Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
LOL, Joe. Thanks for the entertainment. Black is also white, and a no is also a yes, depending on how you look at it.
My claim is supported by the Knox paper. I take it the paper is over your head. Don’t blame me for that.
Well, it’s been fun. I think we can assume that Joe will remember, however briefly, that clades form a nested hierarchy. But we can always revisit this and have more fun. Just like in the good old times when Joe was ID Guy. Right, Joe? 🙂
Page 14, figures 7 & 8- two different ways at representing the same thing.
Well, oleg is still a jerk. I never doubted that a clade forms a nested hierarchy, never.
But all oleg can do is make shit up and eat it….
Which claim? That clades form a non-nested hierarchy? No, it doesn’t. Clades are shown in Fig. 3a. Not in Fig. 3b. Not in Fig. 4.
The claim that ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy. That has been my claim all along.
page 14, figures 7 & 8 show two different ways of representing the same thing. One is a non-nested hierarchy and one is a nested hierarchy.
You lose again, oleg.
That’s not the only claim you made. You have claimed that
There is nothing in Knox that supports this claim. Quote a specific passage that does.
oleg, page 14, figures 7 & 8 support my claim.
No. Figure 7 shows a non-nested hierarchy of species. An ancestral species does not contain a descendant species. Figure 8 shows a nested hierarchy of clades.
So clades always form a nested hierarchy, although species do not.
I have NEVER said a clade is not a nested hierarchy. So fuck off oleg.
oleg,
figures 7 & 8 are two different ways of representing the same thing. Just the way it is organized, ie looked at, is changed.
Hahaha!
Thanks again, Joe. 🙂
Magic stuff. we’ll need more disk space in “Guano” once this sinks in.
Also- do you know what the word means? If it is ALSO a non-nested hierarcy, that would mean it is a nested hierarchy too.
And THAT means I have NEVER said a clade is not a nested hierarchy. Ya see, oleg, it cannot be BOTH and yet not be one of them, duh.
Hopefully you are better at physics… 😛
Richie pom-poms with the nice stroke-job.
And Richie- please wipe off your chins…. 😛
How’s that search for supernaturalism going, Joe?
Why would I be searching for your strawman?
LOL!
Joe G with another of his epic Friday meltdowns!
C’mon Fluffy, make that noise for us again:
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
And another cheerleader with magic stuff on its chins…
Hey Porky. You’re the one with more chins than a Chinese phone book. Is anyone scared of you? If donuts could be, I bet they would be! Watch out – here come greenpeace trying to put you back in the water!
Hey Richie pom-poms- your weak eye is affecting your weak mind, again…
So we have oleg, erecting a strawman to falsely accuse me of something I never said nor implied. Then to top it off oleg proves that he doesn’t even understand English.
Life is good…
Would a weak mind be one that makes this sort of statement and forgets that they themselves are a bespectacled version of Mr. Potato head?
Nope- a weak mind would post the tripe that you post. And I do not wear glasses.
much changes in 8 years Richie retardo….
Sal Cordova just posted something on Uncommon Descent which has some bearing on the question of why he recieved the reception he did here…
http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/top-johns-hopkins-surgeon-persecuted-for-being-a-creationist/#comment-424667
Testing to see if I can post…
Interesting. I just tried to add a comment to the Semiotic ID thread, and my attempt failed with this error message:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /wp/wp-comments-post.php on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Clearly, I succeeded in posting to this thread. Not sure what the heck is going on…
Joe will always have the last word, to the end of time.
Nor am I! I will investigate…..
Elizabeth,
You posted this question over on TalkRational
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=1817499&postcount=278
Since I am not (yet) registered to post over there I figured I would answer it here.
A quick google would find this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins
Another link would be:
http://www.fontem.com/archivos/usuarios/cv_521.pdf
From a brief glance at the list of academic papers it seems he was actively doing research and publishing in areas directly related to evolutionary biology from about 1968 to the early 1990s, a span of about 25 years. Only a couple of dozen papers in all that time so not a prolific researcher.
His main contribution to science and the public understanding of science seem to be his books.
The direct answer to your question would be a yes, he once was an active researcher contributor in the field of evolutionary biology.
I’d like to see a thread where we invite ID advocates to comment on me questions that never seem to get answered.
My list of questions:
1 Do you agree with Behe and Dembski, who in some of their writings, identify the designer as God?
2. How would you identify an intermediate fossil as opposed to a fully formed, final body plan?
3. Approximately what percentage of plants and animals get preserved by fossilization (mineralization)? Could you find representatives of all current living species in fossil or mineralized form?
4. Why does Douglas Axe think it is importnt that one modern protein coding sequence is unlikely to evolve into another modern coding sequence? Does he think this is how evolution works?
5. Regarding sequence space and the probability of functional sequences arising from “random” sequences: What percentage of random sequences code for minimal function? Have ID scientists researched this?
Provide a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI and demonstrate how to calculate it for several known designed and known undesigned artifacts.
Good idea. I’ll set one up.
What is the limitation mechanism that ensures that microevolution ( X -> X’) is permitted, but macroevolution (X ->X’ -> X” -> X”’ -> X”” […] -> X”””””””””…..) is not?
Why is this discontinuity not detectable in tree-building cladistic analysis?
How does a lineage of organisms with a nonzero mutation rate maintain genetic stasis – ie, how do you STOP evolution in such a lineage, with or without NS?
At what point would a hypothetical ‘non-semiotic’ (and hence, in principle, evolvable) system containing a simple RNA-catalysed peptide bond condensation system and single acceptor molecule (tRNA) become an ‘unevolvable’ (because ‘semiotic’) system by the accumulation of multiple acceptor molecules? The first codon subdivision? The second? […] The 19th?
How does intentional design deal with unintended consequences and chaos, outwith the ‘random’ strategy of blind trial and error and preservation of the surviving fraction’s qualitites?
How do we distinguish between extant adaptations that were chosen for their influence on survival/reproduction and those that happened to persist because of their influence on S/R?
By what mechanism was any ancestral population in an ‘evolutionary’ ID scenario removed for replacement by the subsequent one? And by what mechanism did the new organisms come into being – was there genetic continuity or simply partial contunuity of design in organisms without parents?
It looks like the Discovery Institute has abandoned subtlety and gone back to their evangelical fund-raising roots.
It’s No Kin To Monkeys all over again. Adam and Eve literally.
I guess this would be against the Penguin Rules, but I notice the UB has time to pose his vacuous question portentously at UD. The same protocol question he refuses to clarify here.
Elizabeth seems to have disappeared into the Cornish Vortex.
She may not have made it home before the Olympics. Two more weeks in traffic — I feel sorry for her.
There’s a rather surprising and interesting debate going on at UD between a Sociologist and some ID proponents. The sociologist wants ID to get out of the gutter of ‘naturalistic science’ so to speak, and embrace a holistic version of ID which doesn’t hide its theological foundation (basically become something better than a natural science…a social science). The ID supporters are defending the natural (real) science of biology, and so for the first time ever, I’m on their side.
Having read this from the beginning it seems to be a debate about whether to continue lying about their motives, or whether to admit that the bottom line is that goddidit.
No one at UD defends science. A few will defend radiometric dating, but the most vocal ones deny common descent.
Look at the current debate over Chromosome 2. Look at the Discovery Institute supporting a literal Adam and Eve. Not with science, but with quote mines.
An interesting sociological study would be the background to the tone adopted by both sides in the principal arena in which most people get to voice their opinion: here on the internet. A common observation is how nice creationists are in person. Yet, due to a wide range of factors, the subset who take the debate to the web frequently struggle to avoid denigration on the intellectual or comprehensional capacities of their opponents. UD comments are dominated by this kind of intellectual posturing.
I’m certainly not saying that ‘evolutionists’ are all saints – I’m not immune, but certainly aim for civility in direct discussion, with occasional reactive lapses. IMO ‘evos’ tend to try and debate on the substantive arguments, rather than this interpersonal stuff. Stepping back, the whole tone of UD seems to be dominated by this how-can-you-be-so-dumb attitude. It is but one possible tool in their broader fight, but I’m not sure how they really think it helps their cause. I guess it’s for the onlookers, but are the uncommitted persuaded by such ganes?
Sorry guys.
Brain cells limited to poking the ready made holes in Cornelius Hunter’s blog right now.
And I agree – not sure what a neutral observer would make of it all, but it does seem that one big difference between the two “sides” (apart from the evidence, that is) is that one side answers questions (whether satisfactorily or not) and the other…doesn’t.
Getting simple answers to simple questions (even as simple as “do you agree with this summary?) from ID proponents, in general, is like getting blood from a stone.
“Evolutionists” may be no more polite (or no less), but at least they attempt to answer questions.
Even if their answers are then totally ignored.
Well, that’s the impression I’m getting right now.
PetrushkaNo one at UD defends science. A few will defend radiometric dating, but the most vocal ones deny common descent.
They’re defending the idea that ID can make a truth claim about the world only <i>if it is a natural science</i>. The sociologist doesn’t care about the science, and he’s upfront about it. He doesn’t think ID is science. He thinks it’s better than that.
Brain cells limited to poking the ready made holes in Cornelius Hunter’s blog right now.
Savain, Joe and Blas?
(Damn – fell off the moral high ground!)
He’s asking ID advocates to drop the pretense of science and admit they are religious. In other words, start being truthful.
The Discovery Institute already seems to be doing this with their Adam and Eve book. I suspect they need to tickle the donors. That’s much more important than getting bogus science into schools.
Joe has taken note of your comment and has “responded” in his inimitable way.
Joe killed Hunter’s blog and is doing a victory dance at his own blog.
Hunter deleted about a dozen of joe’s posts and completely turned off comments.
Joe congratulates Hunter for expelling the evotards.
Hunter’s blog is dead and UD bans everyone who disagrees with Barry.
This site has hosted some interesting discussions but seems to be inactive at the moment.
I’ve suggested something like the following, but I’m now going to propose something specific.
I propose the site become a meta discussion site for UD and Hunter and DI. AtBC already does this , but they have an established policy of no moderation. That’s fine. Someone has to do that, but there’s also a niche for polite discussion. With a moderation policy that does not ban people for ideas; just possibly for obscene behavior.
We could have one jumbo thread for everything, or we could break it into meta-threads. We could comment on what’s being said at ID sites and they could respond or not. Their choice. We do not have the option of responding at their sites.