The Bathroom Wall

| 466 Comments

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

Just because this is the bathroom wall does not mean that you should put your #$%& on it.

The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.

466 Comments

I don’t like the thought of making a new bathroom wall every two weeks. To encourage you people to slow down I’m going to lock this one for a few days.

This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed).

“This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed).”

Do you know any handicap or racist jokes?

Perakh

It is Dr. not Mr. Davison and has been since 1954.

I WAS a professor at the University of Vermont. I was also at various times in my career a professor at Florida State University in Talahassee, Washington University in St. Louis, Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and RPI in Troy New York. I also spent summers doing research at Woods Hole and Princeton.

I don’t give a rap about what people think of me. I already know that. I am more interested in letting them know what I thnk of them and what some of the finest minds of two centuries thought of them as well. If that offends you that is just too bad.

I have never deviated from the threads topics. That is pure baloney. This whole forum is founded on a myth and I have no intention of deviating from my exposure of it as just that.

How do you like them apples?

Dr. John A. Davison

It is Dr.Davison not Dr.Davidson. It is not highjacking of threads to voice my disagreement with Dembski which I have already done several times. My question was nevertheless sincere when I asked which facts stand in the way of the Glory of God. That is a valid question and it remains unanswered.

I have no intention of questioning Dembski about what he believes. He seems to have a Christian agenda. I don’t. He can believe what ever he wants. There is no place for belief in science anyway. Belief substitutes for certain knowledge which is all I care about. The entire Darwinian model is a belief without foundation. It must and will be abandoned as a hoax. Trust me.

If I must be banned for asking questions then every scientist should be banned from Panda’s thumb because asking and attempting to answer questions is all that science has ever been about.

John A. Davison

What I see here at Panda’s Thread is what I saw at EvC and “brainstorms.” I see a Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism which adamantly denies any Intelligent Design pitted against the Fundamentalist Christians who are inclined to deny evolution entirely or at least attempt to reconcile it with Biblical dogma. In other words I see two fundamentally opposite world views which will never be reconciled with each other for the simple reason that they are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps in favor of what seems to me the only remaining explanation which I have summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

John A. Davison

For what it is worth I agree that it was a mistake for Behe or Dembski to, at any point, introduce a deity into their science even by inference. By so doing they have made themselves vulnerable. I have carefully avoided any reference to a creator not absolutely demanded by the PEH. If others see my position as that of a Christian fundamentalist they are sadly mistaken. I feel the same way about Hugh Ross. The evidence for the anthropic principle stands independently of any formal dogma. The evidence, both direct and indirect, for a predetermined endogenously driven evolution is growing and undeniable. Otherwise I would never have published “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” where some of that evidence is summarized.

John A. Davison

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.” Albert Einstein

And yet I keep hearing ID proponents claim that ID isn’t about religion. Did I miss something?

That’s true. It’s about evidence. Since there’s no evidence for evolution, the only reasons to believe in it are religious.

Dr. Davison said (I think this is a fair distillation.)

…Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism … Fundamentalist Christians … are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps …It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

My question is, do you post the same kind of comments on Fundamentalist Christian, creationist, or Dembskiist sites, too, or is it just the evolutionary community, Godless or otherwise, that is the beneficiary of your insights? If so, is that fair?

moioci

I have made my opinions indelibly clear at EvC, “brainstorms,” Fringe Sciences, Talk Origins and ARN. I have been banned for life from the first three, tolerated at Talk Origins and ignored at ARN. Here at Panda’s Thumb it would seem that they have now reserved the Bathroom Wall for my posts which seem to be unacceptable elsewhere. It is very reminiscent of what they did with me over at EvC. There they erected a special cell for me which they called “Boot Camp.” I was allowed to post only there. Its stated purpose was to educate me in the art of “debate.” When I proved to be a very poor student they finally banned me for life, one of my most treasured achievements.

I hope this answers your question. Thanks for asking.

John A. Davison

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

Michael Finley Wrote:

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

Why, thank you. You’ll note that we also back it up with evidence. It’s that one-two punch that’s a knockout.

Wesley R. Elsberry Wrote:

You’ll note that we also back it up with evidence.

Evidence for what? Panda’s names Steve? Books about the rapture and creationism? April Fool’s entries for Scientific American?

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

What is this, highschool biology class? You can read about this here if you’d like, but we assume that our readers are already familiar with such things, or at least should be.

If humorous posts offend you so much, you’re always free to read something else.

Michael Finley Wrote:

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Tell you what: if someone (you?) think that this leaves any of your questions unanswered, why don’t you bring them up here? Otherwise, I don’t see why we need to transcribe textbook stuff onto this site, or why we can’t avail ourselves of the abundant amusement opportunities that creationists present.

Michael Finley Wrote:

Evidence for what? Panda’s names Steve? Books about the rapture and creationism? April Fool’s entries for Scientific American?

I’m not sure what antievolutionists want of us, except maybe to become as humorless and bitter as they are. Show a bit of humor, and they complain that we aren’t serious enough. Well, all I can say is that the antics of ID advocates give plenty of scope for humor, and we certainly aren’t going to let all that material go to waste. Expect to see more inventive, fun, and humorous stuff here in the future. Evolutionary biology is cool, which perhaps is exactly why antievolutionists disapprove of anything that effectively makes that point, and does so accessibly.

But fun isn’t the totality of PT. There’s plenty of articles here on PT that deal with evidence. Many are in

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]olution.html

and we do quite a lot of looking at the technical literature in the articles in

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]ustread.html

Michael Finley Wrote:

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Why not visit the site that we have often linked to from PT’s pages, Douglas Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page?

Steve Reuland Wrote:

What is this, high-school biology class? You can read about this here if you’d like, but we assume that our readers are already familiar with such things, or at least should be.

I’ve read the FAQ you link to. It is cursory at best, and it cannot answer further questions. A limited dogmatic presentation of “evidences” is not as valuable as a discussion.

Russell Wrote:

Tell you what: if someone (you?) thinks that this leaves any of your questions unanswered, why don’t you bring them up here? Otherwise, I don’t see why we need to transcribe textbook stuff onto this site, or why we can’t avail ourselves of the abundant amusement opportunities that creationists present.

Believe it or not, the Talk.Origins FAQ’s do not address all questions. I’d love to start such a discussion, but I hate to do it on threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Thus, my suggestion.

Michael Finley Wrote:

I’d love to start such a discussion, but I hate to do it on threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Thus, my suggestion.

Actually, PT already has a place for users to bring up discussion topics. Michael is already signed in there. He can post a new topic anytime.

Pim accuses me of innacuracy. Present those inaccuracies and show what is wrong with them.

I do not present arguments. I present facts which demand conclusions and I have reached them.

There is no ID “movement.” That is a contrived bit of Darwimpian chicanery designed to denigrate that which is undeniable.

It is I that have ignored the ID “movement” as I believe it was a strategic error to attempt to debate ideologues concerning matters of which they are congenitally blinded.

Pim does not think a prescribed evolution is a worthy or original idea but Pim has yet to present a single matter of fact which is in anyway incompatible with it. Neither has anyone else. And I know why. They can’t. Incidentally, I am not the originator of that idea anyway, Bateson was, and a number of others have indicated as much. I reviewed that history in the PEH manuscript. Where is that history inaccurate?

It is the same old same old here at PT just as it was at EvC. New ideas are unacceptable to those who have staked their entire professional lives on a myth. So hide bound is the herd that some of them won’t even read the posts of their critics. Others butcher them with garbling or out and out deletion. These are the earmarks of a dying ideology, one so ravaged by undeniable truth that it must resort to the meanest of tactics in a vain attempt to maintain itself.

It doesn’t work any more and never did. It is nothing but bigotry.

“A doctrine which is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with incalculable harm to human progress.” Albert Einstein

The pontifications of Pim and others reminds me of another quotation. I know how disgusting it must be for you all to have to put of with my incessant quoting of sources that of course have no bearing whatsoever on the substance of Panda’s Thumb. Well here are some that I think cut right to the quick.

“There is nothing so skillful in it own defence as imperious pride.” Helen Jackson

Here’s another from the Bible.

“Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs XVI

How about this little ditty from Alexander Pope?

Of all the causes which conspire to blind, Man’s erring judgment and misguide the mind, What the weak head with strongest bias rules, Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools.”

“Then there are the fanatical atheists, whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source…They are creatures that cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein.

How do you like them apples?

Johh A. Davison

Pardon the typo. It was bigot of course. How else can one characterize someone who rejects out of hand any view which varies a micron from their own.

I repeat God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms because Darwinian (mutation/selection) mechanisms are a fantasy with no demonstrable substance. Furthermore there is no evidence of God anyway, let alone an all-powerful one as the Christian ethic presumes. There is no such thing as a “beneficial” mutation in any eukaryote unless it is a back mutation to the original wild-type allele. I have been asking for examples and never received even an acknowledgement that I asked either here, at ARN or elsewhere. You see the Darwinian scheme has been accepted as a given and is never even tested any more. The Darwimps got tired of constant failure. Well I don’t get tired of constantly reminding them of their constant failures. Darwimpianism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It persists for one reason only; it denies any purpose in the universe. It is the only conceivable position for the homozygous atheist mentality and it is just as wrong as Biblical Fundamentalism.

What really boggles my mind is that Pim can masquerade as a Darwinian Christian (a contradiction in terms) at the same time that he can engage in such thoroughly unChristian practices as calling an adversary all sorts of nasty names. I personally regard Pim as the most completely exposed sockpuppet in all of cyberspace and I am certainly not alone.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

If you don’t believe it just visit Panda’s Thumb a forum named in honor of Stephen Jay Gould who wrote a book by that name. He also declared that “intelligence was an evolutionary accident” and evolution was like “a drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door.” The latter was in another of his many books whose title is self-explanatory - “Full House.”

There has never been any role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Those who think so are indeed deaf to Einstein’s music of the spheres. I hear it loud and clear. Some of us have been luckier than others in a prescribed, predetermined evolutionary destiny.

Be sure sometime to come up with a list of all those eukaryotic “beneficial mutations.”

John A. Davison

David Berlinski has a commentary in today’s Daily Californian, Academic Extinction: More and More, Evolutionary Theory is Becoming Nothing More than Darwinian Mantra.

He takes a swipe at The Panda’s Thumb and Talk Reason in the opening paragraph:

Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda’s Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin’s theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.

That is an interesting accusation; I just searched all of our entries and could not find “Dumbski” used even once. In fact searching with Google turned up its use in only three comments.

Paul, please get some work done on Ontogenetic Depth. We’ve had a good time exposing the freshman probability mistakes central to IC and CSI, and lately “Cosmological ID”, and we’d love to have more ID ‘proof’ to beat up on and laugh about.

Steve, you are SO clever about probability. You have advanced the state of art of physics by leaps and bounds with your expositions on probability re. cosmological ID. To think we all got PhDs and took (and then taught) advanced QM, field theory, and statistical mechanics without the benefit of your insight! It makes the mind reel, I say! The textbooks, of course, need to be rewritten.

And I am happy it gives you the chuckles, too.

DavidH,

Since you have earlier admitted that Cosmological ID is a philosopy (and one defined and interpreted differently by different ID-ers) and not a quantitative scientific theory then how is it possible to apply statistics to it?

DavidF, you should be asking steve how prob/stat has been applied incorrectly.

DavidH,

Not at all - if statistics is not applicable them, by definition, any application is incorrect. Some things are “not even wrong.”

The Darwinians need no help in making themselves look silly. They have been doing a bag up job of it for 149 years.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.

Thank you Reed for reactivating the good old Bathroom Wall.

John A. Davison

DavidF, just look back in Heddle’s past, and you’ll see his probabilistic arguments. Apparently at some point he thought it could be supported with statistical reasoning. Whether he’s changed now, I don’t know. I believe someone said around here recently that Dembski has become disenchanted with his own futile mathematical attempts.

Steve, why don’t you point them out?

I know I’ve talked about fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10^120, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And the fine tuning of the nuclear chemistry inside stars, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And the privileged location we have in the galaxy, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And simply the type of galaxy we have, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat… (unless noting that only ~10% of the galaxies are eliptical constitutes a misuse of probability theory)

Fusion of any two spherical bodies is an instantaneus event old boy. Think about it. What’s the Rusty Catheter for, intellectual clap? I’m glad you disagree about trivia rather than the substance of my post. Those old Darwimpian undergrad biology texts are the reason Panda’s Thumb exists. I’s a scandal and a hoax. Thanks for the inadvertant support.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Since ,my last attempt was blocked lets try again shall we?

Since my last attempt was blocked lets try again shall we?

Here we go again folks, an error appeared.

This time I am an abusive user.

Dr. Davison,

With all respect, I’d like to suggest that Panda’s Thumb might not be an appropriate outlet for your ideas. I think that the inherently confrontational nature of a group web log does not interact well with the mutual antagonism that seems to accrue between you and your correspondents.

Might I suggest that if you agree (as you seem to), that you focus on making your commentary in places where it will be given more serious consideration? Your participation in the “scandal and hoax” of Panda’s Thumb does not really advance your agenda (if said agenda is to engage in serious discussions about biology).

I think the reason crocs have small hearts is the same reason that frogs have small hearts. Most of the time they are never doing anything except hanging aound waiting for a meal to drop by. They aren’t worth a nickel in a sustained struggle as the alligator rasslers demonstrate every day down in Florida at the tourist traps.

Now I ask you, is there any good reason for this post to be automatically transferred to the latreen?

“Animals are not always struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all.” Anonymous

John A. Davison

Hey folks. Why does not imply purpose.

I think Lynn Margulis has developed a much more sophisticated version of Davison’s latest revelation.

Natural selection maintains the status quo which is all that it ever did. It was not a creative element which is why it cannot be demonstrated to have been one and it sure isn’t one now because macroevolution is finished.

Now delete this PZ baby which is now your only option.

Mammals are all mammals because they all have mammae also known as mammary glands. If you have mammae you are a mammal. What is so vague about that?

John A. Davison

All right, I’ve had it with this “darwimpian” crap.

In the first place, it smacks of Limbaugh’s endless smug repetition of such witty gems as “feminazi.” Maybe the first time you coin a smarmy neologism like “darwimp” it shows a smidgen of creativity, at least, though it shows a lack of desire for rational dialogue.

In the second place, Darwin was no wimp. Yes, he suffered mental anguish, and delayed publication of natural selection. He feared (rightly) that his discovery would be met with hostility in many quarters, including among some he respected. But when the time came, he did it. And once publicly committed, he never backed down. To my mind, courage is not lack of fear, but having the moral fortitude to go ahead despite fear and recognition of risks.

In the third place, I ain’t no wimp, sonny. I’ll borrow a move from Al Franken: I challenge you. Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s take it outside. You an’ me. I’m sure we can work out a place and time where we can meet and have it out. You name it. Bare knuckles, gloves, caged Texas deathmatch, whatever. Loser pays $500 to the winner’s favorite charity. Let’s see who’s the wimp. Come on, wuss. Nancy-boy. Girlie-man.

BTW, it’s spelled “pomegranate.”

To correct JAD’s dull attempt at sophistry,

There is rather more to it than just the two spheroids touching. Lots of non-optional steps. Your position is deliberate misinformation.

Rustopher

My browser finally enabled me to get to the bottom of this incredibly long thread.

Darwin probably would never have published at all if Wallace hadn’t come along with the same silly idea. The difference between them is that Wallace grew up and abandoned the whole foolish nonsense. The Darwinians don’t even mention his name any more just like they don’t mention Julian Huxley, presumably one of their own, when he shot the whole dogma down in a single paragraph in the book “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” Read it and weep.

As for rational dialogue, that has proven to be as impossible at Panda’s Thumb as it was at EvC, Fringe Sciences and “brainstorms.”

I have presented my published evolutionary papers on the internet for all to see and received not a single comment dealing with a matter of fact contained in those papers. I have encountered only instant hostility, ridicule and denigration which is still evident even now after I have been here for quite some time. I have never been asked a question relating to the substance of those papers. The questions I have been asked either cannot be answered or shouldn’t have been asked in the first place. The simple fact is that my perspective is unacceptable to all of these forums because it demands the abandonment of everything that has been blindly accepted as gospel since Darwin’s Origin in 1859.

My great regard for William Bateson depends in large part on his willingness to confess and recognize:

“that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general.”

Thanks for the proper spelling of pomegranate. I almost looked it up but I figured my post would not make it anyway.

It is not the touching of two spheroids that represents instant conception, it is the fusion of those two. The primary role for obligatory sexual reproduction has been anti-evolutionary, serving to stabilize the species but never to transform it. It is much too conservative a process to ever be creative. Sexual reproduction, like allelic mutation and natural selection, the cornerstones of the Darwinian mythology, had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past.

How do you like them pomegranates?

John A. Davison

JAD,

*you* are the individual who in post 25681 made much of the “instantaneous” nature of conception. I point out that this demonstrably crap to any undergrad. *you* then (in 25690) ingenuously point out that fusion of two spheroids is instantaneous as if the membranes just popped together rather than taking time, yet continue to avoid the fact that the process of conception is rather more than this minor geometrical as opposed to biological landmark. This was the only thing to disagree on, as the rest of your post contained no substance and has been corrected before. Finally in 25830 you get to conception not being the touching of the pronuclei but their fusion, which is not instantaneous, the whole point of my original correction.

I chose to disagree on this point because the rest of the post contained no previously uncorrected content. You deliberately misinform to amuse yourself. You are a liar JAD, and not a very good one. Your more elaborate attempts at self-delusion are your own problem, I am satisfied that you are a liar in small things, easily checkable by any student.

Your most recent post simply recounts yet again a position I have corrected before.

Rustopher.

The last time I tried to post here I was rewarded with persistent repetitive blocks which finally discouraged me from any further attempts. This one is just to see if anything has changed.

Salty Wrote:

The last time I tried to post here I was rewarded with persistent repetitive blocks which finally discouraged me from any further attempts.

Well, that´s not strictly true, is it?

nosivaD Wrote:

This one is just to see if anything has changed.

Correct! You haven´t changed a bit, why are we “Darwimps” not surprised? Maybe you were born that way..?

How do you like them Cauliflowers?

It is the Darwimps that have not changed. They still are convinced, as Darwin was, that evolution proceeded by the selection by nature of randomly generated variations. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is I who have changed in several steps, the last of which has convinced me that the entire evolutionary sequence was predetermined, planned and now has been finally executed and is over with. I realize this rubs the establishment the wrong way but I have yet to encounter a single piece of tangible evidence indicating that it is in any way wrong. What is more, I have received no evidence from any source, including Panda’s Thumb, that:

1. allelic mutations are creative. 2. natural selection is creative. 3. macroevolution is in progress. 4. sexual reproduction is or was involved in evolution. Its role seems to be entirely anti-evolutionary.

In short, there is not a single aspect of the Darwinian model that can be supported by laboratory experiment or the undeniable reality of the fossil record. Evolution, a phenomenon of the past, remains a giant mystery, but not for very much longer. I am now convinced that the entire scenario can be largely summarized with two little words -

“position effect.”

How do you like them Brussel Sprouts?

John A. Davison

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prof. Steve Steve published on March 25, 2005 1:14 PM.

Dembski’s continuing contradictions was the previous entry in this blog.

HEROic Steves is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter