirm. Stall. AND AT THAT POINT …. LOL.

  17. Mung,

    This thread isn’t Mung v. Wagner.

    Sure it is. It’s just that you’ve forfeited the match, out of fear.

    Wise move. You never stood a chance.

  18. keiths is rather obviously confused.

    On the one hand, he claims that I think Wagner’s book is ID-friendly. On the other hand he thinks I am trying to prosecute a case against Wagner (Mung v. Wagner).

    And why would I be prosecuting a case against a book that I think is ID-friendly?

    keiths doesn’t say. And for good reason. keiths logic.

  19. keiths modified one of his posts again! Say it isn’t so, keiths.

    Of course I did. So what? Your desperation is showing, Mung.

  20. Mung,

    keiths is rather obviously confused.

    On the one hand, he claims that I think Wagner’s book is ID-friendly. On the other hand he thinks I am trying to prosecute a case against Wagner (Mung v. Wagner).

    And why would I be prosecuting a case against a book that I think is ID-friendly?

    For an obvious reason: you don’t actually think the book is ID-friendly. That was just a Mungian bluff.

    Same with your goofy claim that the book is somehow “non-Darwinian”.

    You were bluffing, and you got caught. All the more reason for you to avoid talking about what the book actually says.

    And all the more reason for me to encourage you to be brave and do so. You’re afraid. I’m not, because I have no reason to be.

  21. keiths: Of course I did. So what?

    You’re modification was entirely innocent, of course. Unlike when I change a post of mine. You have such an awesome memory. Did you forget about the stink you raised when I modified one of my posts? How utterly self-serving of you.

    #NotAHypocriteOrNotMuchOfOne

  22. keiths: …you don’t actually think the book is ID-friendly. That was just a Mungian bluff.

    Of course. What else could it have been.

    keiths:

    Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.

    So Mung v. Wagner is me saying the book is ID friendly when I didn’t actually think the book is ID-friendly, and your accusation was just you playing along even though you knew I was just bluffing.

    You clearly have me outclassed. I forgot that you can read minds.

  23. keiths: Be brave, and post exactly what the change was.

    You already admitted that you changed your post. Why does your admission require bravery on my part?

    Do you honestly not remember when you accused me of changing one of my posts? How brave were you then, posting exactly what the change was?

    Answer: Not very.

  24. Mung: You already admitted that you changed your post. Why does your admission require bravery on my part?

    Do you honestly not remember when you accused me of changing one of my posts? How brave were you then, posting exactly what the change was?

    Answer: Not very.

    Make it the departure of the wisest Mung!

  25. Mung,

    You already admitted that you changed your post. Why does your admission require bravery on my part?

    What requires bravery is for you to post the actual changes. You’re afraid to. We all know why, and it’s the same reason you ran away here and here. When you’re asked for evidence, you bolt.

    The truth is a scary thing when you’re a Mung.

  26. J-Mac: Make it the departure of the wisest Mung!

    keiths finds fault in others. It’s not something he can reasonably deny. The fact that he has engaged in the exact same behavior that he faults in others seems to escape his notice.

  27. keiths: What requires bravery is for you to post the actual changes. You’re afraid to.

    You’re hallucinating. 🙂

    We all agree that you changed your post. You don’t deny that you changed your post You admit that you changed your post. The actual changes are irrelevant.

  28. Mung,

    The actual changes are irrelevant.

    The actual changes would show that you’re making a big deal out of nothing. That’s what scares you.

    You are so transparent, Mung.

  29. keiths keeps trying to change the subject. He is the prosecutor. It’s not Mung v. Wagner, but rather Wagner v. ID. Stop stalling, keiths.

  30. keiths: The actual changes would show that you’re making a big deal out of nothing. That’s what scares you.

    LoL! Of course I am making a big deal out of nothing, that’s the freaking point!

    Just like you did when you decided to try to make something of the fact that I changed one of my posts. But you don’t remember that. LoL. Your selective memory is noted.

  31. keiths: And when I ask you for a link, you bolt.

    Actually, I offered a wager. A wager which keiths [wisely] chose to not accept.

    But I bolted. Sure. 🙂

  32. Mung: Actually, I offered a wager. A wager which keiths [wisely] chose to not accept.

    But I bolted. Sure.

    If you children won’t behave yourselves, please leave the table and go to your rooms.

Leave a Reply