Sandbox (4)

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.

0

2,773 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. Neil Rickert: Repeatedly posting comments on moderation in an ordinary thread (instead of the moderation thread).

    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!”.

    0
  2. phoodoo: 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?

    0
  3. PeterP: 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.

    0
  4. Alan Fox: No-one. I can think of two accounts that are suspended pending someassurance regarding future conduct. No-one is banned permanently.

    I reaoize that but I was wondering who phoodoo was referring to in his post.

    0
  5. 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.

    0
  6. phoodoo: Who decides what is fair?

    Evidently from alll of your whining about moderation here at TSZ you believe that you get to make the call.

    0
  7. phoodoo: 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?

    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?

    0
  8. phoodoo: That’s a lie Neil. I posted comments from other posters.

    In order to provoke a moderation issue, yes.

    phoodoo: 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.

    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.

    phoodoo: 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.

    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).

    phoodoo: 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!”.

    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.

    phoodoo: 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?

    Forget about showing that Lizzie was banned from UD for cause have we?

    In short, shut the fuck up you whiny child.

    0
  9. 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?

    0
  10. 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:

    I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you why those two posts (which you don’t even have the courtesy to quote in full) are perfectly consistent. People can judge for themselves.

    But I am going to point out that to accuse me of “running away” to an “echo chamber”, coming from someone who regularly bans anyone whose views he dislikes, frequently without acknowledgment, and, in a recent case, in a manner that also deletes their entire posting history, is scarcely in a position to talk about “running away” and “echo chambers”.

    I see absolutely no point in spending time composing posts for this forum knowing that if you don’t like them you will simply delete my entire contribution from your database, and I don’t see why anyone else should either.

    In my case, on this occasion, you have chosen your alternative tactic: to malign me from your bully pulpit.

    So no, I won’t be posting at UD in the future. You can keep your echo chamber to yourself.

    If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one’s posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people’s personal info.

    Indeed, you are very welcome yourself, Barry.

    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.

    0
  11. 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.

    0
  12. phoodoo,
    If you want to discuss whether that phrase breaks a rule, post your complaint in the appropriate thread, Moderation Issues.

    0
  13. 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.

    0
  14. phoodoo: I was just telling you to shut the fuck up you whiny child.

    But that does describe you, whereas it does not describe Alan.

    0
  15. Joe Felsenstein: Nonlin: Can you point to one comment critical of “evolution” on the latest PT posting?

    There are lots on many postings, as you can easily see.

    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.

    0
  16. Nonlin.org: But doubtful any of those “many postings” asks the tough questions.

    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”.

    3+
  17. Joe Felsenstein: And many people here have repeatedly tried to get you to see how lacking in logic your dismissals were.

    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!

    Joe Felsenstein: 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”.

    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.

    0
  18. Nonlin.org,

    Nonlin.org: 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.

    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.

    0
  19. Joe Felsenstein:
    Doesn’t it worry you that no other creationists seem to pick up your arguments?

    Not something likely to trouble the average narcissist.

    0
  20. Alan Fox:
    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.

    0
  21. Joe Felsenstein: Doesn’t it worry you that no other creationists seem to pick up your arguments?

    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.

    0
  22. Joe Felsenstein: Doesn’t it worry you that no other creationists seem to pick up your arguments?

    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?

    Allan Miller: Since people normally pounce on misuse with glee

    Haha. Self-consolation.

    Alan Fox: SILENCE GIVES CONSENT!

    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.

    OMagain: Until they have the courage of their own convictions there will be as many versions of IDcreationism as there are IDcreationists.

    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.

    0
  23. Nonlin.org: Funny, that’s exactly what I get when proving “fitness” is a failed concept.

    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.

    0
  24. Nonlin’s down to interpreting the meanings of different instances of silence, now. Yuk yuk.

    0
  25. Allan Miller: 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.

    0
  26. Nonlin.org: Funny, that’s exactly what I get when proving “fitness” is a failed concept.

    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.

    0
  27. Alan Fox: Why would anyone engage with you?

    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.

    Alan Fox: It’s farcically obtuse of you to claim you have proved “fitness is a failed concept”.

    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.

    OMagain: Do you have a published version of this work? Has it been reviewed by people who are familiar with the domain?

    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?

    OMagain: Have obvious errors been resolved?

    Yes, absolutely. I trust you would point to the “error” if you saw any, right?

    OMagain: Is the data underlying your work available?

    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.

    0
  28. Nonlin.org: why don’t you tell me one little measurable thing about “fitness”?

    Counting offspring measures differential reproductive success.

    0
  29. Nonlin.org: 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.

    Or the boredom is too strong.HaHa

    0
  30. Alan Fox: Counting offspring measures differential reproductive success.

    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!

    0
  31. 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…

    2+
  32. Nonlin.org: That’s coming up and you won’t be happy.

    How will I even know? Unless you meaning something different to what I mean by publish?

    Will you be using your real name?

    0
  33. Nonlin.org: 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!

    The half of the litter born with the mutation died whereas the rest, who did not have it, lived.

    0
  34. 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.

    0
  35. DNA_Jock: 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…

    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.

    0
  36. Nonlin.org: 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!

    0
  37. OMagain: The half of the litter born with the mutation died whereas the rest, who did not have it, lived.

    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”?

    Alan Fox: I answered your question, such as it was.

    And your answer is inadequate. Do what you want with that.

    0
  38. Nonlin.org: a recessive gene which is certainly not the same as a “mutation”

    Good grief squared!

    Certainly not. Is there a prize for best non-sequitur of the month?

    1+
  39. Nonlin.org: 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.

    Oh, so the environment can turn a seemingly deleterious “mutation” into a positive one, can it?

    How verrryyy interesting.

    Nonlin.org: And I was asking about the (your) “fitness function”. No one equates a “mutation” with the “fitness function”?

    And I was asking how I will know when you publish your work. Will you be using your real name? If not, who is going to publish that?

    1+

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.