Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
Is that the “evolution is awesome” argument? I know for sure it’s not the “what is you fitness function” argument. Oh wait. “Fitness function” is a “disruptive diversion” now. And “repeated” since ignored. Haha.
Can you point to one comment critical of “evolution” on the latest PT posting?
Also, if you’re so dissatisfied with TSZ, what are you doing here? Isn’t this the ONLY place you go, where you actually debate someone critical of “evolution”? Be honest.
And that’s commendable. Good job… not so much on reason and logic… and racism, etc.
What’s wrong with just ignoring?
Then who pays the bills?
Why would they need to ban when they can just delete your comments?
There are lots on many postings, as you can easily see.
I am being honest, in spite of your misstatements. Of course I do argue at PT with a number of “critical”-of-evolution commenters.
Trolls who try to divert the discussion away from its topic are sometimes successful, and always eat bandwidth. There are also people who troll-chase which is also disruptive.
As for why I am here, I don’t post posts here anymore. I just make comments, and less and less often.
That’s a lie Neil. I posted comments from other posters. If you interpret that to be a comment about moderation, then you must feel there is something wrong with those posts. In which case the person who I quoted should have been the one banned, not me.
Of course, you can always just claim that I broke the rules now by replying to your post now. That is the whole problem with having biased motivated moderators, with no balance. Its why posting at PT would also be useless.
The ironic part is Joe or Alan claiming UD has banned people unfairly, and then when the claim is made here, you all just parrot the same nonsense, by saying, “Well its different, here they deserved it because we say so!”.
Who has been banned from TSZ unfairly?
No-one. I can think of two accounts that are suspended pending some assurance regarding future conduct. No-one is banned permanently.
I reaoize that but I was wondering who phoodoo was referring to in his post.
PeterP,
Who has been banned from UD unfairly? Who decides what is fair?
Alan Fox,
Alan, maybe if you write an apology letter to Barry, and promise you won’t break the rules anymore, he will let you back in?
Just make sure it’s sincere.
Evidently from alll of your whining about moderation here at TSZ you believe that you get to make the call.
Several problems with that suggestion.
What can I apologise for if I don’t know what rule I broke.
How can I promise not to do something again when I don’t know what that was?
What would be the point with Uncommon Descent having become overtly extreme right-wing reigious?
I was suffiently motivated to enter
site:uncommondescent.com Alan Fox ban
Which brought up some blasts from the past. Water under the bridge that made me smile but not much of substance or interest to anyone else.
Where can I contact Barry Arrington?
In order to provoke a moderation issue, yes.
In fact anyone can quote any post at all, regardless of content, and make a moderation issue out of it.
I know it’s difficult to understand phoodoo, but do try.
Useless in what regard? What are you trying to achieve? All it seem you are trying to achieve is to explain to biologists why fitness is nonsense. If that’s your goal there are better ways to achieve it (hint hint publish).
It’s perfectly possible that UD has banned people unfairly and the people banned here deserved it.
That you don’t like it does not make it wrong.
Here you pretend to be quoting someone: “Well its different, here they deserved it because we say so!”
But despite the fact it’s in quotes those are your words. If you could find such a quote you’d have used it.
Forget about showing that Lizzie was banned from UD for cause have we?
In short, shut the fuck up you whiny child.
Seems Lizzie wasn’t banned (on this occasion at least).
Seems Alan just still is not ready to show contrition for his constant trolling at UD , so it’s understandable why Barry is unable to reinstate Alan. I am not sure if Alan ever intended to participate seriously, but really I guess he gave Barry no choice.
If you weren’t willing to even try to change, how can you expect anyone ‘s patience with you to be infinite?
One should note that Alan has frequently talking about changing the rules here to ban people. The reason he can’t do that is because of posts like this from Lizzie at UD:
So instead of being able to outright ban people, Alan’s method is simply to play as unfair as possible, by being selective about which posts he moves, by warning those who he feels are enemies, but letting others do whatever they want here, and by his little “pre-moderation” game, like you have to ask his permission to post here, and then maybe he will approve it in the time-frame of his choosing.
This is the game he played with me, by claiming that if I simply quoted another poster’s post, that was against the rules, because quoting them is performance art here, and THAT is the excuse.
Alan has also done the same with Keith’s, J Mac, Joe, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him.
Shoddy Alan, very shoddy. Ditto Jock and Neil.
phoodoo,
I see phoodoo has reverted to “Lord of Misrule” mode. I was rather looking forward to opinion on the recent appearance of President Trump at Tulsa.
Alan Fox,
phoodoo,
If you want to discuss whether that phrase breaks a rule, post your complaint in the appropriate thread, Moderation Issues.
Alan Fox,
Why would I want to discuss that? It obviously doesn’t break any rules, or it wouldn’t be here.
I was just telling you to shut the fuck up you whiny child.
I am not here to break any rules of course.
But that does describe you, whereas it does not describe Alan.
I can’t check as the website doesn’t open for some reason (am I banned?). But doubtful any of those “many postings” asks the tough questions. If they did, that would be a miracle of “evolution” and we know materialists don’t believe in miracles… except “abiogenesis” of course.
Not sure, but I think PT is having technical problems at present.
Neil Rickert,
Yes, the private server has crashed. JF said it would take maybe a week to get back up and running again.
You don’t need to wait to see what is at PT. You have posted here many dismissals of arguments by evolutionary biologists. And many people here have repeatedly tried to get you to see how lacking in logic your dismissals were. And this has had no effect whatsoever on what you conclude, or the frequency and volume at which you declare it. So we can make a scientific prediction, namely, that you will look at PT, and conclude that none of the “tough questions” have been asked or answered.
So you don’t need to have the PT server up, to know what conclusion you would come to. So why bother waiting and actually looking?
Actually the original question you asked was whether there were for the most recent PT post “any comments critical of evolution”. I just checked at another site that had that information (it stores the material that is served on the publicly visible server) and the answer is yes. For other posts, more. But the question here now seems to have mutated to one about “hard questions”.
And all their claims have been proven false. Now what? It’s a standoff? Can’t be. Someone’s right and someone else is wrong. So far, I addressed any and all sane concerns and arguments. Which cannot be said of you and or anyone else on your side. For instance, I keep asking about your “fitness function” which, last I checked, is essential to “evolution” (agree?). And all I get is silence and some moron that claims R0 is said “fitness”. Which cannot be as further silence from everyone else proves.
Now, let me add another tough question: what would it take for you to admit that there is no such thing as “evolution”? I’m sure it will be met with more silence. Which is very amusing for some reason. Hence will be asked again and again. Hilarious!
If “yes”, that’s fine. I’ll verify when the site is back online. As far as hard questions, yes, those are the only ones that count. I also said (about people making creationist or ID arguments):
“Is that the “evolution is awesome” argument? I know for sure it’s not the “what is you fitness function” argument. Oh wait. “Fitness function” is a “disruptive diversion” now. And “repeated” since ignored.”
So clearly no “mutation”. And most certainly no “evolution”. Haha.
Doesn’t it worry you that no other creationists seem to pick up your arguments?
Nonlin.org,
Not that R0 is “said fitness”, but that it is mathematically equivalent: an exponent, a rate of increase. Since people normally pounce on misuse with glee, I don’t think their silence means what you think it means.
Not something likely to trouble the average narcissist.
SILENCE GIVES CONSENT! /shouty
At non-lin, not you or anyone else.
I know! As usual, shoots himself in the foot since, as Joe F notes, no-one has popped up to lend their support to him. Hoist by his own criteria.
The big tent is actually full of smaller tents each with a single creationist occupying it.
There’s no unifying thread to ID, no consensus on anything at all that relates to it.
Did the designer design it all in or does it intervene?
Not a single creationist here, phoodoo, nonlin, colewd will dare to opine. Until they have the courage of their own convictions there will be as many versions of IDcreationism as there are IDcreationists.
Nope. Also, some do. More importantly, doesn’t it worry you that there is no “fitness”? And that you can’t articulate what would make you change your mind? Doesn’t it worry you that you’re not fooling anyone trying to present a propaganda site as open to dialogue? Doesn’t it worry you that you’re not fooling anyone invoking ‘logic’ when that is your main weakness?
Haha. Self-consolation.
Funny, that’s exactly what I get when proving “fitness” is a failed concept. That must be it – consent. Either that or tacit admission “evolution” fails. Either way I’m fine with that. Haha.
Stupid claim as usual. God knows – if I don’t have strong convictions and MORE IMPORTANTLY the facts and logic to prove them, then no one does. Haha.
The fact that you are uniquely incorrigible seems be a barrier to understanding. Why would anyone engage with you? It’s farcically obtuse of you to claim you have proved “fitness is a failed concept”. First understand; then criticise.
Nonlin’s down to interpreting the meanings of different instances of silence, now. Yuk yuk.
That’s good, ’cause in time that is all he is going to get.
Do you have a published version of this work? Has it been reviewed by people who are familiar with the domain? Have obvious errors been resolved? Is the data underlying your work available?
If you are in fact referencing your writings here and on your blog as that “proof” then you’ve some considerable work to do to make it into a form where it can be reviewed properly.
When you have done that perhaps consider an OP where your disproof of fitness paper can be unveiled.
Scrawling in poop on the bathroom door is not science, son.
Yet you all do. As long as you think you got something… but you never do. And then fall silent when the truth is too strong for you.
Well, let’s review the facts: your “fitness function” is… crickets. I thought so. QED. Doesn’t get more crystal clear than that. Tell you what, since I’m in a good mood – as always – forget your “fitness function”; instead why don’t you tell me one little measurable thing about “fitness”? The smallest measurable thing? Anything? Ask your friends for help on this. It will be a riot.
Yes. I’m told a lot of people on TSZ are licensed biologists as are the other losers at PS and Biologos, etc. They’re not too smart for sure, but they earn a living with this thing somehow. Are you saying they should give up and seek other careers? Something productive for a change?
Yes, absolutely. I trust you would point to the “error” if you saw any, right?
You better believe it. It’s mostly in the public domain, so no hocus-pocus. Just applying logic where others applied craziness.
I get your concern about publishing. But don’t worry. That’s coming up and you won’t be happy. After all, Darwin himself waited for like 300 years until some other dude beat him to the punch and then he did that publishing nastiness we all heard about. And this is your hero?!? If at least he had something… Super nasty. Hilarious.
Counting offspring measures differential reproductive success.
Or the boredom is too strong.HaHa
More like performance art.
Well, that’s not saying anything about “fitness”. In fact it’s not saying anything about anything. Like “those that didn’t die, survived”. Duh!
Good article in WashPo (may be paywalled) about the S: D614G variant of SARS-CoV-2.
Cliff notes version:
Aspartic 614 to Glycine mutation in the Spike protein (nucleotide A23403G)
[DNA_Jock ‘s sidenote: looking at nextstrain’s phylogeny implies this mutation arose between Jan 16 and Jan 23rd, probably in Europe]
has come to dominate infections in the USA and Europe (now 70% of samples). It is becoming increasingly unlikely that this is merely a founder effect, rather this strain is more infectious. Thankfully, the morbidity and mortality are much the same.
There are competing (but not mutually exclusive) theories as to how the increased infectivity is achieved.
Choe reckons D614G makes the spike protein less likely to break in two.
Luban reckons that D514G allows the protein to achieve a better induced fit when it binds ACE2 (are you listening, Bill and gpuccio?).
We do know that the variant is more infectious in cell culture (these researchers also have unpublished data suggesting that D614G is more efficient at cell entry), and that patients carrying this variant have higher viral loads (U. Sheffield data), which will aid transmission.
Notice how these multiple strands of evidence come together, explaining how D614G is fitter than D614D, and dissecting possible mechanisms as to how this might occur. It is real, it isn’t circular, and it isn’t “regressing to the mean” anytime soon…
How will I even know? Unless you meaning something different to what I mean by publish?
Will you be using your real name?
The half of the litter born with the mutation died whereas the rest, who did not have it, lived.
Nonlin.org,
I answered your question, such as it was. Don’t like the answer? Life’s like that. Random mutations filtered by selection that changes fitness in a particular environment can and do result in adaptations. Read the article Jock just linked to. The new SARS variant is more successful than the previous strain.
Notice how this is an “explanation” of the past devoid of any forecasting power, on par with what astrologers, phrenologicsts and tarot readers offer? That is how we know it is NOT science.
Good grief!
And what “mutation” is that? And how do you know which half “mutated” and which one didn’t? Presumably sexual reproduction and perhaps you’re talking about a recessive gene which is certainly not the same as a “mutation”.
And if they happen to be born in a lab interested in studying said “mutation” (or a breeding farm), guess which half of the litter will survive longer than the other? Haha.
And I was asking about the (your) “fitness function”. No one equates a “mutation” with the “fitness function”?
And your answer is inadequate. Do what you want with that.