Failure to Respond: open thread!

As Tom English’s post critiquing Dembski, Ewert, Marks, (eg Ewert) is being swamped with OT stuff, I offer this as a place to discuss the lack of substantive responses to Tom English and Joe Felsenstein so that any substantive response to Tom’s points will be more visible.

163 Replies to “Failure to Respond: open thread!”

  1. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes: Many! Links, please.

    Feel free to go over there and ask. 😛

  2. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie,

    So none, then. Okay, thanks.

  3. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    So that’s a “no” you won’t do any investigating. Typical (only desperate evos keep a complete log of everything IDists say. I am not one of those)

  4. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    Does anyone disagree with the claim that GAs are goal-oriented targeted searches? Does anyone disagree with the claim that natural selection is neither goal-oriented nor a targeted search?

  5. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie,

    The burden on proof is on you, as you made the claim.

    I’ll help, though:

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Auncommondescent.com+%22I+agree+with+Joe%22

    Nothing on Front-Loading.

  6. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    Go to UD and ask. That is all you have to do to see that my claim is supported. It is not my fault that you won’t undertake that simple investigative task.

    And the claim refers to GAs and is being fleshed-out by the questions:

    Does anyone disagree with the claim that GAs are goal-oriented targeted searches? Does anyone disagree with the claim that natural selection is neither goal-oriented nor a targeted search?

    Care to answer?

  7. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Sure, after you support or withdraw your claim.

  8. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    Go to UD and ask. That is all you have to do to see that my claim is supported. It is not my fault that you won’t undertake that simple investigative task.

    (and by answering you will see that my claim is supported and unrefuted)

  9. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie,

    Yeah, that’s not support.

    Joe tries these pretend tricks as well, like ‘I’ve already covered that on my blog”.

    If you want to know why you’re wrong, go and find a box with a message in it describing how you’re wrong.

  10. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    Of course that is support- If you go to UD and ask about the claim pertaining to GAs, you will see for yourself that the majority of UD agrees with it. That you think it is searchable just exposes your pretend antics.

    Your refusal to answer the questions is enough for me. It is your way of admitting that I am right.

    Thank you

  11. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie: Of course that is support-

    No, its conjecture.
    If if you think it isn’t, go and find a box that contains within a message that explains why it is conjecture.

    next.

  12. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes,

    Whatever cupcake. we understand why you choose the tactics that you use.

    No one doubts that GAQs are search heuristics. They are designed to actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve.

    And here at TSZ the regulars have said that natural selection is not a search.

    That means anyone who disagrees with my two questions has some explaining to do. If no one disagrees then we can move on to try to determine Felsenstein’s issue(s) with my post he was responding to.

  13. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    OK so no one can refute nor challenge what I said about GAs.

    Life is good

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.