novparl said:
Too many confused comments to deal with.
Actually, we were remarkably consistent in pointing out how irrelevant Darwin’s views on women are to the question of whether the theory of evolution is supported by empirical evidence.
He could’ve thought they had three legs and came from Mars, and it would still be true that differential survival combined with variation across generations can explain speciation.
Y’know, there’s really to advantage to responding to newspeak (cue 1984 music). His idiocy pretty much speaks for itself. Very loudly.
novparl said:
[To practice science] You don’t need to read at all? Even your notes?
The early person who first noticed that lightning storms were usually preceded by fluffy clouds was practicing science. I doubt this person took notes at all, because I doubt language was invented yet.
The scientific point is that lighting storms are usually preceded by fluffy clouds. The linguistic point that these clouds are, in English, called “cumulus” is secondary.
Of course, today, it would be terribly inefficient to practice science without reading. Inefficient but not impossible.
KP said:
novparl said:
2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?
Good point. How many people believe creationism in all its forms? 30, 40, 50 million? So what?
At least 50 million in the US alone believe creationism in at least one of its mutually contradictory forms if that’s what you mean. But no one believes it in all its forms - except for maybe some radically postmodern DI groupies who might also think that 2 + 2 can be 42 and 6000 at the same time.
Erm… no advantage.
He doesn’t like onions? How credible can he be?
novparl said:
Evolutionists are conformist,
And here’s a piece of evidence to blow yet another bit of novparl’s inanity out of the water:
This is a paper in press in the Journal of Biogeography (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/[…]jbi_2141.pdf) where apparently some scientists think, based on some evidence, that humans and orangutans share a more recent common ancestor than humans and chimps. This flies in the face of the “established” ideas on human-chimp relationships. I haven’t read the paper yet and I’m sure many others haven’t either. The editor of the journal justified his decision to publish the paper in “New Scientist” by saying he had “done some “soul searching” but eventually decided it was best to air the ideas,” to “subject Schwartz and Grehan’s argument to proper scientific scrutiny.”
Check it here: http://www.newscientist.com/article[…]00-could-the-
Now explain to me how this is “conformist.”
I’d like to see a PT thread on the biogeog paper, please! :)
KP said: Now explain to me how this is “conformist.”
I doubt that seeing scientists argue over who is our closest relative is going to change creationist notions about the evil conformity of science. :)
eric said:
KP said: Now explain to me how this is “conformist.”
I doubt that seeing scientists argue over who is our closest relative is going to change creationist notions about the evil conformity of science. :)
Like any pseudoscience, creationism tries to have it both ways. When scientists disagree, the theory is “in crisis,” when they agree they’re toeing the party line for “job security.” Until most nonscientists understand the difference between healthy disagreements (like those within evolution) and unhealthy disagreements (e.g. YEC vs OEC, and ID’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy), and realize that every evolutionary biologist would jump at the chance to to “dethrone Darwin” (if the evidence would only let them), anti-evolution activists will continue to play that game.
novparl wrote:
“Evolutionists are conformist,”
Well, scientists are “conformist” in that their views must conform to the evidence. Apparently novparl has no such restrictions.
As for primate phylogeny, the issue was a matter of some debate until fairly recently. It was unclear whether gorillas were more closely related to humans than chimps. However, from the preponderance of the evidence it is now very clear and chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas with orangs an distant third. Here are some referenmces for those who are intereested. The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.
Chromosome Banding Science 215:1525-1530 (1982)
Mitochondrial DNA PNAS 88:1570-1574 (1991)
Hemoglobin Genes Mol. Phylo. Evo. 1(2):97-135 (1992)
SINE Insertions J. Mol. Bio. 308:587-592 (2001)
Now if someone proposes a new phylogeny they must also explain all of this evidence as well. The point is that the evidence is what is important, not some “conformist” mentality.
The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.
Yeah, but the anti-evolutionists will read that and still go off on a tangent.
DS said:
Chromosome Banding Science 215:1525-1530 (1982)
Mitochondrial DNA PNAS 88:1570-1574 (1991)
Hemoglobin Genes Mol. Phylo. Evo. 1(2):97-135 (1992)
SINE Insertions J. Mol. Bio. 308:587-592 (2001)
Now if someone proposes a new phylogeny they must also explain all of this evidence as well. The point is that the evidence is what is important, not some “conformist” mentality.
Thanks for the background refs, DS! This is not my field, so some of the rest of the evidence helps, and will help me explain to some of my creationist friends.
You are welcome KP.
For those who are interested, the tree of life web page also has an extensive reference list bearing on this issue:
http://www.tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299
As for the alternative hypothesis, the authors are quite correct that DNA evidence alone is not entirely conclusive and can be subject to problems with homoplasy. However, not all of the molecular characters are subject to the same problems and the characters they describe are just as bad if not worse with regards to homolplasy. Regardless, it is the “convergence of results neither sought nor fabricated” that is so compelling.
In any event, the main point KP was making stands. There is no conspiracy in science and no conformity to anything but the evidence. That is in fact what the peer review system is all about, ideally. Funny that the creationist don’t have anything comparable.
Frank J said:
Like any pseudoscience, creationism tries to have it both ways. When scientists disagree, the theory is “in crisis,” when they agree they’re toeing the party line for “job security.” Until most nonscientists understand the difference between healthy disagreements (like those within evolution) and unhealthy disagreements (e.g. YEC vs OEC, and ID’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy), and realize that every evolutionary biologist would jump at the chance to to “dethrone Darwin” (if the evidence would only let them), anti-evolution activists will continue to play that game.
Don’t forget the Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ that has kept peer-reviewed literature completely free of all experimental evidence refuting evolution!
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg…a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We dooooo!
Henry J said:
The SINE insertion data is quite compelling but all of the data sets give the same answer.
Yeah, but the anti-evolutionists will read that and still go off on a tangent.
What they need to learn is “Knock and it shall be open unto you, secant and you shall find.”
Wow! All this aggression aimed at one old Limey! Makes me very conceited!
Will reply tomorrow, but will only have time for a couple of points. Catch ya later.
P.S. No wonder so few women comment on Panda’s Bum.
novparl wrote:
“Wow! All this aggression aimed at one old Limey! Makes me very conceited!”
Once again novparl, the only aggression shown here is by you. You accussed real scientists of being “conformist” without any evidence whatsoever. We have merely pointed out that you are completely and utterly wrong. If you feel that providing evidence that you are wrong is “aggeression” then too bad.
Now if you would care to discuss the evidence, fine, I have provided many references, why don’t you read one of them? If you just want to complain about aggression and sexism don’t bother. It will only be met with more overwhelming evidence.
It’s creationist well-poisoning 101.
1) Come into the evo blog alleging widespread scientific conspiracy, trashing the life work of thousands of scientists using paltry evidence and fallacious reasoning, and equating evolution with things like atheism and naziism, until the blog regulars get annoyed and respond predictably (and increasingly angrily) that the creationist is lying and wrong.
2) Whine hypocritically about the level of discourse. Waaa, those mean materialists called me a bad name, waaaa.
3) Repeat ad infinitum.
The weird thing is that somewhere behind all this, these twits seem to think there’s a real point to all of it. The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
ben Wrote:The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
Not every single time, but close to it. The irony is that all one needs to do to shut up the creationists (including IDers who whine about being called “creationists”) is to avoid taking their bait, and instead ask them simple questions about what the Creator/designer did, and when he/she/it/they did it. Most refuse to answer, and thus would go away if that’s the only type of reply they received. Those that do answer wind up contradicting other anti-evolutionists, and set themselves up for follow-up questions (e.g. “have you challenged another creationist?”) which show all but the most hopeless evolution-deniers how the anti-evolution movement doesn’t have a prayer, let alone a “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” (Pope John Paul II’s description of the evidence for evolution) of evidence for their own theory. And how, despite decades of seeking and fabricating of evidence, quotes, etc., all they have to show for it is divergence into “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Frank J said:
ben Wrote:The weirder thing is that the evos fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
Not every single time, but close to it. The irony is that all one needs to do to shut up the creationists (including IDers who whine about being called “creationists”) is to avoid taking their bait, and instead ask them simple questions about what the Creator/designer did, and when he/she/it/they did it.
I agree. Too much time is spent repeating the same points to the same trolls who are repeating the same taunts.
While it may be instructive at times to explain the science for any lurkers (I certainly learn a lot from those who know the details in their respective specialties), we never see any of the ID/creationist trolls ever learning science anyway. Most just want the opportunity to taunt, preach, and show how mean we are.
But as Frank points out, these trolls never answer the questions he poses. As long as they can stir up someone here, they have no need to. They accomplish their goals without ever having to grapple with the grotesque inconsistencies of their own pseudo-science.
I agree with. We spend too much time repeating the same things to people who refuse to learn. In this case, novparl has claimed that scientists, the most professionally contentious group of people in history, are “conformist”. (This from a YEC who hasn’t questioned the party line in his entire life). Contrast that with a real scientist who makes his career by proposing completely novel hypotheses, testing them rigourously and exposing them to public ridicule in the peer reviewed literature. Then he spends the rest of his career trying to disprove his own hypothesis and responding to criticism from the entire scientific community, which often necessitates revision or rejection of the hypothesis. Conformist indeed.
As for primate phylogeny, every possible tree topography has been proposed. How “conformist” can you get? Regarding the chromosomal data, the following web page has several references regarding this issue:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Reference 10 is especially instructive as it provides yet another synapomorphy uniting humans and chimps. Perhaps novparl will want to discuss this evidence, perhaps not.
DS said:
Perhaps novparl will want to discuss this evidence, perhaps not.
The day nonpareil wants to discuss any evidence is the day the Queen Elizabeth outs herself as a Transylvanian transvestite terrorist.
Stanton wrote:
“The day nonpareil wants to discuss any evidence is the day the Queen Elizabeth outs herself as a Transylvanian transvestite terrorist.”
Agreed. However this proves three things:
1) Novparl is completely ignorant of the evidence and completely unable to discuss it
2) Novparl cares nothing for evidence only for hurling insults and projecting his inadequecies onto others
3) The evidence does indeed exist and those who are interested can still read and discuss it, nothing novparl can do about that
Mike Elzinga Wrote:While it may be instructive at times to explain the science for any lurkers (I certainly learn a lot from those who know the details in their respective specialties), we never see any of the ID/creationist trolls ever learning science anyway. Most just want the opportunity to taunt, preach, and show how mean we are.
But as Frank points out, these trolls never answer the questions he poses.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell a troll from a real creationist, but the latter, like FL, do often grudgingly answer the main questions, and thus come clean as YECs, OECs, and even “virtual evolutionists” (accept common descent but not the Darwinian mechanism). But when asked to challenge a different “kind” of anti-evolutionist, any pretense that their objections are strictly scientific quickly evaporates. YECs and OECs run back to the Bible and IDers run back to Godwin’s Law. If they do learn anything how can we tell anyway? At best they might quietly drop a particular argument, but as long as they have a gullible audience (often including themselves) they have plenty more long-refuted “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” to choose from. Often our answers merely give them more facts to misrepresent.
But like I said, all but the most hopeless lurkers (at most half of evolution-deniers) will not appreciate the double standard whereby “Darwinists” have to constantly answer recycled questions while their critics plead the fifth.
Frank J said:
Sometimes it’s hard to tell a troll from a real creationist, but the latter, like FL, do often grudgingly answer the main questions, and thus come clean as YECs, OECs, and even “virtual evolutionists” (accept common descent but not the Darwinian mechanism).
As far as their misconceptions and misinformation about science is concerned, there seems to be little difference. OECs might not distort radiometric dating or the physics and chemistry quite as much as the YECs do, but both distort the biology pretty much the same way. And that involves the common misconceptions about barriers to “macroevolution”, probability and statistics, and all those misconceptions that feed into the ID shtick. But once they go down that track, they begin to make all the same mistakes about chemistry and physics as well as biology.
Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.
Mike Elzinga said:
Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.
Especially since many Intelligent Design proponents ARE also Young Earth Creationists.
Stanton said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.
Especially since many Intelligent Design proponents ARE also Young Earth Creationists.
Not sure what you mean by “proponents,” but here’s my usual comment:
Most clueless followers of ID are either YECs or old-earth-young-life Biblical literalists. But of the main ID activists (DI fellows and their close associates), almost none are YECs. Even the DI’s “token YEC” Paul Nelson might be an Omphalos creationist (takes YEC on faith, but knows that the evidence refutes it). He could have denied being an Omphalos creationist when I asked last year, but he chose to ignore the question.
The Kansas Kangaroo Court showed that most ID activists personally favor OEC. But more importantly they tried to evade the questions. And though most rejected common descent (CD), not one has challenged Michael Behe, who clearly accepts it and is arguably the most cited ID promoter among the followers. So at best the others probably reject CD on faith, not evidence, just like the Omphalos “YECs”. That is, if they’re not just lying to the masses.
Mike Elzinga Wrote:Between the YECs and the IDiots, I personally can’t tell who the snarkiest are.
Continuing my comment to Stanton:
YECs and OECs are much more honest than IDers if only because of the fact that they will occasionally challenge each other, and criticize ID’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy. But ever since “scientific” creationism arose in the ’60s, it has mostly been about “weaknesses” of “Darwinism,” so it’s reasonable to suspect that the main promoters of classic YEC and OEC know that they too have something to hide - namely that their “theory” is at least as weak as they perceive “Darwinism” is.
So what are the “pure” IDers hiding? I think we can safely say that it is not private belief in the YEC account (except possibly in the case of Paul Nelson). And certainly not the private belief that the evidence favors a young earth. The “don’t ask, don’t tell what the designer did, when, and how” policy serves very different goals. One is to get around “Edwards v. Aguillard” (presumably even a “critical analysis” of YEC or OEC is unconstitutional), and the other is to keep the masses in their ignorant bliss under the big tent.
Heh heh - as I predicted, nothing but abuse. These so called references either don’t exist or are irrelevant. Just having “brain” and “evolution” in a paper proves nothing.
Obviously I ignore Stanton’s “links”, as he attacked me for inventing Jebus without checking out the 600k refs on Google.
You still haven’t told me why you feel so threatened by an old Limey. (Only Stanton, ironically, noticed this. The rest of you are in too much of a dream to read properly.) Why am I more dangerous than a climate change denier, or one who pretends to care, like The Governator or Mr Obama/Amabo? (Axshully I know the answer - I’m just winding you up.)
Sincerely, in Jebus Price name. (Jeebs is an OEC, btw)
Wallace-ism, most likely. :)