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

275 Replies to “Guano (3)”

  1. GlenDavidson says:

    colewd: Of the 13,172 genes that Sal’s flower identified as being inherited by future species
    -12897 made it to humans
    -12718 made it mice
    -10983 made it to chickens

    Call me crazy but I would expect order of dissension to be reversed. The further down the evolutionary trip the more opportunity to lose genes yet the greatest number of genes made the longest trip. The genes going down that path experienced a gene loss time warp. Inheritance seems an unlikely cause of this pattern.

    No, we call you ignorant and obtuse.

    What in the world are you doing thinking that there is a “longest trip” to any extant species? Again, I really don’t even get your “reasoning” at all, since I can’t imagine how chickens are the “longest trip” for anything.

    The likely reason why there are fewer genes that “got to” the chickens” is simple–chickens have fewer genes than the two mammals do (at least in the diagram).

    What are you doing anyway? You’ve run the gamut of idiotic objections based on the “flower,” and now you seem bent on yet another meaningless attack. Any chance you could ever do anything but attack the evidence for evolution, however ignorantly? Like, once?

    Glen Davidson

  2. Mung Mung says:

    GlenDavidson: No, we call you ignorant and obtuse.

    Yes. You’re another of those who do not care about the rules.

    accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic

    TSZ sucks because people like Glen are allowed to continuously violate the rules.

    My advice. Put Glen on Ignore.

  3. colewd says:

    Mung,

    My advice. Put Glen on Ignore.

    Done

  4. GlenDavidson says:

    colewd:
    Mung,

    Done

    Perfect, for someone who so ably ignores all that he wants not to know. You’ve never answered the crucial questions, just blathered on with Mung-like incompetence.

    By the way, why would you obey Mung who clearly has not had me on ignore? I’ve kept him on ignore for a long time, with very rare breaks for the sake of context, as he almost never breaks from his abysmally ignorant and malicious attacks. But he’s not done the same, not with any constancy anyhow. So he’s a hypocrite on this matter, like so many, not that you’d care enough to call him on it. Well, do you ever rise to objectivity?

    Anyway, fine, have me on ignore. You don’t learn anything from me, or anyone that I can see, and there’s nothing of value for you to teach.

    Glen Davidson

  5. Mung Mung says:

    GlenDavidson: By the way, why would you obey Mung who clearly has not had me on ignore?

    You fail. I’ve had you on Ignore. I took your off Ignore to take a look at one of your posts. That post clearly violated the rules. Suck less.

  6. Adapa says:

    stcordova:

    The “miracles” of evolution are endless. Not only did C4 photosynthesis evolve, it happened 40 times independently!Freaking amazing how random mutations will conspire to make the same thing over and over again.

    Not so amazing is yet another time a lying moron YEC ignores the feedback effect of selection in determining the results of evolutionary processes.

  7. keiths keiths says:

    Poor phoodoo. All bitterness, no argument.

  8. Gregory Gregory says:

    “So you think Vincent should weight the arguments of scientists based on how ‘evangelical’ they are?”

    Obviously not. Schaffner’s anti-Adamism isn’t a secret here. He’s not about to start writing poetic odes to the ‘realism’ of A&E.

    “And do you think there’s something wrong with giving up a belief based on scientific evidence?”

    Which beliefs do you hold, keiths, that are beyond scientific evidence? Any?
    Please do the work and name some.

    As a faithless man who’s become a hardcore anti-religious fool, you’ll most likely fail to come up with anything worth consideration. And then parade that failure as pseudo-success for heartless nihilism qua ‘skepticism.’

    As for ‘proper Christian,’ the despairing attempt at catnip works no longer. Go back to your cave and wallow in atheist misery. Torley at least has some sense left, if ever he could find a way out of this place.

  9. Acartia Acartia says:

    Robert Byers: Slavery was a trivial matter in their day.

    Well, when the constitution declares that you are only worth 3/5 of a white person, it is no wonder that you are trivialized.

    I didn’t read anything past this sentence because this was enough for me to conclude that you are an idiot. Guano here I come.

  10. Adapa says:

    Mung:
    Two posts by Adapa.

    phoodoo 6 – skeptics 0

    Gee mung, I thought you were going to stop being a dick all the time. Maybe next life, eh?

  11. Adapa says:

    Entropy: I explicitly said that each strand is a template strand, I didn’t say that a double helix is a template strand. Seems like your illiteracy and your forgetfulness can be quite a problem.

    The real problem is he’s just a shit-stirring troll, has been for years. You’ll never meet a bigger liar or attention whore.

  12. phoodoo says:

    Neil Rickert: He has been guanoed often.That particular comment didn’t hit my threshold.

    Of course, why would it. Calling someone a shit-stain is mild for adapa.

    Who would ever think that is against the rules at TSZ. Now, if he would have said a lying shit-stain, well, then you might have said for him to watch it next time.

  13. Entropy Entropy says:

    Mung,

    Did you understand it now or not you self-despising sad excuse of a human being?

  14. Entropy Entropy says:

    Mung: So, right in my wheelhouse then!

    Yeah, Sal displayed ignorance almost comparable to yours. Awesome!

  15. Mung Mung says:

    Entropy: Did you understand it now or not you self-despising sad excuse of a human being?

    I’m finally a human being!

    I wasn’t the one who used lego pieces as an example of things that could be joined but not separated. That was you. I think I’m going to save that post. Because it was really, Really, REALLY, dumb. But if that’s the best you have to offer, so be it. 🙂

  16. J-Mac says:

    dazz:
    J-Mac,

    Try to follow the conversation

    The OP refers to wave function, fine tuning and properties of water, which you know nothing about…That’s why YOU can’t see that my comments relate to the theme…
    If you continue to embarr-ass yourself, maybe it’s time to disappear again tronco? 😉

  17. dazz dazz says:

    J-Mac: maybe it’s time to disappear

    After you, dumbass

  18. dazz dazz says:

    J-Mac:
    What Joe is worried about, that if there is a strong element of randomness in natural selection, then the process loses it ascribed creative power. The finding of novelty in structures and functions in the vast space of non-function without direction natural selection is unlikely to hit the functional target….

    Unable to understand, hopelessly clueless and proving Joe’s point all along. Great job buddy

  19. J-Mac says:

    dazz: Unable to understand, helplessly clueless

    We know…You don’t have to keep reminding us about your fundamental, cognitive incompetence…

  20. GlenDavidson says:

    J-Mac: So Glen is confused (again)what caused cross-bedding…So he can’t look up wiki… So what?

    “Cross-bedding forms during deposition on the inclined surfaces of bedforms such as ripples and dunes; it indicates that the depositional environment contained a flowing medium (typically water or wind). Examples of these bedforms are ripples, dunes, anti-dunes, sand waves, hummocks, bars, and delta slopes.[1] Environments in which water movement is fast enough and deep enough to develop large-scale bed forms fall into three natural groupings: rivers, tide-dominated coastal and marine settings.[2]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-bedding

    No reading comprehension, dullard?

    Glen Davidson

  21. J-Mac says:

    GlenDavidson,

    I have always known you had that problem but it’s never too late to admit it…
    On the other hand some people are never wrong…comprehension is just a marginal issue in delusional states…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJGUSrL63jE

  22. stcordova says:

    Since Rumraket can’t tell from the following list which pair are the most similar, maybe the know-it-all Glen Davidson can respond.

    In terms of skeletal structure, which pair is the most similar. No phylogenetic phantasies and mumbo jumbo please. Stick to geometry.

    1. Lungfish and Tuna
    2. Lungfish and Pigeon
    3. Tuna and Pigeon

  23. GlenDavidson says:

    Rumraket: I think you’re confused. I it is not that they are supposed to be “more similar” in their shared characters, it is the presence of certain characters that yield particular groups. So when chickens are grouped with lobe finned fish in sarcopterygii by the method of cladistics, it is because they share at least one particular character not present in actinopterygii. Whether the shape of their skulls and spine are more similar between the lungfish and the tuna is irrelevant, as they are essentially a character shared by all three species, e.g. they are vertebrates.

    Yeah, but that’s what I said, and since the liar Sal can’t counter this or ever engage honestly with anybody, he just called me a “know-it-all” and demanded an answer that follows his endlessly dishonest cant.

    There’s simply no way to respond to lying shits like Sal who will never really engage, but try to game the simple-minded and highly biased (for some reason, excused by their being in the minority, evil swine like Mung and Sal get away with nearly ever bit of hateful slime they spew, which really just fucks up everything rather than facilitating discussion) system here. It works well enough for him, anyway, since being a hateful piece of shit is his main goal (he really does hate people for disagreeing with him).

    Glen Davidson

  24. Entropy Entropy says:

    fifthmonarchyman: the atheist position results in absurdity

    No you idiot, your claims are the absurdity. What an ass. At least you could make an attempt to think, instead of presenting that twisted bullshit.

    fifthmonarchyman: peace

    Sure you pretentious imbecile.

  25. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Bugger off. You’re the one who brought up the subject.

  26. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    You’re fucking up again. Bad move.

  27. keiths keiths says:

    Alan:

    Moved a comment to guano. Sorry, Entropy, I feel your exasperation. May I suggest the “ignore” button.

    Alan,

    Moving that comment served no constructive purpose, and did not make TSZ a better place. Please restrain yourself.

  28. keiths keiths says:

    John:

    You might as well ask, when I tell you that hydrogen fusion explains the heat of the sun, why hydrogen isn’t inherently cold.

    fifth:

    That is not what I would ask,

    I might ask why does hydrogen fuses in the sun but not in the Goodyear blimp…

    Yes, that is exactly the kind of dumb question you would ask. Low intelligence, plus a profound lack of scientific curiosity and a cultivated laziness, have left you unaware of what your brighter opponents know: The Goodyear blimps carry helium for buoyancy, not hydrogen.

    If you actually wanted to learn about science, you would not waste time on the musings of a dim and undereducated spouter of bible verses: yourself. You would instead focus on the people who had something worthwhile to say and who understood the topic at hand.

    But of course learning is not your intent here. You are here to prop up your ego. It feels good to pretend that you are a bright guy who is capable of condescending to John. It gets you off.

    To face the truth — that you are a dim guy who is here to learn from those who are brighter and better educated than you — doesn’t get you off. Worse yet, learning requires effort, and you are profoundly lazy and undisciplined.

    So you indulge in a disgusting display of public mental masturbation, learn nothing, and everyone’s time gets wasted.

    It’s a new year, fifth. Why not set your ego aside and try to learn something in 2018? Save the mental masturbation for private moments when only God has to witness and be disgusted by it.

  29. keiths keiths says:

    Neil,

    Moved a post to guano.

    And accomplished nothing useful thereby. You simply disrupted the continuity of the thread.

    You’re repeating your habitual pattern: making poor moderation decisions without even considering whether they will make TSZ better or worse.

    It’s a new year, Neil. Why not resolve to moderate thoughtfully instead of reflexively and with prejudice?

  30. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    The advice I gave to Neil applies to you as well.

    Please heed it.

  31. keiths keiths says:

    Alan:

    Moved comment to guano

    Alan,

    You’re interfering with discussion. Please stop doing that.

    As a moderator, you are supposed to be acting for TSZ’s benefit, not against it.

  32. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    If you’d like to make TSZ a better place, please focus on changing yourself. Notice that TSZ operates most smoothly when you and Neil are absent. Your poor moderation decisions are a burden to us. Take the lesson to heart.

    Also, as the regulars know, your personal behavior is appalling, and you’ve demonstrated in many ways — through dishonesty, abuse of moderator privileges, refusal to admit mistakes, poor judgment — that you are unfit to be a moderator. It’s one of the many reasons that you don’t get the respect that you crave.

    Again, take that to heart. Try to become someone who is worthy of respect. Your energies should be directed toward addressing your own rather severe flaws, but instead you are interfering with discussion and indulging in personal grudges.

    It’s a waste of time, and a burden that TSZ should not have to bear. Please get your shit together.

  33. J-Mac says:

    Allan Miller,

    This subject is one of my favourite hobbies ( top 10) that used to pay and still pays some of my bills… Just because Tom Müller happens to be a moron and has no problem making a fool of himself publicly is not my problem.. He did once with photosynthesis; he ignored the quantum coherence piece that my buddy has written 6 papers on… Now this? I’m not going to let this slide because you are passionate about it…

  34. keiths keiths says:

    J-Mac:

    …And dumb luck “created ” the laws of physics… so that dumb products of those laws, the self’-proclaimed “intelligencia”, would later acknowledge the obvious facts that dumbness can only come from dumbness…

    Whereas in J-Mac’s view, dumbness comes directly from God. It’s a gift. J-Mac is particularly blessed in this regard.

  35. J-Mac says:

    Corneel: Not fair, if Sal writes something you don’t understand, you call it “keen insight”.

    So, you have decided you are going to stick to your faith no matter what… and quote-mine instead to feel good while lying to yourself… fair enough…

  36. Entropy Entropy says:

    J-Mac: I expose falsehood and blind faith sold as science… That’s what I do…

    Nah. You expose your ignorance and lack of both character and self-awareness. You despise yourself and project that hatred towards others by trying to make them look like you: an imbecilic religious nut.

    J-Mac: You don’t like it… Give me one reason why I should care what you think?

    Your kids. Maybe you despise yourself, and maybe you could not care less how stupid you appear, how much ignorance you display, and how little character and decency you hold. But your kids deserve better.

  37. keiths keiths says:

    Alan:

    During Lizzie’s absence there has been some dilution of these ideals and the signal to noise ratio has declined.

    You forgot to mention the role of moderator abuses and incompetence in diminishing the “signal to noise ratio”, via seemingly endless moderation screwups and kerfuffles.

    A prime concern in any new moderation scheme should be to limit the damage that can be done by moderator misconduct. You’ve recently disgraced yourself by your handling of the ALurker affair, and you just did it again by closing the Moderation Issues (4) thread for no valid reason.

    Stop pretending that you’re all about promoting Lizzie’s aims. She didn’t want moderators interfering with the free expression of complaints and criticisms in the Moderation Issues threads. You have now done so for at least the third time.

    It’s shameful behavior. We are very fortunate that you are now on your way out. I hope we can limit the damage you do in your time remaining.

  38. keiths keiths says:

    Neil,

    That comment directly addressed the topic, which is how to improve TSZ going forward. Moderator misconduct, and how to prevent it or lessen its impact, is an important part of that.

    Please restore the comment.

  39. phoodoo says:

    keiths,

    You are not capable of posting without insulting keiths, I agree with Neil on this one. The solution isn’t less guanoing, its more.

  40. stcordova says:

    John Harshman:
    It would certainly help if some creationist would lay out a clear position, present evidence for it, and be willing to engage at length in defending it through rational discussion. So far, not. This, it seems to me, is the major stumbling block.

    But not all threads here about creationism, but about science topics such as:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/in-slight-defense-of-granville-sewell-a-lehninger-larry-moran-l-boltzmann/

    And Keiths could help but go ballistic about what I said in discussion about entropy!

    And Keiths goes ballistic in another discussion about entropy here:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/2lot-and-id-entropy-calculations-editorial-corrections-welcome/

    And the irony was I was actually criticizing creationists.

    And then there were these discussion about epigenetics, one started by walto:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/twins-and-epigenetics/

    And then my thread on embryogenesis which was highly contentious:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/epigenetic-memory-changes-during-embryogenesis/

    And then my thread on Alu’s which was highly contentious:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/some-evidence-alus-and-sines-arent-junk-and-garbologists-are-wrong/

    But I should add, my discussion about Alu’s helped me collect material which I circulated in the ID community. A pro-ID book was just released that reflected some of the quotations in that thread.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/repetitive-dna-and-encode/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-sugar-code-and-other-omics/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/chargaff-parity-rule-2-biasednon-random-mutations/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/dictionary-halting-problem-makes-aa-fallible/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/non-dna-structural-inheritance/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/thorp-shannon-inspiration-for-alternative-perspectives-on-the-id-vs-naturalism-debate/
    Or philosophy threads:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/what-defines-good-design-in-the-composition-of-music-and-the-tuning-of-musical-instruments/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-only-certainty-is-pain/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/reflections-of-a-former-missionary/

    Or threads critical of ID (by me):

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/csi-comedy/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/id-falsifiable-not-science-not-positive-not-directly-testable/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/malicious-intelligent-design/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/there-is-no-positive-case-for-id-or-special-creation/

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/james-randis-million-dollar-challenge-intelligent-designers-elusiveness/

  41. keiths keiths says:

    Neil,

    There’s a distinction between discussing general principle of moderation, and complaining about a specific instance of moderation. The latter belongs in the moderation thread.

    First, that isn’t the standard you’re applying. You guanoed this comment:

    Looking ahead, I think the best solution by far is to eliminate the moderators’ power to guano comments. If that isn’t acceptable to Lizzie, I also have a couple of ideas that I presented a while back on forms of guanoing that would be far less disruptive and onerous to readers, and more in line with her stated goals, than the current system.

    I’ll elaborate on all of this in a later comment.

    There is no mention of any specific instance of moderation there. You guanoed it anyway.

    It’s yet another instance of a moderator abusing his powers for his own benefit. Neil didn’t like my comments; Neil wanted to get them out of the thread; Neil needed an excuse for doing that; so Neil guanoed them and rationalized it with an excuse that anyone can see is bogus.

    You interfered with yet another discussion, against Lizzie’s wishes and against TSZ’s best interests. It’s all about Neil and Neil’s self-interest.

    Moderator misconduct is a major problem at TSZ, as you just demonstrated. Alan’s recent disgraceful performance also proves the point. Discussions of TSZ’s future direction need to include thoughts on how to curb it, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that we should not refer to particular instances of moderator abuse in such discussions.

  42. newton says:

    keiths: Moderator misconduct is a major problem at TSZ,

    In that specific case you may have a point, however in discussing it…

  43. keiths keiths says:

    That’s interesting. It’s as if Alan would like us to ignore the topic of moderator abuses.

    Odd how that actually makes my case for me.

  44. newton says:

    keiths:
    That’s interesting.It’s as if Alan would like us to ignore the topic of moderator abuses.

    Odd how that actually makes my case for me.

    And you made his.How are the propositions coming?

  45. keiths keiths says:

    Moderator meltdowns are not exactly the best argument for retaining moderator powers.

  46. keiths keiths says:

    Butt out, Alan.

    As I said earlier:

    You are not here to dictate or control the discussion. We are talking about the future of TSZ, and it’s not “off track” to talk about moderator abuses and how to prevent or mitigate them in the future.

  47. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    You’re abusing your moderator privileges again. Knock it off.

  48. keiths keiths says:

    The evidence just keeps accumulating. TSZ needs a future in which moderator powers are sharply reduced or eliminated.

    We need admins, not moderators.

  49. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    You are demonstrating my point perfectly. TSZ’s future depends on sharply limiting or eliminating moderator powers.

  50. keiths keiths says:

    Now is a good time to repeat this suggested rule:

    High on the list should be a rule stating that “Moderators may not abuse their moderator privileges for their personal benefit.”

    Three more guanoed comments can be found here.

Comments are closed.