Submit Us to the Openlab 2008

| 17 Comments

Only two weeks remain, and there is a lack of nominations from the Panda’s Thumb. Your mission, readers, is to find our best articles from the last year and nominate them from the Panda’s Thumb. The rumor I’m hearing is that anti-anti-evolution blog posts are going to get the shiv this year, so try to focus on posts that are not responses to the stupidity that is (“intelligent design”) creationism.

Just click the image to nominate some posts of ours.

17 Comments

i nominated that evolution and thermodynamics post you put out a few days ago

cleared up a lot of misconceptions

Rumors? Hey, if it is really good and well written…who knows what the judges will decide.

The post mentioned in comment #1 is really on Evolutionblog - does not stand by itself as it is here.

I’ve just submitted ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 ‘Wistar Retrospective Symposium’) by D.R. Brooks which really is worth to re-read.

My recent post on Evolution might be a good candidate. Take a look here:

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Although admittedly it is not very rigorous. But behind it is a more serious conceptual critique on the inherent implausibility of the transmission of selfish genes via by definition unattractive mates.

You must be kidding… You call that a good candidate and ‘not very rigorous’…

notedscholar said:

My recent post on Evolution might be a good candidate. Take a look here:

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Although admittedly it is not very rigorous. But behind it is a more serious conceptual critique on the inherent implausibility of the transmission of selfish genes via by definition unattractive mates.

You fail to realize that incredulity is not the same as research or evidence.

You also fail to realize that the phenomenon of unattractive individuals being able to mate and pass on their genes is not only plausible, but also been observed in nature and in the lab numerous times. Small, weak male salmon have been observed releasing their sperm so that it can be swept downstream over some of the eggs being laid by a nearby female ostensibly mating with a much larger and desirable male salmon. The term “satellite male” refers to small, silent male frogs or crickets that position themselves very close to large, very vocal males in order to intercept and mate with females attracted by the larger male. Not only do satellite males increase the likelihood of finding a mate without having to expend so much energy singing, they also avoid potential predators that are also attracted to the larger male’s singing, such as bats and parasitic wasps, respectively. Also, given no other alternative, females will mate with unattractive males: in one laboratory experiment, researchers placed a population of female stalk-eyed flies together with a population of male stalk-eyed flies with short eyestalks. In the wild, female stalk-eyed flies preferentially mate with the males that possess the longest-possible eyestalks. However, after several generations of mating only with short-stalked males, the females of this particular population preferred to mate with short-stalked males over long-stalked males.

And then there are those species that do not select mates when mating, such as the nigh-infinite number of marine organisms that engage in synchronized mass spawning, such tuna, sponges, coral, and many echinoderms. When everyone releases their gametes all at once, being attractive versus unattractive is a non-issue.

notedscholar said:

My recent post on Evolution might be a good candidate. Take a look here:

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Although admittedly it is not very rigorous. But behind it is a more serious conceptual critique on the inherent implausibility of the transmission of selfish genes via by definition unattractive mates.

notedscholar said:

My recent post on Evolution might be a good candidate. Take a look here:

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Although admittedly it is not very rigorous. But behind it is a more serious conceptual critique on the inherent implausibility of the transmission of selfish genes via by definition unattractive mates.

There’s some mangled science on that website. For example,

People of science, who cannot be unconditionally trusted, want us to believe that there are at least two kinds of color; one for things like flashlights and stars and one for things like flowers and walls and potato chips.

He is not only ignorant about topics other than evolution, but does not realize that he is ignorant.

Sheesh! I wasn’t even attacking anyone and you guys still got mad!

Well just to make you happy, I had an argument with this Davescot person and O’leary here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]ionism-okay/

I have to admit, those people are nuts.….….

We’re not mad, at least I wasn’t.

We’re merely pointing out the flaws in your train of logic. Like I said earlier, allowing your incredulity to overwhelm you is not superior to, or can even equal actual research or evidence. One can not apply “common sense” as the layperson knows it to phenomena until all of the circumstances surrounding it are known: otherwise, trying to understand it remains mindbogglingly counter-intuitive, like trying to understand why ice is less dense than water, or why there are two sets of primary colors, one for light waves and one set for pigments. Furthermore, you will never get anywhere so long as you maintain your anti-elitistscientist attitude. If you honestly want the members of the scientific community to take notice of you, try to a) learn about science and b) stop referring to scientists as being conspiratorial pricks who are out to befuddle and swindle people.

That, and do also try to realize that researchers are critiqued much more harshly during peer-review than the sort of treatment you get here.

notedscolar said:

Sheesh! I wasn’t even attacking anyone and you guys still got mad!

Well just to make you happy, I had an argument with this Davescot person and O’leary here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]ionism-okay/

I have to admit, those people are nuts.….….

notedscolar said:

Sheesh! I wasn’t even attacking anyone and you guys still got mad!

Not mad, just amazed.

Noscholar wrote:

“Although admittedly it is not very rigorous. But behind it is a more serious conceptual critique on the inherent implausibility of the transmission of selfish genes via by definition unattractive mates.”

What evidence do you have to support the contention that “selfish genes” automatically make a male “unattractive”? Also, please give an example of someone who should be “unconditionally trusted” or at least give an example of anyone who ever claimed that any scientist should ever be “unconditionallly trusted”. As Stanton points out, it would appear that you are unfamiliar with the process of peer-review.

My response to the argument from incredulity is always the same. If you think that such an argument is valid, then I can’t believe that anyone could make such a lame argument so even you must not really believe it.

DS said:

My response to the argument from incredulity is always the same. If you think that such an argument is valid, then I can’t believe that anyone could make such a lame argument so even you must not really believe it.

I refuse to believe that you’d believe that!

Based on the argument of incredulity, this really is butter.

Please focus on the topic of the main post and not on external links.

Thank you.

So that’s why you’ve been posting all those pretty animal pictures!

Honestly Reed, there’s so much good stuff here that it’s impossible to me to pick one.

Nominated: Historical contingency in the evolution of E. coli, http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]al-cont.html

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on November 14, 2008 4:32 PM.

Tangled Bank #118 was the previous entry in this blog.

Fregata magnificens 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 4.381

Site Meter