For those interested in discussions of evolutionism, creationism, Intelligent Design as they impact science, philosophy and theology/worldview in society and education today, please find below a small piece of news.
In short, IDism isn’t really all that hard to counter. Most of you have done it here already countless times against IDists. As for me, I’m batting 100% against IDists in person and 99.5% against IDists online. Only Cameron Wybrow in Canada is the lone holdout. I have questions for every IDist that CSC’s John West would (not) ‘expel’ me for!
The DI is afraid of me because I saw it on the inside. But who could ever see the inside of quality, rigorous, ‘good science’ that is done ‘peacefully’, when there is no institutional centre currently available to hold such an abstract utopia, even better than IDism?
No, what is really difficult is to counter IDists who are actually TEists & ECists also at the same time. This combination is much more difficult than just arguing here with lowbrow IDists or mainly heterodox theists. And this, folks, is where you will find them: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org
Vincent J. Torley is already there and he has an offer to co-author his first scientific publication since his PhD with the site host. So it can’t be too hard to handle for TSZers since Vincent is now officially (yet?) a moderator at TSZ. So that’s a perfect introduction for you to show Peaceful Science what you think about their “Science of Adam.”
When the California-born & accented Dr. Swamidass gets the money, as he is already asking for at Peaceful Science, then let me assure the vast majority atheists here they had better be ready to buckle their belts in the North American “creation war” as Swamidass repeatedly calls it. Why? A recycled neologism known as “Genealogical Adam” is coming to a theatre near you & guess what: if your worldview doesn’t like it, then Swamidass cares. http://peacefulscience.org
Swamidass openly welcomes atheists at Peaceful Science. He even prefers them over thoughtful religious critics that don’t play ball his way, displaying why he was not long ago banned by Deborah Haarsma at BioLogos for refusing to bow to former BioLogos biology-lead and Haarsma’s current darling, Dennis Venema, who has blindly followed his Canadian counterpart Denis Lamoureux into becoming what Swamidass calls “no Adam Christians.” Let’s just say the evangelicals at BioLogos and Peaceful Science aren’t getting along right now and with the ASA meeting about to come up with “The Science of Adam” on the agenda, fireworks could result.
It’s almost as if ‘ideologically self-contradictory’ is something evangelical Protestants of the Swamidass, Venema, Lamoureux, BioLogos-variety deny they ever could be accused of themselves.
BioLogos banned Swamidass for claiming what IDist Ann Gauger did: “We could have come from two … A bottleneck of two [A&E] that is older than 500,000 years ago is possible … based on analysis of the genetic data”. What do the biological scientists here say about that?
So, Swamidass is busy preparing either a noble or an ignoble (depending on who you are) place in history by intentionally relativising Adam and Eve with Genealogical Adam. Will anyone ask him what his qualifications for becoming, finally in these previous @18 months, a ‘scientific genealogist’ as he is now claiming to be?
Go to this site, but ask him nicely. Atheists can be nice, good people about Adam and Eve most times too.
swamidass:
Thanks for the invitation, Joshua. I may take you up on that sometime.
Meanwhile, I’m curious about the symbolism of the empty chair on your homepage. It makes me think of Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican convention, which is probably not the connotation you were aiming for. 🙂
For the record, Ewert does not propose an alternative to common descent. Read for yourself:
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3
Breaking my rule and coming back to answer. This is likely to be last post though.
Hope you do come. There is an interesting thread, which presents seven archetypes of atheists. I’m curious which one you’d identify with, or maybe you’d add an eight category? https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/understanding-atheists/759?u=swamidass
About the empty chair, not like Eastwood-Obama, though I am considering having an empty chair conversation with Cornelius Hunter (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/cornelius-hunter-arguments-against-common-descent/741). The Empty Chair is a symbol of inclusion, that we have a space at the table for you even before you come, and even if others are preventing you from being here (like Xioabo at the Nobels, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/world/europe/11nobel.html?pagewanted=all). I also encourage advocating on behalf of positions not our own, for those that should be among us, but are not. That is advocacy on Behalf of the Empty Chair: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-empty-chair/474.
Keiths, that is one thing I appreciated about you. In the whole Molinism and Evolution exchange you advocated on behalf of a reasonable Christian. It reminds me of some of the best of selfless Christian faith: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/sattler-college-and-the-anabaptist-voice/763?u=swamidass, which is all to rare in this moment. I think would find a lot of common values with us at Peaceful Science.
—–
J-Mac, you can post at the Peaceful Science as much as you want, as long as it is interesting, fun, non-repetitive, and kind. If you don’t play well with others, we’ll just hide your threads, ignore them, or maybe throttle you. Be thoughtful, and there is no real limit to how much you can post.
swamidass:
In both senses of the word. 🙂
swamidass:
I see.
Okay, now you’re piquing my interest. 🙂 I’ll take a look shortly.
Without going over all their postings (I’m busy) the basic situation is that individual genes (or small regions of the genome) have a coalescent tree of ancestry within the human lineage. Most of them coalesce, going backwards, in the last million years. It is in that period that we can use the extent of their genetic divergence to estimate population sizes. Before that there is rather little information. So of course you can claim that the population size was 2 back then, if you want. Or 1,000, or 1,000,000.
However some loci, particularly the MHC (HLA) histocompatibility loci, have maintained multiple alleles segregating in the population, evidently due to natural selection favoring polymorphism. If we see (as we do) at least 5 alleles shared between humans and chimpanzees at one of the HLA loci, that speaks strongly against there having ever been a population size of 2 since humans and chimps separated. Attacks against this reasoning tend to concentrate on the possibility that the alleles shared between human and chimp could have arisen more than once.
I need to clarify that I depart from Buggs Gauger in many ways, and I am not “attacking” any position. I personally don’t really care one way or another on the genetic bottleneck question. I just want an honest account of the data. You can see my analysis here, and it largely speaks for itself. There are several posts on HLA’s. https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61 Though I do note that it is stream of consciousness. I change my mind on some points as it goes from the beginning to the end. If I missed something important, by all means, let me know. I’ll correct the record.
One almost humorous point, I am not a “scientific genealogist” nor do I know that is. I am merely a computational biologists, that has the disqualification of having a medical degree too. Never have I ever claimed to be a “scientific genealogist” =).
This topic was automatically closed 24 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Well, that thread was an abject failure.
I have sometimes been referred to (dismissively) as a “biogeneticist”. I’m not sure how that compares to being a geneticist. I did train as the latter but never encountered the former.
He’s like a veritable saint, I tell you. You can ask virtually anyone!
Actually, keiths appears to be the reincarnation of the good Samaritan mentioned by Jesus in his famous parable….
You forgot to mention that you are a theoretical geneticist, unlike say… Craig Venter or WE Lonnig who are experimental geneticists and more than often disagree with your views based on their experimental results…
Absolutely! I can definitely vouch for that…
Gregory,
You’re quite the odd bird, and I’m used to hearing weirdities like the above from you, but seriously — what does being “California-born & accented” have to do with anything?
Joe Felsenstein,
Thanks for this, Joe. I’ve been working with a lot of tech people lately. Translation & slow processing of technical terms more normal.
This is the part I don’t get once you take off your ‘geneticist’ hat & put on your ‘genealogist’ hat, which is the ‘tricksy move’ Joshua is asking you to do to ‘get’ his approach. He seems to be simply saying: “Many populations of 2 are possible, take your pick, just don’t forget ‘Adam’ & ‘Eve’!”
LOL! Sometimes, it’s the effort that counts, Mung. Right, long-suffering friend of the DI in Seattle? Joshua’s place is perfect for you to demonstrate some of that biting satire you do so well, this time a bit closer to home, isn’t it? Be careful though, Joshua doesn’t know much about such ‘literary devices’! ; )
OMG, another classic Swamidassian flip-flop manoeuvre:
1) “I have not asked for money” – S. Joshua Swamidass
Then, 4 days later on his site:
2) Should we Patreon?
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/should-we-patreon/793
Yes, (turn it into a verb &) Patreon, Joshua. Great idea!
Joining Patreon by definition means “asking for money.” But he’s not doing that and has never done that. It’s this kind of stunning display of illogic that seems destined to sink all the goodwill in the world & a decent, core of retired people as its cast at PS.
Asks Joshua, “How about these tiers?
$5 per month.
$25 per month (get the badge)
$50 per month (patron)
Remember, this is 100% voluntary. Most people will be 100% welcome as freeloaders.”
The members have laughed at his elitist suggestion of 50$ per month to support PS. Apparently Joshua’s site comes ‘smarm free’?
Gregory:
He hasn’t joined Patreon yet, Gregory. He’s asking people if they think he should join Patreon. The latter does not amount to asking for money.
It’s an obvious distinction, so you’ll probably never get it.
Gregory:
keiths:
Gregory:
I’m not asking for Hessen’s views on Newton.
I’m asking this: You thought it was important to highlight that Swamidass was “California-born & accented”. Why? What does that have to do with anything?
keiths,
“He [Joshua Swamidass hasn’t joined Patreon yet”
Really? How’s this one taste, ‘saintly’ apostate atheist, keiths? https://www.patreon.com/peacefulscience
Another ‘free ad’ for Swamidassian Adamic Science. = P
keiths,
No time for that. Read Hessen. Put in the work. You might ‘get it’ if you hear that seminal paper in the history and sociology of science. Do you read scientific papers often, keiths? I don’t play such games as Joshua is now openly inviting you to do on his website.
Gregory:
Haha. Look at the rambling OP, with all of its pointless digressions. Look at your comments. Then tell me “No time for that”, and watch me bust out laughing.
Gregory,
Unless he had already joined Patreon and solicited donations when he wrote “I have not asked for money”, then he’s done nothing wrong.
You even acknowledged that yourself, above!
Do try to work on this “consistency” thing.
Gregory,
True. He’s willing to defend his faith. You’re afraid to.
It’s true, I didn’t see Swamidass’ current appeal until *after* I wrote the above.
What tricksy atheist logic does keiths think he is ‘aha!’ making here?
“I have not asked for money” – S. Joshua Swamidass
Joshua then launches his own Patreon page for PS = asking for donations = money. Therefore, Joshua can now only say: “I have asked for money.” That would simply be a fact, that keiths can try to manipulate for any purpose he would like, without changing the fact.
As for being ‘afraid’ to defend my ‘faith’ (whatever that means), I won’t be bullied by a materialist atheist ideologue & I’m well aware that you are among the loudest & most obnoxious here.
TSZ is a strange place. There’s a Mute button, but almost no one gets banned. So there’s a few ‘skeptics’ & ‘atheists/agnostics’ here who simply turn off the volume on any voice that challenges their atheology/worldview at its conceptual & perceptual roots. I’m quite near Muting keiths again because I simply do not find him capable of engaging arguments in ‘good faith,’ or frankly, any kind of coherent ‘faith’ at all, sad as it is to have to say that.
Let’s see how keiths does over at Joshua’s place with a very different ‘clientele’ than here at TSZ. Be sure to link your activities from PS to here, as you help Joshua figure out his “Genealogical Science of Adam” proposal.
Moved a post to guano.
😀
There’s a lot of things that have made me stop participating at this site. Sure, the Mods don’t ban almost anyone. Yet ‘they’ Guano – remove into some kind of shame pile – threads that actually start with such a tone & approach as this:
“Hi Folks,
Not much time these days for such writing. Thanks for the few comments that have been on-topic & constructive, as well as the humour.”
To have stuff on this site like this is actually too nice for skeptics.
The alternative, would be a private note from a moderator, after actually CONSULTING with the other Moderators in a private 3-way, that leads to a 3-0 or 2-1 result, that says something like the following: “Gregory, though we can see some value & constructive features in your post, it is that ONE sentence that bothers us. Could you please remove it or edit it? If so, we’ll allow the ENTIRE REMAINING POST to stay as well. Thanks for understanding that we’re ‘really’ trying to moderate this godforsaken site by offering constructive solutions, not just flinging away responsibility as nihilists might prefer. And since we are not nihilists…”
Are DNA_Jock, Neil Rickert & Vincent J. Torley capable of such cooperation & collaboration or is that the actual missing magic here? No tribunal makes a chaos of sloppy ‘skepticism’ without any clear boundaries.
Simply put, I’m not going to waste my time here if you can’t explain why you dump entire posts from threads because you don’t like the way you think they smell. That is my line, Mods. You decide if you’re worth it.
Gregory:
Where “tricksy atheist logic” means “simple logic that confuses Gregory.”
It couldn’t be simpler, Gregory: The statement “I have not asked for money” is false only if the person who is making the statement has in fact asked for money. You’ve acknowledged that Swamidass hadn’t asked for money when he made his statement. Therefore it wasn’t false, and there is no reason for you to call it into question.
Here’s a scenario that illustrates the vapidity of your reasoning:
1. At one o’clock, Gregory asks his roommate if the mail has arrived. His roommate says no.
2. At two o’clock, the mail arrives.
3. At three o’clock, Gregory sees the mail on the table and is enraged. “Liar!”, he screams at his roommate. “You told me the mail hadn’t arrived yet!”
This Adam and Eve bottleneck issue deserves a separate OP…
I hate population genetics because it involves speculations based on other speculations that are based on assumptions… and so on…No real evidence available…
But I might do it because even both Young and Old Earth creationists seem to be divided about this issue… I whish I could convince someone like WE Lonnig to help me out with this nonsense… I’ve read somewhere that he is not a creationist, which would make things even more interesting why someone, who is no doubt opposed to Darwinian Evolution, is not a creationist…
I have to give some credit to Gregory who, at least to a certain degree, attempts to expose the hypocrisy of not only Dr. Swamidass, but also the great majority of theistic evolutionists, like Ken Miller. They all say they love Jesus and all, and yet they contradict everything about his teachings about creation… People like Swamidass would like to have their bread buttered on both sides…or they would like to sit on the fence of the issue between evolution and creation…It seems to me, they will get shot from both sides if they haven not been yet….
J-Mac,
Thanks J-Mac for noticing the hypocrisy of Joshua Swamidass. It seems that keiths has now faced the deviousness of Swamidassian ‘Peaceful Science’ first hand.
“[I] have zero affiliation with Gregory. I did not ask him to write this post, nor did I screen it. Much of the details in it are not correct.” – Swamidass
Which details? Please be more specific, Joshua. I stand by what I wrote above in the OP and the reason I wrote it. Yes, it is true that Joshua and I have “zero affiliation.” He didn’t ask me to write it. And I didn’t send it to him to ‘screen it’. Why he brings that up is unclear. But I can guarantee you that so far Joshua would rather hang around a campfire with atheists than sit beside me roasting marshmallows and speaking about how ‘solid’ his communication skills are.
As for some things Joshua wrote:
This is complete and utter nonsense! S. Joshua Swamidass uses “the Empty Chair” (anyone ask him why he capitalises it?) as a ploy, rather than a genuine sociological tool. In fact, he pushes people off the chair when they reveal his errors, simply because having his errors revealed plainly, simply, clearly & directly in public repeatedly is apparently a very difficult thing for a trained geneticist.
We’ll soon hear keiths report from ‘Peaceful Science’ as Joshua has already mangled threads & apparently engaged in some backchannel manipulation. This saga between Swamidass & BioLogos (on the back of Venema), the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of the evolution, creation & ID circus, never ceases to amaze!