Working out a gentleman’s agreement between TSZ and my publishing activities

As much as the TSZ regulars may have sharp disagreement with many of my views, I actually have a vested interest in seeing TSZ survive and prosper and attract participation with talent and brains. TSZ is valuable because of the quality of the participants, namely, professors (like Joe Felsenstein, Jeff Shallit), textbook authors (like Larry Moran), specialists (Tom English, John Harshman, Mark Frank, Mike Elzinga, etc.), academics, practicing scientists, etc. I suspect JohnnyB and VJTorley might have comparable reasons for their participation at TSZ.

The purpose of me posting here is to see what sort of INFORMAL gentleman’s agreement can be worked out to the mutual benefit of TSZ and my publishing efforts.

I’ve slowly and steadily grown a small publishing and reporting business in private creationist venues, but now am expanding to more public venues. The private venues were private primarily because the content was very obscure (like say the 4D nucleome project at the NIH) and of interest to a handful of creationists willing to pay for my reporting to them directly. A quasi private report that will soon become public is my nylonase paper (assuming it gets through all the approval channels for public release).

The main part of the nylonase paper is 15 pages, the supplemental parts are over 60 pages. This has value to the ID and creationist communities because the nylonase topic has been used as an objection to the published work of several ID authors. So, one can see the cultural and potential monetary value of the nylonase project. Part of the financing of the project entailed covering the week of expenses connected to the Lipscomb conference where I got the chance to confer with biochemists and specialists about nylonases among other topics like chromatin and speciation. See:

My presentation at Lipscomb University in front of faculty and deans of several universities available for free online (expense for live attendance is $390)

My participation at TSZ has cleaned up a lot of errors on material that I pass on to the readers of my publications. I get all this free-of-charge editorial review, and that translates into the value of the product I’m marketing to my paid readers. So, that’s the picture from my end.

I want TSZ to thrive and prosper as a community because I believe it is a good thing that these topics can be debated and explored. In contrast to the way Barry Arrington ran UD, I think there is a place for exploration blogs vs. advocacy blogs. UD was an advocacy blog, and TSZ is more an exploration blog. Whereas Barry was eager to demonize and devalue his opponents, I valued my opponents for their ability to correct my misunderstandings and give me lots of free-of-charge tutoring on subjects I was unfamiliar with. Barry really resented my way of doing business….

So my question is:

What is there of value that I can give to TSZ in exchange for the value it has given me? And if not something of value, how can I at least minimize any negative impact I have of TSZ.

Specifically, what is an orderly way of me alerting TSZ of some of the things I’m publishing without simultaneously flooding TSZ with stuff the readers don’t want to read? How can this be done in a way that adds value to TSZ and aligns with TSZ’s vision?

Now granted, many of you would seem quite happy to see creationists go away forever and thus usher in a Darwinist utopia. If that means I don’t participate here, then this is a time to say so. If however you see some value in me maintaining a relationship, please state how you think I can provide value to you. If all I do is provide free entertainment, then that counts for something.

Now, I owe John Harshman a post on common design. So I have some idea about what you guys want to debate me on, and usually stuff I’m not too good at defending and stuff people feel they can publicly trip me up on. Fair enough. I pick some topics I want to talk about, and some topics the TSZ critics want to talk about. Quid pro quo.

What I had in mind is that I post either in my websites or moderately well-trafficked websites like Crev.Info and somehow alert TSZ about something I wrote. I think I can do the alert through sandbox. For a particularly important article, I may create a separate post here at TSZ. However in that case I view that as me requesting a favor of the participants in reading what I have to say, so I will minimize such postings.

PS
This topic also has some relevance on what value the website has to its readers and value to Lizzie’s original vision for TSZ. It is in this larger context that a discussion of what value I can add to TSZ can be discussed. But I think a conversation or at least some thought might be explored as to why people participate here and why and how the website should continue.

PPS
some sample threads I’ve started:

When did nylon-eating proteins actually evolve the ability to eat nylon?

Barry Arrington’s Bullying

For VJ Torley: Christianity’s consistency with Evolutionary Theory, JB Peterson’s Interview

In Slight Defense of Granville Sewell: A. Lehninger, Larry Moran, L. Boltzmann

My presentation at Lipscomb University in front of faculty and deans of several universities available for free online (expense for live attendance is $390)

Reflections of a Former Missionary

PPPS
Fwiw there is now TheSkepticalZone.Wordpress.Com website. I give it to the admins here as a present to do what they wish with it.

Many thanks to Alan Fox and Neil hosting my comments and threads here at TSZ.

117 Replies to “Working out a gentleman’s agreement between TSZ and my publishing activities”

  1. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    As much as the TSZ regulars may have sharp disagreement with many of my views, I actually have a vested interest in seeing TSZ survive and prosper and attract participation with talent and brains.

    I have a brain.

  2. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    UD was an advocacy blog, and TSZ is more an exploration blog.

    Snicker.

  3. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    In addition to advocacy blogs and exploration blogs,there are also echo chamber blogs.

  4. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    In addition to advocacy blogs and exploration blogs,there are also echo chamber blogs.

  5. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Starting a second blog with the name “The Skeptical Zone” is a terrible idea.

  6. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Keiths,

    The other skepticalzone blog known as:

    http://theskepticalzone.wordpress.com

    I give to Alan and Neil and Lizzie to do with what they want. It was partly inspired in response to KN question how much does it cost to run a blog. That one is free if they choose to use it somehow.

    I originally just threw the website together to see if I could off load posts that I thought the regulars might think is too spammy for “the” TSZ.

    If for nothing else, it can be a place to run experiments with plugins or whatever.

    Tell you what, I’ll put some redirect on that site back to this site (the real TSZ) so as not to steal google hits and visits.

    Thanks for the feedback.

  7. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Sal,

    There is absolutely no reason to call any of your sites “The Skeptical Zone”. You are trying to piggyback on TSZ’s web presence. It benefits you and harms TSZ.

    I realize that your own efforts, such as your creation/evolution “university”, have been failures. That does not entitle you to freeload on TSZ’s better reputation.

  8. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    What I had in mind is that I post either in my websites or moderately well-trafficked websites like Crev.Info and somehow alert TSZ about something I wrote.

    Why would you do that instead of just posting here? Bad idea. And starting up a second site called The Skeptical Zone is an even worse idea, even if the url is slightly different. Please don’t. Please.

    Now, what I’d like you to do is attempt to make a coherent case for YEC. I don’t mean picking nits with biology or geology. I mean explain the mass of data in a creationist context. If you can’t do that, find someone who can. Or admit that no coherent case can be made because YEC just doesn’t fit the data.

  9. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Why would you do that instead of just posting here? Bad idea. And starting up a second site called The Skeptical Zone is an even worse idea, even if the url is slightly different. Please don’t. Please.

    I won’t. Thank you for the feedback.

  10. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    . Or admit that no coherent case can be made because YEC just doesn’t fit the data.

    No model (YEC, OEC, Old Fossil Record) coherently fits the data available to us today, imho. I haven’t been able to make a coherent case for YEC on some data points we have today. Future data points may give a coherent model.

    FWIW, it would be helpful for me to know to what extent you visit here to interact with creationists vs. evolutionists like Joe Felsenstein and Tom English. That is to say, does my presence here at TSZ offer any value for your time and interest, and if so, how can I be of service given our very sharp differences of viewpoints.

  11. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: Starting a second blog with the name “The Skeptical Zone” is a terrible idea.

    Starting a second blog with the name “Uncommon Descent” however …

  12. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: No model (YEC, OEC, Old Fossil Record) coherently fits the data available to us today, imho.I haven’t been able to make a coherent case for YEC on some data points we have today.Future data points may give a coherent model.

    That’s just nonsense. Old earth, old life fits the data quite well. On the other hand, it isn’t just “some data points” you can’t make a coherent case for; it’s the most basic facts. To pick a simple example, the fact that the fossil record shows stratigraphic ranges for fossil species rather than random scattering, and that the biota in the lowest strata is the most different from the modern biota and becomes more and more like the modern biota as one gets closer to the present. You can’t explain that simple observation, and that’s just one.

    FWIW, it would be helpful for me to know to what extentyou visit here to interact with creationists vs. evolutionists like Joe Felsenstein and Tom English.That is to say, does my presence here at TSZ offer any value for your time and interest, and if so, how can I be of service given our very sharp differences of viewpoints.

    One of my hobbies is creationism, and another is arguing. You would offer me the value of amusement if you attempted a coherent defense of creationism. I will also admit that I have an irrational hope of converting you, but I try not to take that seriously.

  13. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman,

    One of my hobbies is creationism, and another is arguing

    One would hope that at least one Darwinist will be discovered who makes attempts to seek the truth rather than argue to support preconceived ideas…

  14. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: No model (YEC, OEC, Old Fossil Record) coherently fits the data available to us today, imho.

    Which model is used to explore for oil and metals?

    One of them works.

    I haven’t been able to make a coherent case for YEC on some data points we have today.

    Or a coherent argument for it.

    Future data points may give a coherent model.

    Pigs may fly someday. I wouldn’t bank on it.

    Glen Davidson

  15. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: No model (YEC, OEC, Old Fossil Record) coherently fits the data available to us today, imho.I haven’t been able to make a coherent case for YEC on some data points we have today.Future data points may give a coherent model.

    FWIW, it would be helpful for me to know to what extentyou visit here to interact with creationists vs. evolutionists like Joe Felsenstein and Tom English.That is to say, does my presence here at TSZ offer any value for your time and interest, and if so, how can I be of service given our very sharp differences of viewpoints.

    There are more than one OEC ideas but none of them fits the data of 13.7 billion old earth as far as I know… One creationist argued once on sandwalk that the earth could have been created billions of years ago, but it was not until much later when the earth became habitable…The creative days (not literal 24 h) don’t begin until after the earth is ready to sustain life by receiving sunlight etc.

  16. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson,

    Pigs may fly someday. I wouldn’t bank on it.

    Why not? Are you doubting the power of evolution?

  17. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    GlenDavidson,

    Pigs may fly someday. I wouldn’t bank on it.

    Why not? Are you doubting the power of evolution?

    Of course I do.

    Learn something about it for once, instead of writing one-liners based on your abysmal ignorance.

    Glen Davidson

  18. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: Of course I do.

    Learn something about it for once, instead of writing one-liners based on your abysmal ignorance.

    Glen Davidson

    You do? So what would it take for pigs to evolve and fly…Trying to learn and ignore your unfounded confidence about evolution…

  19. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman:

    . You would offer me the value of amusement if you attempted a coherent defense of creationism. I will also admit that I have an irrational hope of converting you, but I try not to take that seriously.

    Thanks for your response. I hope I can provide some amusement for you as well as my YEC and ID comrades.

    FWIW, partly due to the discussion here at TSZ and my work on the nylonase paper, I’ve enrolled in a graduate course on Protein phylogenetics at the NIH.

  20. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    GlenDavidson,

    Pigs may fly someday. I wouldn’t bank on it.

    Why not? Are you doubting the power of evolution?

    Evolution is limited obviously unlike the designer who is capable of anything.So what is the design reasoning why are there not flying pigs?

  21. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: FWIW, partly due to the discussion here at TSZ and my work on the nylonase paper, I’ve enrolled in a graduate course on Protein phylogenetics at the NIH.

    It would be nice if, after taking that course, you would agree that there is good evidence that proteins have phylogenies. Even better, before.

  22. Adapa
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I have a brain.

    Objection your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.

  23. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: I’ve enrolled in a graduate course on Protein phylogenetics at the NIH.

    Proteins descending from other proteins. Now that’s something I’d like to see you share here at TSZ.

  24. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Evolution is limited obviously unlike the designer who is capable of anything.So what is the design reasoning why are there not flying pigs?

    If people like you believe that blind, random processes of evolution were able to turn a land walking animal into a whale, why can’t the same processes turn a pig into a flying one?

    I mean, if common sense failed you once, why should you restrain absurdity?

    The Designer could create flying pigs, but even He can’t to retrofit such ridicules notion ascribed to blind chance….(land animal evolution into whale).

  25. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    mung
    Good fortune with any thing a gain to creationism(s). i tend to think one needs knockout blows when fighting someone who won’y give up.
    Like your Nylon thing. its cool but it works on a higher stats concept.
    Go for it but creationists should be able to wrap this up soon. if evolutionary biology in its great conclusions is without evidence, much less great evidence, then this should be demonstrated easily.
    I try but whatever.
    The creationist can say WHY BY NOW hasn’t the evolutionist proved his case and the evolutionist can say WHY BY NOW hasn’t the creationist proved the evolutionist doesn’t have a case.
    This can’t go on much longer in intellectual circles.
    I loved UD but unfortunately censorship and unlovingness interferes.
    In important subjects THATS WHEN concepts of freedom of thought, speech, are to be set in motion to justify our heritage and present claim of freedom to attain truth and all good things.
    It is hilarious and dumb that ever anyone questions or punishes anyone about what they say on conclusions about subjects of universal possession.
    As long as not malicious, or too much.
    There should be a law for free thought/speech. Oh wait there is. who is enforcing it?

  26. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    It would be nice if, after taking that course, you would agree that there is good evidence that proteins have phylogenies. Even better, before.

    The principle reason for the course is that it explores how to uses databases to studies protein structure. The school is a little short of teachers teaching protein biophysics, which be more my preference since my first grad degree was in physics.

    But since phylogenetic language is everywhere, I have to learn it. Joe Felsenstein’s book is not going to be used for this course, but it would be good to see if they use any of his material especially since we’ve got the man who wrote the bible of phylogenetics right here at TSZ! 🙂

    The course description:

    Theoretical and Applied Bioinformatics

    The objective of this course is to give students an introduction into the theory and practice of a wide range of bioinformatic techniques and applications, enabling them to use these tools in their own research. This course will be divided into five modules: statistical approaches in sequence analysis; phylogenetic analysis of nucleotide and protein sequences; acquisition and analysis of sequence datasets, including EST and RNA-seq data; analysis of genomic datasets from an evolutionary perspective; and, prediction of protein secondary structure. Two or three of the five sessions in each module will be divided roughly 60 percent theoretical lecture and 40 percent learning to use relevant computational tools. The final session of each module will be split between a discussion of computational tools, a journal club, and a discussion of work on a project assigned for each module. By the end of the course, students should be able to acquire many types of sequence data, identify orthologous and paralogous genes, predict domains and motifs, identify alternative splicing, analyze genomic/protein alignments, and make a prediction of secondary protein structure from primary sequence.

  27. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The Designer could create flying pigs

    No, it could not.

    Stalemate.

  28. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: The principle reason for the course is that it explores how to uses databases to studies protein structure.

    You understand that if proteins don’t have phylogenies, all that bioinformatics stuff is useless, right? The patterns it studies are either the result of phylogeny or they don’t exist.

  29. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    You understand that if proteins don’t have phylogenies, all that bioinformatics stuff is useless, right? The patterns it studies are either the result of phylogeny or they don’t exist.

    I don’t think so.

    Hierarchically arranged similarities exist independent of the assumption of common descent. You don’t need the assumption of common descent to see hierarchically arranged similarities. Common descent is a gratuitous and superflouous add on. Creationists since Linnaues saw hierarchy in biology!

    One has the cytochrome C protein that is in Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. In Eukaryotes, the genes coding such “ancient” proteins is broken up with huge regions of non-coding DNA known as introns, not to mention the Eukaryotes implement chromatin architecture which involves nucleosomes. Seems kind of miraculous to me then to assume all this emerged via common descent.

    Sure, you can assume it evolved, but then one has to invoke miracles to make common descent work, and if one invokes miracles, the more parsimonious miracle is one of creation, imho.

    Here is one bioniformatic application where patterns of similarity are independent could just as well be seen under the assumption of common design as in common descent regarding the lipoyl domain which I have interest in:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/cdd/cddsrv.cgi?uid=133458

    The strong hierachical arrangements also point to MRCA’s of all organisms being recent, which agrees with Young Life Creation and the youth of the fossil record.

    But if you like this sort of discussion, we’ll continue it if you find surplus value to your life spending time engaging my viewpoints.

  30. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: You don’t need the assumption of common descent to see hierarchically arranged similarities. Common descent is a gratuitous and superflouous add on.

    It’s just an explanation.

    That you don’t care about explanation is no reason for others to be so anti-intellectual.

    Glen Davidson

  31. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Common descent is a gratuitous and superflouous add on.

    Occam’s Razor! Take that you evolutionists!

  32. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Hierarchically arranged similarities exist independent of the assumption of common descent. You don’t need the assumption of common descent to see hierarchically arranged similarities. Common descent is a gratuitous and superflouous add on. Creationists since Linnaues saw hierarchy in biology!

    As Glen said, common descent isn’t a necessary assumption in order to find hierarchy, but it’s the unavoidable conclusion. Your alternative of “common design” is vacuous. There is no reason to expect common design to have such a pattern. But would you agree that it’s a natural expectation of common descent?

    Here is one bioniformatic application where patterns of similarity are independent could just as well be seen under the assumption of common design as in common descent regarding the lipoyl domain which I have interest in

    Please explain why common design would be expected to produce this pattern.

    The strong hierachical arrangements also point to MRCA’s of all organisms being recent, which agrees with Young Life Creation and the youth of the fossil record.

    You will have to explain what you meant by that, because I have no idea.

  33. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    You will have to explain what you meant by that, because I have no idea.

    Fair enough,but not in this thread, and I can probably articulate my ideas better after I learn more bioinformatics.

    , common descent isn’t a necessary assumption in order to find hierarchy,

    No it is not, unless the hierarchy is phylogenetic, but the real hierarchy is taxonomic! If the hierarchy is taxonomic, like Linnaeus, then one can easily dispense with phylogenetic hierarchy and replace it with a taxnomic one.

    Since you know phylogenetics so well, are we humans in the clade Sarcopterygii or whatever our fish ancestors were?

  34. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: No it is not, unless the hierarchy is phylogenetic, but the real hierarchy is taxonomic! If the hierarchy is taxonomic, like Linnaeus, then one can easily dispense with phylogenetic hierarchy and replace it with a taxnomic one.

    Word salad, I’m afraid. You will have to do better than that.

    Since you know phylogenetics so well, are we humans in the clade Sarcopterygii or whatever our fish ancestors were?

    Of course we are. Why do you ask?

  35. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: I can probably articulate my ideas better after I learn more bioinformatics.

    I’m dubious, but I suppose we’ll see.

  36. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    You will have to do better than that.

    Agreed, and thank you for your criticism. I always hope I can do better.

    Of course we are. Why do you ask?

    It illustrates the problem of a taxonomic hierarchy vs. a phylogenetic hierarchy.

    When someone refers to as Sarcopterygii they think it looks more like the picture below. The Linnaen conception of taxonomy or the Owen conception of homology invoked a non-physical archetype rather than a physical ancestor that unifies the vertebrates. That is to say the fish below would be deemed more of a sister group of mammals and aves rather than an approximation of the ancestor of mammals and aves in a taxonomic view.

    To me, that means the vertebrate form is “conserved” design, it doesn’t look like the Sarcopterygii form is the form that is actually conserved. In fact, conceptual archetypes are probably physically infeasible.

    I suspect the same issue will arise in protein phylogenetics, but I need to learn the discipline, so that’s why I decided to study the topic.

  37. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Here is a depiction of vertebrates. Seems to me, we don’t need to assume sarcopterygii is the ancestor of all the land-based vertebrates (excluding the fish in the diagram) to see there is a taxonomic form we can call “vertebrate”. It’s evident just by common design of a vertebrate namely:

    All vertebrates are built along the basic chordate body plan: a stiff rod running through the length of the animal (vertebral column and/or notochord),[11] with a hollow tube of nervous tissue (the spinal cord) above it and the gastrointestinal tract below.

    In all vertebrates, the mouth is found at, or right below, the anterior end of the animal, while the anus opens to the exterior before the end of the body. The remaining part of the body continuing after the anus forms a tail with vertebrae and spinal cord, but no gut.[12]

    I don’t need to assume so land vertebrates descended from a Sarcopterygii to see the common design of vertabrates. It’s easy to see taxonomy because of the of the common design. The assumption of common descent seems highly superfluous to seeing the patterns of common design in evidence.

  38. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Agreed, and thank you for your criticism.I always hope I can do better.

    It illustrates the problem of a taxonomic hierarchy vs. a phylogenetic hierarchy.

    Sadlly, this doesn’t do better. You don’t say why it’s a problem.

    When someone refers to as Sarcopterygii they think it looks more like the picture below.The Linnaen conception of taxonomy or the Owen conception of homology invoked a non-physical archetype rather than a physical ancestor that unifies the vertebrates. That is to say the fish below would be deemed more of a sister group of mammals and aves rather than an approximation of the ancestor of mammals and aves in a taxonomic view.

    When you say “someone”, you refer to a person who doesn’t quite know what Sarcopterygii means. Why should we credit that person’s impressions? And of course the fish is a sister group, not an ancestor. But “sister group” is a phylogenetic concept.

    To me, that means the vertebrate form is “conserved” design, it doesn’t look like the Sarcopterygii form is the form that is actually conserved. In fact, conceptual archetypes are probably physically infeasible.

    What does “conserved design” mean? You aren’t making sense. And “the Sarcopterygii form” doesn’t seem to mean anything other than “looks like a fish to me”. But in fact at least a few features are conserved within Sarcopterygii: bony, muscled pelvic and pectoral appendages and twin choanae come to mind immediately. And of course there’s all the molecular data.

    It’s unclear whether you are defending or attacking conceptual archetypes, but certainly nobody thinks they have anything to do with ancestors. And they aren’t a viable alternative to phylogeny.

    I suspect the same issue will arise in protein phylogenetics, but I need to learn the discipline, so that’s why I decided to study the topic.

    I still don’t know what the issue is. I think part of the problem you have in expressing yourself clearly is that you have no clear concept to express. You have no explanation for nested hierarchy.

  39. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: I don’t need to assume so land vertebrates descended from a Sarcopterygii to see the common design of vertabrates. It’s easy to see taxonomy because of the of the common design. The assumption of common descent seems highly superfluous to seeing the patterns of common design in evidence.

    How many times has it been explained to you that common descent is not an assumption but a conclusion? Groups within groups is a pattern that arises naturally, inevitably, from descent with modification and branching. It doesn’t arise naturally from design. You can recognize the pattern without assuming common descent but you can’t explain the pattern without it. If you can come up with an explanation as good as or better than common descent, then we can talk. So far you have none at all.

    Terminological quibbles: Sarcoperygii is a group. “A Sarcopterygii” makes no sense; it would be “a sarcopterygian”. Sarcopterygii contains all terrestrial vertebrates. It makes as much (as little) sense to say that humans are descended from sarcopterygians as it does to say we’re descended from mammals. We are mammals. We are sarcopterygians. There is no reason to accept the first statement but deny the latter.

    Incidentally, the group on the lower left is Teleostei, a group that does not include land vertebrates. How can I say that? Think about it.

  40. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Groups within groups is a pattern that arises naturally, inevitably, from descent with modification and branching.

    Not if the group can’t naturally arise from descent with modification naturally. Therefore it’s an assumption that one group naturally arose from another when it wasn’t confirmed that it was actually naturally possible.

    It won’t happen naturally if it is not mechanically feasible. A simple example is an organism with chromatin (aka eukaryote) arising “naturally” from an organism without chromatin(aka prokaryote). It’s not proven it’s mechanically feasible, it’s an assumption. I can create laundry lists of mechanical barriers…..

    Thanks anyway for your response, but this is wondering from the OP. I appreciate your interest in this discussion, and if this is the sort of discussion you want, you might get more. So, we should be both happy in the future.

    SERIOUSLY, the reason I’m posting this thread is that I want to support this site. This site was founded as a response to UD. I want this site to prosper and grow and attract good discussion.

    It doesn’t mean the regulars will necessary like what I say. It’s almost a given they won’t.

    However, I want to try to negotiate what topics are of interest to you guys that you want to talk about and argue about. If you think something is too spammy and you don’t think it elevates the vision of TSZ, please say something.

    I really want to help.

    Now that may seem ironic since it seems I want to obliterate belief in evolution from as many peoples lives that I can on planet Earth. But I believe quality dialogue is one way to achieve that end.

    The good stuff I develop in dialogue here I pass on to my paid customers. I might not eliminate belief in evolution from anyone here at TSZ, but debate here helps me refine my arguments for consumption by my customer base. I have a policy of passing on only what my conscience deems credible. I could be wrong, but it is passed on in good faith.

  41. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Not if the group can’t naturally arise from descent with modification naturally. Therefore it’s an assumption that one group naturally arose from another when it wasn’t confirmed that it was actually naturally possible.

    The violations of logic even in your language are appalling. You can’t go from “if” to “therefore” in the way that you did

    Of course that’s just revelatory of your illogic of assuming what you want. Any real scientific hypothesis has entailments, and honest investigators look for those entailments to see if the hypothesis holds. If two decent (consistent with what is known) hypotheses were to have the same entailments, then you’d need to develop further entailments in order to distinguish between them. If, on the other hand, there was no other hypothesis that has the same entailment, you’re only logically allowed to stick with the one whose entailment were found.

    ID/creationism not only doesn’t explain the derivative nature of life, it also explains nothing at all in life. Meanwhile, the entailments of evolution are rife throughout life–and the mere incredulity of a Sal and others who prefer their a prioris over considering the evidence does absolutely nothing to indicate that it doesn’t happen. So for those interested in truth, evolution’s entailments are indicative that evolution both can and did happen, while people who want to believe tripe will simply deny the evidence.

    Nothing new going on, that’s for sure.

    Glen Davidson

  42. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Glen,

    Thank you for your comments. You’re usually on my ignore list, but since I explicitly asked for feedback, I un-ignored you temporarily.

    As far as the OP, given how much you despise and disagree with what I say or what the other IDists here at TSZ say, does our presence here add incentive for you to visit TSZ or does it drive you away?

    This is a time to settle the question. Do you want more or less ID presence here at TSZ. Do you want more or less of my posting and interaction here, or is there stuff you’d rather I talk about (given you know what I’ll probably say in advance).

    Now if one of the regulars wants to debate and argue with me here at TSZ and you don’t, maybe something can be worked out to make this all more orderly.

    I got the impression a lot of the regulars wanted debate because they thought they could do damage to the promotion of ID or at least some of their theories, like say specified complexity or conservation of information or the ID use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or “ID is science”, etc.

    OK, so I actually took the side of the TSZ regulars on those topics, so you can’t say I got humiliated defending those topics because I took the side of the Dariwnists on those issues.

    But as far as the stuff I advocate, I don’t think the regulars will fare as well in discrediting some of my claims. But if you’re still eager to keep trying to discredit me, then that would seem in your interest to see me show up here.

    Do you really want to see me debate here? If so, how much?

  43. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    Glen,

    Thank you for your comments.You’re usually on my ignore list, but since I explicitly asked for feedback, I un-ignored you temporarily.

    As far as the OP, given how much you despise and disagree with what I say or what the other IDists here at TSZ say, does our presence here add incentive for you to visit TSZ or does it drive you away?

    This is a time to settle the question.Do you want more or less ID presence here at TSZ.Do you want more or less of my posting and interaction here, or is there stuff you’d rather I talk about (given you know what I’ll probably say in advance).

    Now ifone of the regulars wants to debate and argue with me here at TSZ and you don’t, maybe something can be worked out to make this all more orderly.

    I got the impression a lot of the regulars wanted debate because they thought they could do damage to the promotion of ID or at least some of their theories, like say specified complexity or conservation of information or the ID use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or “ID is science”, etc.

    OK, so I actually took the side of the TSZ regulars on those topics, so you can’t say I got humiliated defending those topics because I took the side of the Dariwnists on those issues.

    But as far as the stuff I advocate, I don’t think the regulars will fare as well in discrediting some of my claims.But if you’re still eager to keep trying to discredit me, then that would seem in your interest to see me show up here.

    Do you really want to see me debate here?If so, how much?

    I would like you to directly and forthrightly address what people write.

    It would be a nice for a change.

    Glen Davidson

  44. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    I would like you to directly and forthrightly address what people write.

    Thanks for the feed back. I’ll try in as much as it adds surplus value to my participation here.

  45. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Glen, to Sal:

    I would like you to directly and forthrightly address what people write.

    It would be a nice for a change.

    Sal:

    Thanks for the feed back. I’ll try in as much as it adds surplus value to my participation here.

    That’s a weaselly response, Sal. Your evasions are a real problem. If you actually want to increase the value of your participation here, you’ll address the issue.

  46. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Keiths,

    Thanks for your usual combative responses.

    Let’s get something straight, this is a two way street.

    My opponents on the issues have to give some value to me and my interests for me to participate. If I don’t find it valuable to respond to what someone says, I might not.

    I’m wanting to see what’s of value to the regulars here, and whether what the request of me is worth the price for me to shell out.

    There are somethings John Harshman wants to talk about that will provide value to me. Given his expertise, I’m willing to exert some effort to meet him half-way as best as I can. I’m grateful for his criticism and knowledge, which is more than I can say for what you have to offer lately.

    The items John wants to talk about, as far as I can tell:

    common design vs. common descent
    some attempt at coherent YEC
    some discussion of creationism and phylogenetics

    Now, I’ll tell you what value you provide for me. Entertainment and debate batting practice. When you don’t give me that, I put you on the ignore list. Now, be honest, do you put me on your ignore list?

    What value do I provide you that you’ll read what I say? Does it provide value to you to blow off steam and try to denigrate me? Hey, I’m cool with that, I don’t have to read it anymore thanks to the ignore button. Blast away with your usual, I’m glad I can give some reason for your living and add value to your reason for being a regular at TSZ.

  47. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Sal, to Glen:

    OK, so I actually took the side of the TSZ regulars on those topics, so you can’t say I got humiliated defending those topics because I took the side of the Dariwnists on those issues.

    First, there are plenty of topics on which you’ve argued against the reality-based regulars here at TSZ and had your ass handed to you. Those are the situations in which your evasions tend to become a problem.

    But even when you agree with us, as for example on the misuse of 2nd law arguments by IDers, you still make dumb mistakes and become evasive when people
    point them out.

    I’m thinking in particular of your defense of the “energy dispersal” interpretation of entropy, long after I had shown that it could not be correct. I asked you repeatedly to address my objections. You never did.

    It isn’t just me and Glen. Many TSZers have had similar experiences with you.

  48. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    FWIW,

    The reason I started this discussion is for a variety of reasons.

    Drafts of my nylonase paper have already circulated in some ID circles. They believe it will damage the credibility of Ken Miller and Dennis Venema to the extent they were gullible enough to accept Ohno’s paper as fact. They look particularly gullible for doing so.

    I will shortly invite public review of my paper and solicit corrections, criticisms and suggestions. I think what I write will hold up a lot better than most of the stuff other IDists write because what I say should be non-controversial. I show instead Ken Miller and Dennis Venema rely on highly dubious ideas by Ohno (the father of junkDNA).

    Keiths apparently lives in an alternate reality of his own making. He provided lots of entertainment for me when he couldn’t even solve a question on a college exam regarding the entropy change of an ice cube with is approach. Too funny.

    Now, if Keiths offers some good criticisms of my paper that lead to its improvement and promotion, all the better. If his first response to my paper is worthless, he’ll be put on my ignore list again. In return for taking time to respond to me, he gets to have some jollies writing comments that I usually don’t read.

    Thanks for reading and responding, Keiths. I hope you’re having a good time fuming. 🙂

  49. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: How many times has it been explained to you that common descent is not an assumption but a conclusion? Groups within groups is a pattern that arises naturally, inevitably, from descent with modification and branching. It doesn’t arise naturally from design. You can recognize the pattern without assuming common descent but you can’t explain the pattern without it. If you can come up with an explanation as good as or better than common descent, then we can talk. So far you have none at all.

    Terminological quibbles: Sarcoperygii is a group. “A Sarcopterygii” makes no sense; it would be “a sarcopterygian”. Sarcopterygii contains all terrestrial vertebrates. It makes as much (as little) sense to say that humans are descended from sarcopterygians as it does to say we’re descended from mammals. We are mammals. We are sarcopterygians. There is no reason to accept the first statement but deny the latter.

    Incidentally, the group on the lower left is Teleostei, a group that does not include land vertebrates. How can I say that? Think about it.

    Common descent is not a conclusion but a assumption that excludes other options.
    Not only would common design explain easily patterns in biology its very likely from a creator. Why would a creator HAVE TOO make biology in segregational bits without any reference to each other JUST to prove creation?
    why not the creator of physics does the same thing with biology>
    its very predictable that biology, by a creatpr with a blueprint, would have biology in patterns as we see it.
    Including within the system a ability of biology , in patterns, to change as needed for survival.
    Common design better explains, just from a casual observation, biology then common descent.
    I think the ancient Greeks saw this in nature. Gods blueprint. Not the whim of the moment.

  50. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Sal,

    My opponents on the issues have to give some value to me and my interests for me to participate. If I don’t find it valuable to respond to what someone says, I might not.

    That’s true for everyone. The problem lies in the way you, in particular, define ‘valuable’. For you, evading difficult questions is a ‘valuable’ strategy because it offers you a way to save face. If you addressed objections head-on, your mistakes would become obvious (or at least more obvious than they already are). You don’t want that.

    Your ‘valuable’ face-saving strategy puts you at cross-purposes with honest interlocutors who are trying to establish, through discussion, which position is correct.

Leave a Reply

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