Guano (3)

Dirty penguin

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment. Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

[New page as links no longer work properly on Guano (2)]

Post n° 56711

50 thoughts on “Guano (3)

  1. Alan:

    Moved a comment to guano
    I shouldn’t need to remind long-standing members that accusations of dishonesty are against the rules of this site.

    Especially when they’re true, and made by someone whom Alan personally dislikes. So the truth gets moved to guano, and the lie remains.

  2. Alan,

    Moved a comment to guano. Moderation complaints should be made in the appropriate thread.

    Are you pitiful enough to move this comment, too?

  3. Alan,

    As I keep reminding you, if you want to change the rules, speak to the blog owner.

    And as I keep reminding you, you are not obligated to guano rule-violating posts. Nor are you obligated to “remind” people of the rules, particularly when they are speaking the truth, as Woodbine was.

    (And if you had any sense, you would guano much less often, and much more fairly, than you do. TSZ runs more smoothly when you are occupied elsewhere and are unable to guano. Ponder that.)

  4. J-Mac:

    I mean no one here wants to falsify evolution… maybe he will give it a shot?

    Still vomiting out that blatant lie even after the dozen of so ways to falsify evolution you were provided?

    Why do you think lying for Jesus is acceptable adult behavior?

  5. Alan,

    J-mac please use fellow members correct titles.

    Let him make a fool of himself. Guanoing would accomplish nothing.

  6. Tom English: Perhaps you do not know that quantum mechanics is indeterministic.

    O’RLY?
    Phoodoo; Tom is clueless as he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement… Don’t waste your time and wait for my Mystery #17 😉

  7. J-Mac: Tom is clueless as he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement…

    Neither do you. You’ve just read some fancy phrases you have no fucking clue about. You disagree and think you’re a hotshot? Then explain to me in your own words what kind of data can be relayed by utilization of “spooky action at a distance”.

    There is only one correct answer. Have fun trying to google it.

  8. Rumraket: Neither do you. You’ve just read some fancy phrases you have no fucking clue about. You disagree and think you’re a hotshot? Then explain to me in your own words what kind of data can be relayed by utilization of “spooky action at a distance”.

    There is only one correct answer. Have fun trying to google it.

    So…you, just like Tom, have no idea what QM Joe was talking about?

    Beautiful! Lol

  9. phoodoo: Rumraket is an expert on what everyone else is an expert on.

    Nah, but I can recognize a total bullshitter like a candle in the dark. And you my friend, is positively flourescing.

  10. phoodoo: Maybe you want to go back and think about this a while?

    Thanks phoodoo! I missed that one…
    Tom is so clueless that it is painful to watch… 🙁

  11. John:

    No need to shout.

    That wasn’t shouting; I was enunciating slowly and clearly so that you could no longer plausibly pretend to misunderstand my question.

    The macroevolutionary process I’m talking about is often referred to as species selection: lineages either speciating at a greater (or lesser) rate or going extinct at a greater (or lesser) rate because of some characteristics for which there is no selectable variation within populations.

    Species selection does not cause differences in the speciation rate, John.

    The question, yet again, is:

    You say that there’s a macroevolutionary process that is the cause of differences in the speciation rate. What, specifically, is that macroevolutionary process?

  12. keiths:
    John:

    That wasn’t shouting; I was enunciating slowly and clearly so that you could no longer plausibly pretend to misunderstand my question.

    That’s a violation of the rules. It’s also insulting.

    Species selection does not cause differences in the speciation rate, John.

    The question, yet again, is:

    You say that there’s a macroevolutionary process that is the cause of differences in the speciation rate. What, specifically, is that macroevolutionary process?

    The process is called species selection. Just like natural selection, one could argue about whether it should be called a process or a result or a phenomenon or an explanation or whatever. I find such arguments sterile. Of course the cause of differences in speciation rate could be chance, or it could be something that has nothing to do with characteristics of a lineage. Or it could be some characteristic that a lineage possesses, for which there is no selectable variation within the lineage, and that would make species selection*. Again, species selection is analogous to within population selection, except the units of selection are species rather than individuals. It’s a process. The causes of a process may be considered different from the process. As with within-population selection, one might not be able to point to a specific cause of differential reproductive success, but that would be a subject of research. I really don’t like arguing pointless semantics, and that’s all you have here.

    *See the Jablonski paper for an example.

  13. Tom English: I’ve never noticed you to be anything but ignorant of the substance of what others write, so I’m not expecting the step to total oblivion to have much of an impact on your comments.

    You don’t understand the fundamental concepts of Quantum Physics, you claim that quantum entanglement is not basic QM, so how would you understand the concepts that go beyond that involved in mitosis, mutagenesis, etc?

    Are you, or the majority of physicist you refer to, ready to discuss backwards causation, nonlinear time concept, illusion of time, infinite dimensions etc?
    How about your buddy Joe or other big mouths here?

  14. keiths:

    That wasn’t shouting; I was enunciating slowly and clearly so that you could no longer plausibly pretend to misunderstand my question.

    John:

    That’s a violation of the rules. It’s also insulting.

    Don’t be a hypocrite, John.

    If you choose to dish it out…

    I have to wonder if you’ve actually been reading, or at least if you’ve been reading to understand rather than as a source of gotchas.

    …don’t whine when someone returns the favor.

  15. Joe Felsenstein: The same way quantum mechanics could govern processes such as rocks rolling down a hill. Which it does.

    I’m not saying that it is totally impossible for quantum mechanics to be involved in some parts of gravity…After all, Einstein and many other experts today have tried to unify the gravity and quantum mechanics into quantum gravity…

    So, if Joe Felseinstein, Tom English or some other arrogant big mouth here has been able to accomplish what the best have not been able to, please let me know…
    I will be the first one to bow my head down to the one who receives the Noble Prize for it…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

    Until then however…

  16. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano. Please attack ideas, not fellow members.

    Why did you move my comment and not the others? Don’t you think it is relevant to the discussion going on? I can’t defend my previous comment… obviously…

  17. Tom, to Mung:

    Your omission of the context that Joe Felsenstein provided is not at all cool. Hopefully you will tell us that you did not understand the context, and thus did not know that including it was essential.

    Tom,

    Please tell us that you aren’t just now realizing that Mung is a chronic and shameless quote miner. He’s been doing it for ages.

    That isn’t even his first quote mine of the day. He did it to John earlier.

  18. Allan, to phoodoo:

    Once again, the thing that would have got this post in Guano is hanging in the air, unsaid. Between the square brackets: […].

    I will say what needs to be said:

    Anyone who

    a) understands evolution, and

    b) reads this thread, will

    c) conclude that phoodoo couldn’t pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

  19. Mung,

    If you don’t want to be seen as a bottom feeder, then stop acting like one. Your reputation is entirely self-inflicted.

  20. keiths: Tell us again why you are unable to read a series of comments and figure out what people mean by ‘common design’ in this context.

    It’s UNIVERSAL common design you doofus.

  21. Why would God need to fake evidence to make it look as if common descent is true?

    Don’t worry your little head over it, Mungie. Now run along and play with phoodoo until dinner is ready.

  22. Mung: Right. Sorry. I tend to forget how superior you are. Forgive me.

    Everybody in the world is superior to you, including The Human Shit Stain and Edward Feser. Possibly even The Donald Trump.

    If you can’t find anything useful to do (and we’ve been waiting over ten years now), you might consider suicide. Think of it as a field trip to heaven.

    P.S. Sorry if the above suggestion violates any blog standards, but it’s nothing compared to the damage Mung and Friends have all ready done.

  23. keiths: Don’t worry your little head over it, Mungie. Now run along and play with phoodoo until dinner is ready.

    In case you haven’t noticed, phoodoo isn’t around.

  24. Mung,

    Bacteria and Eukarya nested within Archaea. Nope.
    Bacteria and Archaea nested within Eukarya. Nope.
    Archaea and Eukarya nested within Bacteria. Nope.

    So right off the bat there’s no “objective nested hierarchy.”

    You have no idea how stupid that statement sounds to a knowledgeable person, do you?

  25. keiths:

    Don’t worry your little head over it, Mungie. Now run along and play with phoodoo until dinner is ready.

    Mung:

    In case you haven’t noticed, phoodoo isn’t around.

    Exactly. Now run along and play with phoodoo, dear.

  26. keiths: You have no idea how stupid that statement sounds to a knowledgeable person, do you?

    A knowledgeable person would agree with me. Obviously.

  27. J-Mac, to PaulC:

    It was a pleasure talking to you… Bye bye! 😉

    J-Mac is aiming for “most flounces by a TSZ participant in a single week.”

  28. Mung,

    Nothing you wrote leads to the conclusion that what Erik wrote is untrue.

    Sure it does.

    Let the grownups talk, Mung.

  29. Mung:

    If I don’t ask questions I’m not trying to learn anything. If I do ask questions I am not trying to learn anything. And, furthermore, if I do ask questions I’m asking to be spoon fed. I see how it is.

    Mooommmmeeeee! Allan and keiths are making me Google things for myself. But I don’t want to. Don’t want to! Don’t want to! Don’t want to!

    Why won’t they spoon-feed me?

  30. Erik: Which is why your challenge to it is coherent and effective only in your own mind. In reality, it is not a meaningful challenge, because it addresses only a corollary. Half-heartedly.

    Thank you for your opinion.

  31. Erik,

    Please follow Rumraket’s instructions.

    Meanwhile, you wrote:

    I disagree with Torley that it’s the best point Feser has to offer. And KN and yourself should stop pretending as if it’s the only point about PSR to make or the most representative one.

    We aren’t. We’re simply addressing it, while you continue to flail about in the weeds. If you aspire to be a “philosophy guy”, you need to cultivate a bit more discipline.

    And even sticking to this particular point, you have not raised an argument against it, just a claimed possibility. Do you have an argument or reason for why your claimed possibility should get any attention whatsoever?

    You’re still off in the weeds, failing to grasp what is being discussed, which is Feser’s claim that genuine explanations cannot rest on brute facts, and that the PSR must therefore be assumed (at least implicitly). He’s wrong about that, and we do not need to assume the actual existence of brute facts in order to demonstrate that.

  32. Alan Fox:
    Moved another. Comments about moderation to moderation issues thread, please.

    It wasn’t a comment about moderation, it was a comment about pornography.

    I think your conduct is obscene however, but I guess that’s allowed now.

  33. Bill,

    If you want to paint yourself as dim, lazy, and addled by the Jebus Effect, then proceed as you are.

    Otherwise, get off your ass and read — actually read — Theobald. Then, if you’re still confused, come to us with questions about the specific parts of his essay you don’t understand.

Comments are closed.