Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. Frankie:
    And yes, my kids have an extensive cussing vocabulary. They are street-ready. The youngest came home the other day talking about ass-hat people.

    Most of us strive to ensure that our kids are better than we are and have more opportunities than we did. With you as their role model and mentor, I guess a double-wide in the trailer park is the best they can hope for. But at least they will have the satisfaction that they did better than their father.

  2. Alan Fox:
    There’s a level of obscenity in a couple of comments that is beyond the pale even for noyau. Please stop.

    Other than banning, Frankie is unstoppable. He is the new heart of this website. You should have known it the moment you let him in and you definitely know it now that you let him stay. Mods here oscillate between dense, dim, and full of it.

  3. Erik: Other than banning, Frankie is unstoppable. He is the new heart of this website. You should have known it the moment you let him in and you definitely know it now that you let him stay. Mods here oscillate between dense, dim, and full of it.

    The problem isn’t Frankie. The problem is everyone who lacks the self-control to ignore him.

  6. Patrick,

    Patrick ignores me and spews his willfully ignorant diatribe. So if willful ignorance is your thing then ignoring is the way to go.

  7. Kantian Naturalist: The problem isn’t Frankie. The problem is everyone who lacks the self-control to ignore him.

    The problem is willfully ignorant people who spew bullshit as if it was a fact. That means the problem is the TSZ regulars who lie and misrepresent their opponents.

  8. Erik: Other than banning, Frankie is unstoppable. He is the new heart of this website. You should have known it the moment you let him in and you definitely know it now that you let him stay. Mods here oscillate between dense, dim, and full of it.

    Without opponents all you have is an echo chamber where lies and misrepresentations breed. But perhaps you would rather have willful ignorance than actually learn what the opposition really says.

    But I understand that constant corrections get annoying.

  9. Kantian Naturalist: The problem isn’t Frankie. The problem is everyone who lacks the self-control to ignore him.

    So, Alan Fox is the problem, not Frankie. This kind of social competence here, heh 😀

    Mods, if they are to be functional, do not have the option of ignoring users. I was specifically making a statement relevant to mods.

    From the user point of view, I may have Frankie on ignore, but the ignore button does not affect the RSS feed. I may have the requisite self-control to ignore him totally, but this only leaves him absolute freedom to poison everybody else, and this is already acutely visible to anyone who has some degree of social competence.

  10. Erik,

    LoL! I am poisoning people by exposing their lies and misrepresentations? Really? Or is Erik just another pompous asshole?

    Look, dumbass. if it wasn’t for the blatant lies and misrepresentations pertaining to ID that are posted here on a daily basis, along with the lies and misrepresentations of evolution, I wouldn’t post here.

  12. Patrick:
    Over at UD, Virgil Cain has been placed in moderation.Does anyone else find it passingly odd that the trolling volume here has increased at about the same time?

    Pure coincidence, I’m sure.We are pattern seeking animals.

    LoL! Patrick the fucking dumbass strikes again! The moderation went into effect about an hour ago which means Patrick’s inference is bullshit.

    Thank you for proving that you cannot assess the evidence

  13. Erik,

    Kantian Naturalist: The problem isn’t Frankie. The problem is everyone who lacks the self-control to ignore him.

    So, Alan Fox is the problem, not Frankie. This kind of social competence here, heh 😀

    Mods, if they are to be functional, do not have the option of ignoring users. I was specifically making a statement relevant to mods.

    As an admin I try to read every comment, especially those from participants who have a history of violating the rules (sometimes egregiously). As a participant, there are a couple of people who’s contributions I have found not worth the effort of a response.

    From the user point of view, I may have Frankie on ignore, but the ignore button does not affect the RSS feed. I may have the requisite self-control to ignore him totally, but this only leaves him absolute freedom to poison everybody else, and this is already acutely visible to anyone who has some degree of social competence.

    What is your suggestion? Supporting freedom of expression is not without a cost. I would argue that the minimal cost of scrolling by certain comments is far outweighed by the benefit of knowing that your comments won’t be subject to censorship.

  14. keiths: Keiths quoting me

    Alan:

    There’s a level of obscenity in a couple of comments that is beyond the pale even for noyau. Please stop.

    Alan,

    There are no rules limiting the “level of obscenity” in Noyau or demarcating what is “beyond the pale”. Lizzie has been quite clear that apart from the sitewide rules regarding spam, porn, outing, etc., there are no rules here.

    As you are raising a moderation issue, albeit in the wrong thread, and as noyau is here to allow personal comments, I’ll temporarily suspend my declaration not to waste more key-strokes on you.

    I enjoyed reading Asimov in my youth, especially the Foundation trilogy. Think of Lizzie as Hari Seldon, who made sweeping predictions using psycho-history that had to be revised by Seldon’s secret second-foundation cabal in the face of the unexpected mutant, the mule. I’ll leave you to work out who is a cabal member, and the mule.

    Lizzie asked me to act as admin and has said she wants people to be pro-active during her absences. The brief outburst of obscenity was a new phenomenon and I predict Lizzie would have responded similarly, were she around. Also, I take something else that Lizzie has said that I try to apply. My intention in intervening is to de-escalate, wherever I happen to see trouble brewing.So, tough, Keiths. You’ll have to put up with my pro-active de-escalating until Lizzie finds time to return and take your advice, which shouldn’t be too long, I understand.

    It’s her site, not yours, Alan.

    This may be a bit obscure for readers unfamiliar with the BBC TV program, “Mastermind”.

    Announcer: And now our next contestant, Keiths, occupation – pretentious prick. Specialist subject – stating the bleeding obvious.

    ETA I should credit John Clees with the original parody

  15. Erik: From the user point of view, I may have Frankie on ignore, but the ignore button does not affect the RSS feed. I may have the requisite self-control to ignore him totally, but this only leaves him absolute freedom to poison everybody else, and this is already acutely visible to anyone who has some degree of social competence.

    Lizzie decided to give Joe/Frankie a second chance at participation here which surprised me, considering the reason for the original ban. I was ambivalent but trying to be as open to differing views and encouraging rancour-free exchange is a difficult balancing act. I think that bombing the site with short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites is akin to spamming – a bannable offence.

  17. Alan Fox: Lizzie decided to give Joe/Frankie a second chance at participation , here which surprised me, considering the reason for the original ban. I was ambivalent but trying to be as open to differing views and encouraging rancour-free exchange is a difficult balancing act. I think that bombing the site with short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites is akin to spamming – a bannable offence.

    Then you should be banning many TSZ regulars as all they do is post “short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites”. I can support what I post. You just deny it and respond with “short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites”. So you should be on that list of bannings also.

  18. Frankie: I apologize for my outburst. I have put the provocateurs back on ignore.

    Notpology accepted. If you just keep within the rules from now on, that will be enough.

  19. Frankie: Then you should be banning many TSZ regulars as all they do is post “short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites”. I can support what I post. You just deny it and respond with “short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites”. So you should be on that list of bannings also.

    Be the change that you want to see (H/T Patrick).

  20. Alan Fox: Be the change that you want to see (H/T Patrick).

    Well I am correcting all of the ID misrepresentations. But that hasn’t stopped people like Patrick from misrepresenting ID’s concepts. And even when I post longer, substance-filled and supported posts I am hit by many “short, repetitive, unresponsive and unsupported soundbites”.

    IOW Alan, you are a hypocrite.

  21. Alan Fox: Notpology accepted. If you just keep within the rules from now on, that will be enough.

    I play by the same rules everyone else uses.

  23. Alan Fox:
    Frankie,Ezekiel 24:14

    So Ezekiel had a double-double. You do understand that I do not give a shit about the Bible, except when I need a paperweight or door stop

  24. And Alan, if you apply Ez equally I am OK with that. You will be losing more than half of your commenters, though.

  25. Erik:

    From the user point of view, I may have Frankie on ignore, but the ignore button does not affect the RSS feed. I may have the requisite self-control to ignore him totally, but this only leaves him absolute freedom to poison everybody else, and this is already acutely visible to anyone who has some degree of social competence.

    I disagree with this assessment. On a message board like TSZ, someone like Joe is only “poison” if you give him that power. Neither he nor his statements have any relevance beyond what anyone feels personally about them; they have zero validity or credibility in the real world. ID is nothing to science, education, entertainment, economics, politics, engineering, or any other profession in society. Heck, it’s nothing to religion at this point. Nearly all his claims are notably nonsense. So why would anyone care what Joe says or thinks?

    Just as an example, Joe has been repeating his absurd claim that evolution is not actually science because it can’t test undirected change for at least ten years that I can count, yet no one who actually does work in evolutionary science has paused for even a millisecond. Why? Because such a claim merely illustrates Joe’s own ignorance and bears no burden on anyone actually interested in investigating the world around us. So Joe can continue to make so vacuous claims on sites like TSZ for all I care; he has no impact on the actual subject whatsoever.

  26. Robin,

    What a load of shit- I did not make the claim you say. ID is science as it makes testable claims. Evolutionism, not mere evolution, OTOH cannot be tested and requires one to prove a negative to falsify it.

    And anyone is free to check out my claims to see that they are valid. Or you can remain as willfully ignorant as Robin, Alan, Patrick and the rest of the TSZ ilk

  27. Robin,

    The following is basically what I have been stating for decades:

    The Scientist, Aug. 29, 2005

    Why do we invoke Darwin?
    Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology

    By Philip S. Skell

    Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils¬ – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

    Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” A. S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

    I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

    When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins’s subsequent paragraph:

    “Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them.”

    In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed¬ – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

    Darwinian evolution¬ – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.

    None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

    Philip Skell (tvk@psu.edu) is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, member, National Academy of Sciences, research contributions to Reactive Intermediates in Chemistry: Triplet/Singlet Carbenes, Free-Atom Reactions, Bridged and Optically Active Free Radicals, Reactions of Free Carbonium Ions, etc.

    1. A.S. Wilkins, BioEssays 22, 1051(2000).

    From The Scientist, Sept. 26, 2005

    Philip Skell responds: My essay about Darwinism and modern experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology. Comparative physiology and comparative genomics have certainly been fruitful, but comparative biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory. Before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, comparative biology focused mainly on morphology, because physiology and biochemistry were in their infancy and genomics lay in the future; but the extension of a comparative approach to these sub-disciplines depended on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not on evolutionary theory and immersion in historical biology.

    One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to discover antibodies, enzymes and drugs. Like comparative biology, this has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian evolution — it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical breeding. Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop improved strains of crops and livestock. Darwin extrapolated this in an attempt to explain the origin of new species, but he did not invent the process of artificial selection itself.

    It is noteworthy that not one of these critics has detailed an example where Darwin’s Grand Paradigm Theory guided researchers to their goals. In fact, most innovations are not guided by grand paradigms, but by far more modest, testable hypotheses. Recognizing this, neither medical schools nor pharmaceutical firms maintain divisions of evolutionary science. The fabulous advances in experimental biology over the past century have had a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not by intensive immersion in historical biology and Darwin’s theory, which attempted to historicize the meager documentation.

    Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate significantly from that state, they die. It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin’s theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?

    whoops

  31. So here we have the personal opinion of a professor in chemistry, famous for his work on carbenes, commenting on evolution and at the same time his title evolved into professor of biochemistry.

  32. Robin: … ID is nothing to science, education, entertainment, economics, politics, engineering, or any other profession in society.

    Personally, I think that it is very entertaining.

  33. OK, so Acartia is in full projection mode and OM links to a totally biased site for “context” Too bad no one on PT could refute what Skell said but just attacked him. Typical but still pathetic

    Please reference the research that relies on the untestable claim that life’s diversity arose via natural selection, drift and neutral construction from some much simpler replicator. And make your case.

  35. I wonder when Virgil Cane will be joining us here at TSZ now that he ha been banned for mocking Barry’s religion? Maybe between Joe and Virgil, they will be able to convince us that frequency = wavelength.

  38. Robin: Yeah, Shallit shellacked Skell (Ooooo…see what I did there?) as well: http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/12/philip-skell-cowardly-creationist.html

    Joe is plenty consistent in his lack of validity and silliness…

    Wow, what a fucking loser you are, Robin. Shallit is a well known cowardly loser. Notice that he didn’t refute what Skell said he just attacked Skell. Shallit doesn’t know jack about biology and he cannot tell us who uses the alleged theory of evolution nor what it is used for.

  39. Robin: Touche! I sit corrected…

    Yes it is very entertaining watching you morons misrepresent ID and choke on science. Thank you

  40. Projection- Acartia is trying to project its ignorance and short-comings onto me. So I do know what it means, asshole

  42. Frankie: Please reference the research that relies on the untestable claim that life’s diversity arose via natural selection, drift and neutral construction from some much simpler replicator.

    Whereas, of course, you can demonstrate life’s diversity arose via Intelligent Design.

    It was designed via design

    I’m a convert. What book do I buy first?

  43. Frankie: Notice that he didn’t refute what Skell said he just attacked Skell.

    Yes, well, he linked to that. Does that mean it does not count somehow?

  44. LoL! One link was to Gary Hurd who just equivocated and didn’t even address the points. Skell wasn’t arguing about mere evolution. His was a specific claim that pertained to specific mechanisms.

  45. The moderators are being two-faced cowards. Well, perhaps it is only one but tat person should recuse itself from beoing a moderator

  47. Here’s a perfect illustration of my point; another laughably absurd Joe statement:

    ID is science as it makes testable claims.

    Bzzz…wrong Joe! Concepts are not science simply because they include or make testable claims. The key is that someone (or someones) need to actually test the claims. No one has bothered to do that for ID. Ergo, it’s not science.

    The concepts surrounding evolution, OTOH, are routinely tested, contrary to Joe’s comic ignorance. For example:

    The money shot:

    Chris Nice of Texas State University and his colleagues recently used next-generation sequencing to get a far more detailed look at the DNA of Karner blues and their relatives. They found that Karner blues and Melissa blues actually trade very few genes. In their December 2010 report in Biology Letters, they declare that Karner blues are a separate species after all — and Nabokov gets credit for recognizing it.

    And

    To do so, she would need to reconstruct the evolutionary tree of blues and estimate when the branches split. It would have been impossible for Nabokov to do such a study on the anatomy of butterflies alone. Dr. Pierce would need their DNA, which could provide more detail about their evolutionary history. While she had already gathered some butterfly sequences, she would need many more.

    Dr. Pierce began to collaborate with Dr. Johnson and his colleagues, who arranged for specimens to be sent to her lab and offered their hard-won knowledge of the diversity of the blues. Dr. Pierce’s postdoctoral researcher, Roger Vila, traveled to the Andes to collect more butterflies and then sequenced their DNA back at Harvard.

    Dr. Pierce and her colleagues used a computer to calculate the most likely relationships among the butterflies. They also compared the number of mutations each species had acquired to determine how long ago they had diverged from one another.

    Wow…go figure…Real scientists actually test their and other people’s ideas. And they actually do work…like travel to places to collect samples, collect blood and tissue, sequence data, analyze the results, and so forth.

    As for the supposed “supporters” of this mythical ID that Joe claims is somehow science? Not so much.

  48. Robin,

    ID’s claims have been tested. IC is real and you don’t have a mechanism to explain it.

    Also ID is not anti-evolution so your equivocation is duly . IOW your willful ignorance as to what is being debated is duly noted

  49. Frankie:
    Robin,

    ID’s claims have been tested.

    Examples please. Peer reviewed journals would be preferred rather than the crap that ID normally references.

    IC is real and you don’t have a mechanism to explain it.

    And neither do you.

    Also ID is not anti-evolution so your equivocation is duly.

    Maybe you should consult with the other ID “leaders”. Or are you referring to your own strange definition of evolution?

    IOW your willful ignorance as to what is being debated is duly noted

    As is yours.

  50. Acartia, you are so fucking retarded and willfully ignorant it is surprising that you can type. It bet you use voice recognition software and spit all over you monitor.

    Only a fucking coward would flail away at ID when the only way to refute its claims is by actually supporting your position’s. You are a waste of skin

Leave a Reply