Eugenie Scott: Still crazy after all these years
The smarmy grin of a high-priestess of what Harun Yahya (Adrian Oktar) has called "the shamanistic religion of Darwinism."
======================================================
An article on the website of the National Center for Science Education says,
Now available on NCSE's YouTube channel: Eugenie C. Scott's "Creationism: Still crazy after all these years," a presentation at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference in Burbank, California. Scott describes the evolving history of the antievolution movement in the United States, from attempts to balance the teaching of evolution with "creation science" or "intelligent design" to the present spate of stealth creationist tactics such as "academic freedom" and (in Texas) "all sides of scientific evidence." A question-and-answer session followed, introduced by Richard Dawkins, who commented, "I must say, it's a very good feeling to have Genie Scott and her gang on our side in this battle." NCSE thanks the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science for permission to post the video on the NCSE YouTube channel.
Here the hypocritical, two-timing Eugenie Scott reveals her fundamental disdain for people of faith. She is tolerant of people of faith only if their beliefs are inconsistent -- i.e., if they are Darwinist Cafeteria Christians (e.g., Francis Collins and Ken Miller) instead of creationists, even though (1) there is a lot of scientific evidence against Darwinian evolution and (2) the bible's creation story makes much more sense than the gospel. The creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Also, the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. Many Darwinist Cafeteria Christians refuse to even admit that their beliefs are inconsistent.
The Darwinist Cafeteria Christians and the Accommodationists cheerfully serve as each others' mascots and useful idiots. They deserve each other. I join PZ Myers in metaphorically puking on the shoes of both of them.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/28/2009 08:26:00 PM
109 Comments:
If you ever want to be taken seriously (if that is even possible) you will have to clearly state and defend your own positions rather than just make personal attacks on the opposition. This just makes you look like a jackass. Of course that is probably an accurate picture.
You are the one who is a jackass, dunghill, for pre-judging me before I even get a chance to respond.
I do clearly state and defend my own positions -- for example, I have written extensively about how co-evolution is a big problem for evolution theory. And even here in the above post, I justify my attack on Eugenie Scott.
How does accusing Eugenie Scott of rejecting the majority of theistic evolutionists justify your attack?
You have written extensively that you think co-evolution is a problem for evolution, but have yet to actually state how it is a problem for evolution.
So if you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to clearly state and defend your own positions.
>>>>>> How does accusing Eugenie Scott of rejecting the majority of theistic evolutionists justify your attack? <<<<<<<
You stupid dunghill, I did not accuse her of rejecting the majority of theistic evolutionists -- theistic evolutionists are not creationists.
My main attack on Scott is that she is tolerant of people of faith only if their beliefs are inconsistent.
>>>>>> You have written extensively that you think co-evolution is a problem for evolution, but have yet to actually state how it is a problem for evolution. <<<<<<<
I HAVE shown how it is a problem for evolution, doofus. A pig sprouting wings anywhere in the world can fly immediately because the atmosphere is always everywhere, but in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. Where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are immediately fatal when the corresponding trait in the other organism is locally absent, co-evolution is virtually impossible. This is a problem for evolution even where the none of the co-dependent traits involved are irreducibly complex or give the appearance of being designed. Co-evolution is also a big problem where there the parasite has a life cycle with multiple hosts. Also, co-evolution shows some of the best examples of complex design -- for example, some parasites invade the nervous system of the host and don't just kill or paralyze the host but make dramatic changes in the host's behavior, and some species of orchid attract male pollinating wasps by exactly simulating the sex pheromones of female wasps.
>>>>>> So if you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to clearly state and defend your own positions. <<<<<<
I DID clearly state and defend my positions, dunghill -- you just failed to answer. That is a favorite tactic of Darwinists -- pretending that no arguments were presented. If YOU ever want to be taken seriously, you will cut out that crap.
> That is a favorite tactic of Darwinists -- pretending that no arguments were presented. <
On the contrary, that has always been a favorite tactic of yours. Countless times in the past you have asked for arguments, been presented with them, and back before you retreated into arbitrary censorship, those arguments were actually posted on this board. After each case you repeated your pitiful claim that no argument had been given.
>>>>>> back before you retreated into arbitrary censorship <<<<<<
My censorship is not arbitrary, dunghill -- I censor only for the following reasons:
(1) Gossip about my private affairs
(2) Lying about objective facts. For example, a dunghill was cluttering up this blog with crap by repeating over and over again that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. The dunghill was just trying to dodge my claim that Jones improperly gave the board members legal advice by essentially telling them in advance that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good.
(3) A comment contains nothing but scoffing.
>>>>>> After each case you repeated your pitiful claim that no argument had been given. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill -- I never made any such claim.
Instead of responding to my arguments about the issues here, all you lousy Darwinists have been doing is just making unfounded ad hominem attacks.
Anonymous, I am not posting your comment because I will no longer post comments that falsely accuse me of arbitrarily censoring comments. This falls under the category of lying about objective facts. This accusation is a particular sore point with me because I have been arbitrarily censored on a lot of blogs.
If you want your comment to be posted, you will resubmit it WITHOUT the accusation -- otherwise forget it.
There is plenty of evidence for the facts behind evolution. It is presented in many forms of varying technicallity both in print and on the internet. It is logical and internally consistent.
Creationism is neither. It requires an outside force that can not be detected, it places events in an illogical order (light is created before the sun). Many of the designs are engineering failures (human eyes, human knees, the prostrate, the reproductive system, whales' legs are a few examples).
Evolution is observed in numerous different organisms, and, accelerated by human intervention, is the cause of all modern domesticated animals.
Demanding flying pigs, or crocoducks etc is the call of those who are either not aware of the mechanisms of evolution, or wish to puposely mislead those who are not. It is akin to asking that since you and your 3rd cousin share Great-Great-Grandparents, why are you not identical.
>>>>>> There is plenty of evidence for the facts behind evolution. It is presented in many forms of varying technicallity both in print and on the internet. It is logical and internally consistent. <<<<<<
Wrong -- it is not logical and internally consistent. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but there is also a lot of evidence against evolution. Darwinists cherry-pick their evidence. Also, evolution need not be disproven as being utterly impossible -- it can be studied in terms of its probability. For example, DNA testing labs, when reporting that two DNA samples appear to be from the same person, often say that there is a very small chance -- say, one in a few billion -- that the two samples came from two different unrelated people.
>>>>> Many of the designs are engineering failures (human eyes, human knees, the prostrate, the reproductive system, whales' legs are a few examples). <<<<<<
This is basically just a theological argument for evolution -- trying to second-guess what an "intelligent designer" would or would not do.
BTW, I have learned that the design of the human body is even worse than many people realize. For example, because of poor ligament design, the midfoot is subject to a severe sprain called a "Lisfranc" sprain or dislocation -- often the only effective treatment is to screw or wire the bones together. And there is a bone in the wrist, the scaphoid bone, which, because of a poor blood supply, often knits slowly or not at all after it breaks.
Larry's quotes in bold.
I HAVE shown how it is a problem for evolution, doofus.
No you haven't. You have assembled a collection of statements that consist entirely of scoffing and fail to explain why they are a problem for evolution.
A pig sprouting wings anywhere in the world can fly immediately because the atmosphere is always everywhere, but in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
Why is this a problem for evolution? If there's nothing to adapt to, there's nothing to adapt to. If there is something to adapt to, then co-evolution can proceed apace. Evolution doesn't require 100% success rates; indeed, 100% success rates are impossible over the long term. For every 1000 possible co-evolutionary combinations there could be just 1 that manages to make it, and evolution wouldn't be fazed one bit.
And to address the example you used, what is more likely: the 100+ traits necessary for functional wings to all appear in a single individual, or two complementary traits to appear in geographic proximity?
Where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are immediately fatal when the corresponding trait in the other organism is locally absent, co-evolution is virtually impossible.
This is a form of begging the question. How often are co-dependent traits truly fatal when the complementary trait is absent, as opposed to being merely non-functional? For example, being able to digest citrus fruits is not fatal when citrus fruits are not available. However, some creatures that have this ability can die when citrus is not available. That is because they lack the ability to produce vitamin C. Similarly, co-dependent traits may seem to be fatal when the complementary trait is missing when they are merely non-functional, but that trait is the only trait that performs a necessary function. In that case, evolution can proceed by adding the trait to an organism that has a functioning alternative and then subsequently deleting the alternative trait.
Or alternatively, a trait could start out as non-fatal in the absence of the corresponding trait, but evolve to be truly fatal in the absence.
This is a problem for evolution even where the none of the co-dependent traits involved are irreducibly complex or give the appearance of being designed.
Why? You have never given any justification for this claim. This appears to be nothing more than a red herring.
Co-evolution is also a big problem where there the parasite has a life cycle with multiple hosts.
Why would it be any more of a problem than single-host parasitism? Why is going from 1 to 2 hosts more difficult than going from 0 to 1 host? If anytthing, I would think it would be easier.
And it should be noted that in many species, some hosts are optional to the life-cycle.
Also, co-evolution shows some of the best examples of complex design -- for example, some parasites invade the nervous system of the host and don't just kill or paralyze the host but make dramatic changes in the host's behavior, and some species of orchid attract male pollinating wasps by exactly simulating the sex pheromones of female wasps.
Why is this a problem for evolution? That evolution can and often will produce complex structures has been predicted from first principles since the early 1920s (see irreplaceable complexity).
Reading through your statements, one gets the impression that you believe traits appear fully formed, emerging like Athena from Zeus's brow. The reality is that traits generally don't appear like that - they develop over time, in fits and starts, and not everything has to go perfect for evolution to take a particular path. Nor does the fact that evolution often doesn't take a particular path mean it couldn't have taken the one it did.
Mark Twain held that everyone is insane: that only the degree and form of their insanity varies from person to person; and from time to time, in the same person.
That would certainly explain the chatter of the Darwin-fans, at least. They have no idea of what it is that ID proponents really propose, nor do they rally understand Darwinism. But their idle and rigid talk, is incessant.
"Evidence against evolution"
Go on then. Name it. Something that is actually disproof of evolution, not some old creationist canard. If there was 'a lot' then evolution would have been abandoned- it takes just one disproof to destroy a theory.
I know your answer- "Dawinists have been ignoring them". If you could show them, then Evolutionary Biologists wouldn't be able to- that's how science works.
Interestingly you admit the Human Body is badly 'designed', but then hide behind 'ineffability'. I trust you have evidence for any of this.
(Oh and so I don't inflame anyone, I have no idea why my online nickname has been shortened to 'Last')
PART 1 of 2 of reply to Anonymous. I am limited to 4,096 characters per comment.
Anonymous wrote (Monday, January 04, 2010 1:51:00 PM),
>>>>>I HAVE shown how it is a problem for evolution, doofus.<<
No you haven't. You have assembled a collection of statements that consist entirely of scoffing and fail to explain why they are a problem for evolution. <<<<<<
Bozo, you are saying that I made no statement at all about how or why co-evolution is a problem for evolution -- you are not saying that I made such a statement (or statements) that you disagree with. You jerks are dumber than Judge "Jackass" Jones, and I am really getting fed up to here with your damned game-playing.
>>>>>. . . in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
Why is this a problem for evolution? If there's nothing to adapt to, there's nothing to adapt to. <<<<<<<
If there is nothing to adapt to, then the mutation confers no advantage in natural selection and may actually be harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism.
>>>>>> For every 1000 possible co-evolutionary combinations there could be just 1 that manages to make it, and evolution wouldn't be fazed one bit. <<<<<<
Or for every 1000 possible co-evolutionary combinations, there may be just 1 that appears to have made it but that is logically virtually impossible because of the reasons that I mentioned.
>>>>>> And to address the example you used, what is more likely: the 100+ traits necessary for functional wings to all appear in a single individual, or two complementary traits to appear in geographic proximity? <<<<<<
Mere "geographical proximity" is often not enough -- those two complementary traits often must appear at the exact same time at the exact same place.
Also, why do you assume that the individual complementary traits are always simple? Though I said that co-evolution can be a problem for evolution even where the individual complementary traits do not give the appearance of intelligent design or irreducible complexity, those traits could individually give the appearance of ID or IC.
Also, wings can evolve gradually, and partially developed wings can confer an advantage in natural selection because the air is always present everywhere. However, in co-evolution, even individual gradual changes may require a corresponding local change in the other organism in order to confer an advantage in natural selection.
PART 2 of 2 of reply to Anonymous. I am limited to 4,096 characters per comment.
Anonymous wrote (Monday, January 04, 2010 1:51:00 PM), >>>>>Where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are immediately fatal when the corresponding trait in the other organism is locally absent, co-evolution is virtually impossible.
This is a form of begging the question. How often are co-dependent traits truly fatal when the complementary trait is absent, as opposed to being merely non-functional? <<<<<<
"How often"? It only needs to happen once in order to be often enough to blow a big hole in evolution theory.
And the problem is not just that they could be fatal when the complementary trait is absent -- there is also the problem that they at most confer no benefit in natural selection when the complementary trait is absent.
>>>>>>This is a problem for evolution even where the none of the co-dependent traits involved are irreducibly complex or give the appearance of being designed.
Why? You have never given any justification for this claim. <<<<<<<
As I said a zillion times, it is a problem because often the corresponding mutations in the two organisms must occur -- or at least exist -- at the exact same time and place. This can be a problem even for simple mutations.
>>>>>> Co-evolution is also a big problem where there the parasite has a life cycle with multiple hosts.
Why would it be any more of a problem than single-host parasitism? Why is going from 1 to 2 hosts more difficult than going from 0 to 1 host? <<<<<<
It may require jumping from 0 hosts directly to 2 -- or more -- hosts. It is often not just a case of finding another host that serves the same function -- some multiple-host parasitisms consist of complex sequential life cycles.
>>>>>>Also, co-evolution shows some of the best examples of complex design -- for example, some parasites invade the nervous system of the host and don't just kill or paralyze the host but make dramatic changes in the host's behavior, and some species of orchid attract male pollinating wasps by exactly simulating the sex pheromones of female wasps.
Why is this a problem for evolution? <<<<<<<
If you don't see how this is a problem for evolution, then you are hopeless.
You Darwinists often accuse Darwin-skeptics of making "arguments from incredulity." However, many of your arguments here are merely "arguments from incredulity" -- you are incredulous at the idea that it is possible to make reasonable criticisms of evolution theory.
Last said,
>>>>>> "Evidence against evolution"
Go on then. Name it. Something that is actually disproof of evolution, not some old creationist canard. If there was 'a lot' then evolution would have been abandoned- it takes just one disproof to destroy a theory. <<<<<<
There are a lot of uncertainties in science. For example, DNA testing labs often report that there is one chance in several billion that two DNA samples that appear to be from the same person actually came from two unrelated people. We should not avoid discussing scientific ideas just because they cannot be proven with absolute certainty -- evolution theory itself would fall into that category.
>>>>> (Oh and so I don't inflame anyone, I have no idea why my online nickname has been shortened to 'Last') <<<<<<
I didn't do it.
Postscript to my comment of Monday, January 04, 2010 11:36:00 PM -- I said,
Though I said that co-evolution can be a problem for evolution even where the individual complementary traits do not give the appearance of intelligent design or irreducible complexity, those traits could individually give the appearance of ID or IC.
I should have added that the problems of co-evolution and irreducible complexity are compounded in such cases.
While some ID proponents are creationists, some other ID proponents think that humans descended from ancient, ape-like ancestors; and that all life descended from a single-celled common ancestor.
In his book The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe argues at some length that apes and humans share a common ancestor, and that all life descended from a one-celled ancestor. So where do these Darwinists get the notion that all ID proponents are creationists? From PZ? Let them do some reading, if they can read.
ID basically deals with the question of whether mindless Darwinist evolution of all life happened, or whether there is evidence of intelligent involvement in the origin of species. Intelligent involvement might take the form of special creation, or the form of a sort of "evolution" in which intelligence played a detectable role. And any such intelligence cannot be shown to be supernatural, although many might believe that it is supernatural.
Quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff is another ID proponent who believes in "intelligent evolution." His favorable review of an ID book is available via a link on my blog, Intelligent Force.
Darwinism-proponents constantly confuse the question of whether or not species arose by a completely mindless, mechanical, Darwinist process, with the entirely different question of whether or not new species have arisen from older, different ones. There is no way to talk to them, because they've been heavily indoctrinated in the phony line that ID is necessarily creationism: that it's "intelligent design creationism," etc.
> Darwinism-proponents constantly confuse the question of whether or not species arose by a completely mindless, mechanical, Darwinist process, <
Creationists fail to notice that when they state the problem this way they are implying that the opposite is that there is a "mind" controlling the process. They are admitting that ID necessitates a "designer".
>...with the entirely different question of whether or not new species have arisen from older, different ones. <
Supporters of evolution do believe that new species have arisen from older, different ones. Most creationists do not. Unfortunately it is impossible to talk to them.
tricsbar said,
>>>>>> Darwinism-proponents constantly confuse the question of whether or not species arose by a completely mindless, mechanical, Darwinist process, <
Creationists fail to notice that when they state the problem this way they are implying that the opposite is that there is a "mind" controlling the process. They are admitting that ID necessitates a "designer". <<<<<<
But the problem does not have to stated in exactly that way. As I said, ID can be defined as the study of the extent to which living things have the appearance of being designed, or could be defined as the study of the probability that all living things could have arisen solely from natural genetic variation and natural selection. The term "ID" can be considered to be an idiom, i.e., a term that does not mean exactly what it appears to literally mean.
>>>>>> Supporters of evolution do believe that new species have arisen from older, different ones. <<<<<<
Prominent ID proponent Michael Behe also believes this -- he believes in common descent.
>>>>>> Most creationists do not. Unfortunately it is impossible to talk to them. <<<<<<<
It is also impossible to talk to dogmatic Darwinists. Dogmatic Darwinism is also a "science-stopper." For example, I learned a lot about co-evolution and interspecies relationships by being open to the idea that co-evolution is a big problem for evolution theory -- but dogmatic Darwinists assume that co-evolution is not a problem at all for evolution theory, and as a result have no desire to further investigate co-evolution or interspecies relationships.
I consider Judge "Jackass" Jones to be a much bigger current threat to freedom of expression and thought than Adolf Hitler. Jones showed extreme prejudice against ID and the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept -- by saying that his Kitzmiller decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the Constitution's establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He has charged that people who criticize judicial decisions have no respect for "judicial independence," "precedent," and "the rule of law."
Larry's definition of ID is attractive, in some ways. But if some ID proponent does hold that there is evidence of a mind or minds involved in the origin of species, that still in no way requires creationism, by any customary and sane definition of creationism. Darwin-fans have to learn that they are not the ones who decide what words mean. Therefore they shouldn't attempt to redefine creationism, in an apparently devious effort to mislead and dupe the public.
Words are properly defined by general literate usage, not by the arbitrary chatter of PZ or of some group of one-sided zealots for a particular doctrine. Much of this Darwin-fan talk is ludicrous. Fred Hoyle, for instance, proposed that "a cosmic intelligence that emerged naturally in the Universe" may have been involved in the origin of species. Apparently the parrots of PZ would have to regard Hoyle as a creationist, although he always made it clear that he didn't believe in anything supernatural.
Creationism in biology, to the literate, has always properly meant the doctrine that all species (or at least humans) were specially created: that is, created without any lower ancestors. Words are defined by how they are used by educated people in general; they can't be arbitrarily re-defined by the Darwin-fans, to further their own aims. These Darwin-zealots apparently hope to dupe the public into thinking that intelligent design requires special creation of humans and probably of all higher life. ID is a far broader and more inclusive view than is any such doctrine of special creation. Hence it can attract the support of those who favor some type of "evolution" in the wider sense of descent of new species from old, but with some intelligent involvement. And it can also attract the support of those who believe in creationism, i.e., in special creation. That's one thing that bothers the Darwinists: they hope that by falsely claiming that "ID is creationism," they can narrow the potential base of support for ID, destroy its "big tent."
And creationism, i.e., special creation, evidently requires an omniscient and omnipotent creator. Hence it's an essentially theistic, religious doctrine. Darwinists are at least smart enough to know that if they can falsely convince clueless judges etc. that "ID is creationism," any mention of ID in public schools will probably be banned as un-Constitutional.
ID, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily require anything supernatural. If a mind or minds is seen as involved, that involvement might have been during a long process of descent of new species from old. And most ID proponents believe that chance and natural selection also played a part. Behe, in fact, attaches a considerable role to chance and natural selection. Yet Darwinists ludicrously try to call him a creationist.
While Darwin-fans strive mightily to claim that I'm a "creationist," actually I don't even have any particular belief in a Creator-God: or in anything omnipotent, omniscient, or "superior to nature." I'm not a materialist, but otherwise my "religious" views, if such they may be called, are fairly undefined. So by what flight of muddled Darwin-fan thinking could I be called a "creationist?"
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> Larry's definition of ID is attractive, in some ways. <<<<<<
I like my definition because:
(1) It is the broadest -- it even covers young-earth creationism.
(2) It nixes Judge Jones ruling -- in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- that ID cannot "uncouple" itself from creationism.
>>>>>> That's one thing that bothers the Darwinists: they hope that by falsely claiming that "ID is creationism," they can narrow the potential base of support for ID, destroy its "big tent." <<<<<<
If there are any two things that cannot be "uncoupled," they are Darwinists and their use of the term "intelligent design creationism." Here a Darwinist uses the term in the title of a Panda's Thumb article: "An Atheist Defends Intelligent-Design Creationism." When Darwinists use the term "IDC," I wonder what other kind(s) of ID they are trying to distinguish IDC from.
>>>>>> Darwinists are at least smart enough to know that if they can falsely convince clueless judges etc. that "ID is creationism," any mention of ID in public schools will probably be banned as un-Constitutional. <<<<<<
Judge "Jackass" Jones is nothing if not clueless.
You may be using s different meaning for problem than people are assuming. Do you agree with the following statement Larry?
Orbital mechanics are a problem for physics because some orbits might be impossible.
square-foot said...
>>>>>> Do you agree with the following statement Larry?
Orbital mechanics are a problem for physics because some orbits might be impossible. <<<<<<
Your statement is ambiguous -- do you mean that the validity of the science of orbital mechanics is a problem for physics, or do you mean that achieving some orbits could be a problem because they might be impossible?
Your statements about coevolution suffer from the same ambiguity. I was trying to figure this out.
>>>>>> Your statements about coevolution suffer from the same ambiguity. <<<<<<
How so? Saying that coevolution is difficult or even virtually impossible says nothing about whether the science behind evolution theory in general is wrong or bad. In fact, I have even used some elements of evolution theory -- e.g., natural selection -- in developing my ideas about coevolution. For example, I state that a codependent trait confers no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding trait in the other organism is locally absent.
Okay let's rephrase that.
Orbital mechanics is a problem for physics because trapezoidal (or whatever shape) orbits are virtually impossible.
"you are saying that I made no statement at all about how or why co-evolution is a problem for evolution -- you are not saying that I made such a statement (or statements) that you disagree with."
That is exactly what I was saying.
"If there is nothing to adapt to, then the mutation confers no advantage in natural selection and may actually be harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism."
Agreed, with slight reservation. Please explain why this is a problem for evolution. Are you unfamiliar with the vast amount of literature detailing how neutral and even harmful mutations can become fixed?
"Or for every 1000 possible co-evolutionary combinations, there may be just 1 that appears to have made it but that is logically virtually impossible because of the reasons that I mentioned."
Is there any reason to believe there is? I note that you have failed to mention any logic behind why coevolution should be virtually impossible, merely assertions that this is the case.
"Mere "geographical proximity" is often not enough -- those two complementary traits often must appear at the exact same time at the exact same place."
How about geo-temporal proximity then? How exact is "exact?" Why "must" they appear in such an "exact" manner? How often is "often" - and what is your source for this claim?
"Also, why do you assume that the individual complementary traits are always simple?"
I didn't. I simply assumed that they could be simple. Do you have any evidence to gainsay that?
"Also, wings can evolve gradually, and partially developed wings can confer an advantage in natural selection because the air is always present everywhere. However, in co-evolution, even individual gradual changes may require a corresponding local change in the other organism in order to confer an advantage in natural selection."
Thank you for conceding the point on gradualism. But why should gradualism be constrained to simultaneous changes? Couldn't there be alternating changes? If the two species alternated changes, the complementary trait would always be present. Also, see neutral theory.
""How often"? It only needs to happen once in order to be often enough to blow a big hole in evolution theory."
Why? You assert that it is virtually impossible, but never explain why. Nor do you offer any evidence that it has happened even once.
"And the problem is not just that they could be fatal when the complementary trait is absent -- there is also the problem that they at most confer no benefit in natural selection when the complementary trait is absent."
Why. Is. This. A. Problem?
"As I said a zillion times, it is a problem because often the corresponding mutations in the two organisms must occur -- or at least exist -- at the exact same time and place. This can be a problem even for simple mutations."
And this is a problem... why, exactly?
"It may require jumping from 0 hosts directly to 2 -- or more -- hosts."
Why should it require jumping directly to 2 or more? Also, I don't see why it couldn't happen that way, though I would expect it to be a rather rare occurrence.
"It is often not just a case of finding another host that serves the same function -- some multiple-host parasitisms consist of complex sequential life cycles."
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said. Why should complexity be a problem for evolution?
"If you don't see how this is a problem for evolution, then you are hopeless."
Um, when you have been accused of not defending your positions and making personal attacks on the opposition, refusing to defend you position and making personal attacks on the opposition confirms the accusation. Want a mulligan on that response?
square-foot, Larry's logic would go like this:
Since there might exist an orbit that (he thinks) orbital mechanics could not explain, orbital mechanics is a problem for physics. He doesn't require any evidence that such an orbit actually exists, just that he could conceive of such a thing. In Larry's mind, the idea that something might happen means it must happen.
Last said,
>>>>>> "Evidence against evolution"
Go on then. Name it. Something that is actually disproof of evolution, not some old creationist canard. If there was 'a lot' then evolution would have been abandoned- it takes just one disproof to destroy a theory. <<<<<<
There are a lot of uncertainties in science. For example, DNA testing labs often report that there is one chance in several billion that two DNA samples that appear to be from the same person actually came from two unrelated people. We should not avoid discussing scientific ideas just because they cannot be proven with absolute certainty -- evolution theory itself would fall into that category.
Actually, all science would fall into that category. In fact, uncertainty is the main driving force for science. But thank you for conceding the point. Now, could you answer the question? Here it is again, rephrased:
"(You claim there is) evidence against evolution. Go on then. Name it. Something that is actually disproof of evolution"
Since there is no reason to think that Darwinism is true, I can't waste my time trying to reason with Darwinist fanatics who think that they can redefine words such as "creationism" to suit their own biased aims, and then somehow get the literate to accept their ridiculous claim that they are the ones who define words. I have a blog, Intelligent Force, which exists mainly to provide links which people can use, when they want to use their own heads about this controversy. There's a link to quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff concluding that ID is correct, to Dawkins advocating cloning a pathetic human/chimp intermediate, and many others. Remember the Buddha's advice: "Use your own head."
Anonymous-
Yeah it looks like Larry is proposing falsification criterion and then claiming it as a problem. But I wanted to be sure.
That last comment was from me. Stupid smarrphome is hard to ttpe on. As you can see.
I composed this a while ago but forgot to post it.
I again must split the comment into two parts because of the 4,096 character limitation.
PART 1 OF 2
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> "you are saying that I made no statement at all about how or why co-evolution is a problem for evolution -- you are not saying that I made such a statement (or statements) that you disagree with."
That is exactly what I was saying. <<<<<<<
WHAT is "exactly" what you were saying? That I made no statement at all about how or why co-evolution is a problem for evolution? Or that I made such a statement (or statements) that you disagreed with? If the former, you are lying about what I said before. If the latter, you are lying about what you said before. Either way, you are lying.
>>>>>>"If there is nothing to adapt to, then the mutation confers no advantage in natural selection and may actually be harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism."
Agreed, with slight reservation. Please explain why this is a problem for evolution. Are you unfamiliar with the vast amount of literature detailing how neutral and even harmful mutations can become fixed? <<<<<<
You appear to be contradicting yourself here -- you agree (with slight reservation) with my explanation of why this is a problem for evolution, and then ask me to explain why this is a problem for evolution, which I just did!
As for how neutral and even harmful mutations can become fixed -- yes, they can become fixed through inheritance if they are not fatal, but because they confer no benefit in natural selection, they do not tend to spread rapidly. Natural selection is supposed to be the big driving force behind gradual evolution of beneficial mutations -- natural selection causes a beneficial mutation to spread rapidly, setting the stage for the next step in evolution. But when the corresponding codependent trait is absent in other organisms, a codependent trait will produce no benefit and hence will not tend to spread rapidly.
>>>>>>"Or for every 1000 possible co-evolutionary combinations, there may be just 1 that appears to have made it but that is logically virtually impossible because of the reasons that I mentioned."
Is there any reason to believe there is? <<<<<<<
Is there any reason to believe there isn't?
>>>>> I note that you have failed to mention any logic behind why coevolution should be virtually impossible <<<<<<
Wrong -- I mentioned a lot of such logic.
>>>>>"Mere "geographical proximity" is often not enough -- those two complementary traits often must appear at the exact same time at the exact same place."
How about geo-temporal proximity then? How exact is "exact?" Why "must" they appear in such an "exact" manner? How often is "often" - and what is your source for this claim? <<<<<<<
Sheeesh -- you are really getting desperate. In order for codependent traits to interact, those traits must exist at the exact same time and place. Duh.
>>>>>> "Also, why do you assume that the individual complementary traits are always simple?"
I didn't. I simply assumed that they could be simple. <<<<<<<
But they could also be -- and often are -- very complex, and when they are, the problems of intelligent design (or irreducible complexity) and co-evolution are compounded.
PART 2 OF 2
>>>>>"Also, wings can evolve gradually, and partially developed wings can confer an advantage in natural selection because the air is always present everywhere. However, in co-evolution, even individual gradual changes may require a corresponding local change in the other organism in order to confer an advantage in natural selection."
Thank you for conceding the point on gradualism. <<<<<<<
I conceded it mainly for the sake of argument.
>>>>>> But why should gradualism be constrained to simultaneous changes? Couldn't there be alternating changes? If the two species alternated changes, the complementary trait would always be present. <<<<<<
The alternating changes are likely to be geographically isolated from each other because they do not tend to spread rapidly because they confer no benefit when in isolation. How are you going to get all the beneficial mutations into individual organisms if all the mutations are isolated and scattered all over the place? We are back to the idea that natural selection is the main driving force in gradual evolution -- the natural selection tends to cause beneficial changes to spread rapidly, setting the stage for the next step in evolution.
>>>>>>"It may require jumping from 0 hosts directly to 2 -- or more -- hosts."
Why should it require jumping directly to 2 or more? Also, I don't see why it couldn't happen that way, though I would expect it to be a rather rare occurrence. <<<<<<<
As I said, it is not just a matter of adding another host that serves the same function -- it is a matter of creating an irreducibly complex sequential life cycle involving two or more hosts.
>>>>>> I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said. Why should complexity be a problem for evolution? <<<<<<
Why shouldn't it be a problem for evolution?
>>>>>> Um, when you have been accused of not defending your positions and making personal attacks on the opposition, refusing to defend you position and making personal attacks on the opposition confirms the accusation. <<<<<<
Wrong, bozo -- some things are so obvious that they do not need to defended.
Here is something for you to defend -- the Florida Citizens for Science blog's ban on my ideas about coevolution.
>>>>>> "(You claim there is) evidence against evolution. Go on then. Name it. Something that is actually disproof of evolution" <<<<<<
After you name something that is actually proof of evolution.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>>square-foot, Larry's logic would go like this:
Since there might exist an orbit that (he thinks) orbital mechanics could not explain, orbital mechanics is a problem for physics. <<<<<<<
What do you mean, "he thinks," doofus? I never said or implied any such thing. You are putting words in my mouth, jerko.
>>>>>> In Larry's mind, the idea that something might happen means it must happen. <<<<<<
And I suppose that because evolution might happen, then it must happen.
square-foot said,
>>>>> Orbital mechanics is a problem for physics because trapezoidal (or whatever shape) orbits are virtually impossible. <<<<<<
WHAAAT ? ? ? ? ?
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Yeah it looks like Larry is proposing falsification criterion and then claiming it as a problem. <<<<<<
WHAT "falsification criterion"? You need to be more specific.
square-foot said,
>>>>>> That last comment was from me. <<<<<<
What was the "last comment"? Because I am using comment moderation, the comments here are not necessarily in chronological order.
> Because I am using comment moderation, the comments here are not necessarily in chronological order. <
Yet another reason you should drop your arbitrary censorship.
>>>>> Yet another reason you should drop your arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<<
My censorship is not "arbitrary," and here are some good reasons why I should not drop it:
(1) Comments that gossip about my private affairs
(2) Comments that lie about objective facts. For example, some lousy, disgusting dunghill troll was cluttering up this blog with comments insisting that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. The sole purpose of this lie was to dodge the question of whether Jones improperly gave implicit legal advice to the board by essentially telling them that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good.
Cenat said...
>Yet another reason you should drop your arbitrary censorship.<
Larry said...
> My censorship is not "arbitrary," and here are some good reasons why I should not drop it:... <
But you yourself constantly lie about objective facts and the example you cite is not a lie about an objective fact. It is just a difference in interpretation and your "intrepation" looks nothing like a fact.
Mostly you seem just to censor things you disagree with like this post.
> some lousy, disgusting dunghill troll was cluttering up this blog with comments insisting that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <
In other words, he would follow the law which does not allow him to consider the school board election results in his decision.
> The sole purpose <
An assumption on your part. Apparently an unfounded one.
> whether Jones improperly gave implicit legal advice to the board by essentially telling them that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. <
Certainly not giving legal advice. Whether or not they repealed the ID policy is not a legal decision on their part.
>>>>>> some lousy, disgusting dunghill troll was cluttering up this blog with comments insisting that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law whereas he actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <
In other words, he would follow the law which does not allow him to consider the school board election results in his decision. <<<<<<
Are you a lawyer? Where does the law (statutory law, case law, common law, etc.) say that?
And it was not just a matter of the school board election results -- there was also the question of how he would respond if the school board repealed the ID policy prior to judgment. Such repeal was considered to be a strong possibility because the new board members had campaigned against the ID policy and the potential costs of the lawsuit.
Also, the troll refused to acknowledge what Judge Jones actually, literally told the newspaper: that the election results would not affect his decision. The issue was what Judge Jones actually, literally told the newspaper, not what some people think he implied or suggested. It's like me claiming that Judge Jones actually, literally told the newspaper that the school board should not bother repealing the ID policy prior to judgment because it would not do them any good. I never made such a claim -- I only claimed that that is what he implied or suggested.
Also, it is not a question of whether or not the implicit legal advice that I allege he gave them was "good" advice -- judges are not supposed to give any legal advice at all.
>>>>>> The sole purpose <
An assumption on your part. Apparently an unfounded one. <<<<<<
An assumption? Unfounded? What Jones actually told the newspaper is the basis of my claim that he improperly gave implicit legal advice to the board. The easiest way to duck that claim is to refuse to acknowledge what he actually told the newspaper.
And can you think of another purpose for refusing to acknowledge what Jones actually told the newspaper?
>>>>>> Certainly not giving legal advice. Whether or not they repealed the ID policy is not a legal decision on their part. <<<<<<<
What? A decision to repeal something that is the cause of action in a lawsuit is not a "legal decision"?
You might have something of a point if they decided to repeal the decision on strictly scientific grounds. But there was also the question of a possible award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. And one of the board members said that she wanted to see what the judge decided. Legal matters definitely entered into the decision.
Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>> But you yourself constantly lie about objective facts and the example you cite is not a lie about an objective fact. It is just a difference in interpretation and your "intrepation" looks nothing like a fact. <<<<<<
Make up your mind, bozo: is the statement that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to "follow the law" an "interpretation" or is it a statement of "objective fact"?
> Are you a lawyer? <
This seems a little hypocritical as you are always claiming to be a "legal genius" while demonstrating no knowledge of the law.
> it is not a question of whether or not the implicit legal advice that I allege he gave them was "good" advice -- judges are not supposed to give any legal advice at all. <
Perhaps that is why he did not. You at least admit that the implicit legal advice was alleged not necessarily factual. Indeed it was not factual.
What? A decision to repeal something that is the cause of action in a lawsuit is not a "legal decision"?
> Legal matters definitely entered into the decision. <
The health of a horse or jockey no doubt enters into a decision on which horse to bet on but that doesn't make it a health decision.
> is the statement that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to "follow the law" an "interpretation" or is it a statement of "objective fact"? <
Make up your mind here. You are claiming that you censored it because it was "a statement of objective fact" and then that that "fact" was not true. If it was an interpretation, you violated your own claimed rules for censorship.
Your claim that Jones gave legal advice is an interpretation. It is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination.
> I only claimed that that is what he implied or suggested. <
Which is of course absurd.
>>>>>> I only claimed that that is what he implied or suggested. <
Which is of course absurd. <<<<<<
Anonymous, I said that comments containing nothing but scoffing (unless extremely clever) will no longer be posted here. I have already explained why my interpretation of Judge Jones' statement is not only reasonable but is also fairly obvious and even necessary. If you want your comments to be posted here, you will need to address my arguments.
Question for trolls:
If Judge Jones believed that it would have been proper to dismiss the case and deny attorney fees if the board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, should he have said so when he was asked if the board election results would affect his decision?
> If Judge Jones believed that it would have been proper to dismiss the case and deny attorney fees if the board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, should he have said so when he was asked if the board election results would affect his decision? <
Why should he? The issue was whether the election results would affect his decision. He answered that quite clearly.
If he had said that it would have been proper to dismiss the case and deny attorney fees if the board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, that would mean that the election results could affect his decision.
I have family near Dover. They sometimes taped the news for me and played it over the phone. The day after the elections Jones was asked how the election of a school board hostile to ID would affect his decision. He said that h
e couldn't consider news reports or election results, but he would consider anything submitted to tjw official record. So Jones did say he was following the law and also said that the new board might be able to affect his decision.
Romett said,
>>>>>>If he had said that it would have been proper to dismiss the case and deny attorney fees if the board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, that would mean that the election results could affect his decision. <<<<<<
Exactly -- so his statement that the election results would not affect his decision implied that he would not dismiss the case and deny attorney fees if the board repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, so that statement improperly gave implicit legal advice to the board. Duh. Judges are not supposed to give legal advice to litigants, whether that legal advice is good or bad.
square-foot said...
>>>>>> I have family near Dover. They sometimes taped the news for me and played it over the phone. The day after the elections Jones was asked how the election of a school board hostile to ID would affect his decision. He said that he couldn't consider news reports or election results, but he would consider anything submitted to tjw official record. So Jones did say he was following the law and also said that the new board might be able to affect his decision. <<<<<<<
Well; that's different. A board repeal of the ID policy would be submitted to the official record, and he gave no promises as to how he would respond. That's good. But a Daily News newspaper article -- not a news tape -- only said that he told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision -- the article had no statement about responding to things submitted to the official record. No one else who has defended Judge Jones on this issue has claimed that the Daily News quoted or paraphrased Jones out of context. Fatheaded Ed Brayton went so far as to claim that Jones expressly said that repealing the ID policy prior to judgement would not do the board any good.
>>>>>> So Jones did say he was following the law <<<<<<
There is no record of Jones expressly saying here that he would follow the law. And why would he say otherwise?
> so that statement improperly gave implicit legal advice to the board. <
False as always.
Saying that he would not consider their actions is not in any way giving legal advice. Repeating this unsubstantiated statement does not make it any more true.
Anonymous barfed,
>>>>> Saying that he would not consider their actions is not in any way giving legal advice. <<<<<<<
It's legal advice, you stupid dunghill. The term "advice" often connotes a recommended course of action, but can also mean just "information" or "notice." For example, hypothetically, Jones could tell the board, "I am advising you that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment will not affect my decision." If he wanted to give more complete advice, he could say, "you could repeal the ID policy prior to judgment and hope that appeals courts overrule me," or, "you could hope that I am disqualified or censured for making a ruling before hearing all the arguments."
Also, why should I publish your stupid comments when I am accused of censorship even when I don't censor?
> It's legal advice <
Repetition is not argument.
> you stupid dunghill. <
Your insults just call attention to you inability to support your point. If you were to drop them you would not be as much of a joke on the blogs.
> The term "advice" often connotes a recommended course of action, but can also mean just "information" or "notice." <
Again your attempt to redefine words when you are losing.
> For example, hypothetically, Jones could tell the board ... <
But he didn't. That would be giving them legal advice.
> Also, why should I publish your stupid comments when I am accused of censorship even when I don't censor? <
If you don't want to be accused of censorship, stop censoring as you will do with this post.
Well; that's different. A board repeal of the ID policy would be submitted to the official record, and he gave no promises as to how he would respond. That's good. But a Daily News newspaper article -- not a news tape -- only said that he told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision -- the article had no statement about responding to things submitted to the official record.
Wow, imagine that. I pointed this out months ago, when I cited the newspaper's original story.
No one else who has defended Judge Jones on this issue has claimed that the Daily News quoted or paraphrased Jones out of context.
Whaaaaaaaaaat!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????? You lying sack of shit, I pointed this out months ago.
Here it is:
Friday, October 23, 2009 12:36:00 PM
And while I was looking for that, I found someone who pointed that out (twice!) way back in the middle of 2008!
W. Kevin Vicklund on
Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:02:00 AM
and again on
Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:50:00 PM
I know Larry has kicked me off his blog* but I thought that he might want to know that the 9th Circuit has reached a decision on ACSI v. Stearns.
*Larry says that kicking me off his blog is not the same as banning me
By the way, Larry is "(l)ying about objective facts." He claims the following:
>>>No one else who has defended Judge Jones on this issue has claimed that the Daily News quoted or paraphrased Jones out of context.<<<
On May 6, 2008, I wrote the following in the Fatheaded Ed Brayton's Untrustworthiness thread:
>>>Yes, the article does give the false implication that Ed, Larry, myself, and a bunch of commenters at Panda's Thumb read into it. Because it was so poorly constructed, it took me a few reads to realize that Jones had not in fact made the implication. Had the newspaper included more of the comments made by Jones in the final print edition of the article, it would have been more clear what he was saying. Fortunately, someone preserved part of the original "breaking news" article that first appeared on the YDR website, before it was edited to the print edition that Larry is quoting from. It can be found at the end of the comments of the thread I linked to above:
>>>He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial.<<<<<<
I followed this up on July 6, 2008 on the My Unchanged Opinion of the cit+ E. coli Study thread with the following:
>>>The problem is, the quote in question appears to be an editor's paraphrase of a reporter's paraphrase of what Jones actually said. On November 14, 2005, the York Daily Record had a "breaking news" story on its website. The relevant sentence originally read:
He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial.
The next day, the print and online version had been edited to read the following:
Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling.<<<
Larry is clearly lying when he says that no one has claimed that Jones was paraphrased out of context.
But that is not the only instance in this thread where Larry is "(l)ying about objective facts." He said:
>>>...what Judge Jones actually, literally told the newspaper: that the election results would not affect his decision.<<<
It is improper to say that Jones literally told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision. For one thing, it is not in quotes. But more importantly, the newspaper didn't actually use those words. It is therefore Larry's interpretation that what the newspaper wrote meant that the results wouldn't affect his decision. What the paper actually reported Jones as saying was that the results don't figure into his decision.
Larry's interpretation requires that Jones used future tense: would not. But Jones used present tense: do not. Therefore, Jones was talking about the situation as it currently existed, not future possibilities. In order to accept Larry's interpretation, we have to assume that either Jones misspoke or the paper misreported what he said.
Hopefully, now that several people have pointed out a more accurate version of what Jones said, Larry will discontinue this line of argument.
You despicable Darwinist dunghills drive people so crazy by endless repetition of frivolous, heckling arguments that any good arguments that you make are lost or forgotten. Here have been some of your arguments:
(1) -- Jones only told the newspaper that he was "going to follow the law."
(2) -- the lone statement that the election results would not affect his decision could not possibly be interpreted as meaning that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision
(3) -- If Judge Jones expressly told the board that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision, that would not be giving them legal advice
Also, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) [link], where the courts dismissed the lawsuit and denied attorney fees in a case of voluntary cessation by the government.
Then after your repetitive frivolous arguments have driven people crazy to the point where they can't recognize their own grandmas, then you call them "lying sacks of shit" for forgetting the few good arguments that you Darwinists made.
And look at some of the stupid statements that Fatheaded Ed Brayton has made -- but he always looks good because he censors anyone who criticizes him.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>Closest I've been able to find to his actual words is the following:
He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial. <<<<<<<<
Well, even that statement is a little ambiguous -- do the words "has been" refer to the time preceding his statement to the newspaper, or to the time preceding the decision? Anyway, I am getting a little nitpicking here, and I won't belabor the point. But I will belabor the point that you lousy, disgusting trolls have been cluttering up the discussion with frivolous arguments that obscure the serious arguments.
BTW, I said "Daily News" where I should have said "Daily Record" -- that's the York Daily Record.
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>> the 9th Circuit has reached a decision on ACSI v. Stearns. <<<<<<<
Yes, I read about that on Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog and on the website of the National Center for Science Education. I have a post-label group with several articles about the case. I will write a new article with some more comments.
> but he always looks good because he censors anyone who criticizes him. <
That seems inconsistent. You always look bad because you censor anyone who criticizes you. Why would it work differently with Ed?
>>>>>> Why would it work differently with Ed? <<<<<<<
-- because his supporters approve his practice of arbitrary censorship, doofus.
"so there is no record of Jones expressly saying here that he would follow the law. And why would he say otherwise?"
When you tell someone that you are doing something because the law says you have to do it that way you are telling them you are going to follow the law.
I see that you have cut back a small amount on your arbitrary censorship. This makes you look a little less like a dunghill. Of course you are still censoring stuff you can't answer and braying insults at your opposition.
Have you disbanded your "Non-Censoring Bloggers" yet. There are no practicing members.
>>>>> When you tell someone that you are doing something because the law says you have to do it that way you are telling them you are going to follow the law. <<<<<<
You still don't get it, you stupid dunghill. The reason for endlessly repeating that Judge Jones said that he was "going to follow the law" was to duck my charge that he improperly gave the board implicit legal advice.
>>>>> I see that you have cut back a small amount on your arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<
Why don't you lousy trolls go heckle the really big Internet censors, e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Panda's Thumb?
> The reason for endlessly repeating that Judge Jones said that he was "going to follow the law" was to duck my charge that he improperly gave the board implicit legal advice. <
You still don't get it. No matter how endlessly you charge that he gave the board implicit legal advice it does not make it so.
> Why don't you lousy trolls go heckle the really big Internet censors, e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Panda's Thumb? <
Because you have given no example, nor have you seen, where any of them censored arbitrarily. It doesn't seem like any of them threw you off without cause and often it was after a great deal of warning. Your claim that it was because they couldn't answer your questions doesn't hold water.
>>>>> No matter how endlessly you charge that he gave the board implicit legal advice it does not make it so. <<<<<<<<
No matter how endlessly I charge that he gave the board implicit legal advice does not make it not so, bozo. And endlessly repeating that Judge Jones only said that he was "going to follow the law" doesn't mean that he did not give the board implicit legal advice.
Your above statement is just one of your mindless stock arguments. You have no originality.
>>>>>> Because you have given no example, nor have you seen, where any of them censored arbitrarily. <<<<<<
Wrong, you lying dunghill, I have given lots of examples. And in the end, it doesn't matter, because there is no excuse for permanently banning any commenter -- All comments should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If I permanently banned commenters, are lot of comments from you lousy trolls would not appear here.
> And in the end, it doesn't matter, because there is no excuse for permanently banning any commenter <
Then why did you ban me?
>>>>>>> And in the end, it doesn't matter, because there is no excuse for permanently banning any commenter <
Then why did you ban me? <<<<<<<<
You are not permanently banned, ViW. If you submit a comment that does not violate the rules, it will be published. However, in contrast, I am permanently banned on a lot of blogs -- my comments are not published whether or not I violate any rules.
> You are not permanently banned, ViW. If you submit a comment that does not violate the rules, it will be published. <
You mean if he/she submits a comment that you can effectively answer. We will be waiting a long time.
> However, in contrast, I am permanently banned on a lot of blogs <
But you were initially banned for cause in these cases.
What a lame excuse. "someone said something stupid almost two years ago so I can't be expected to remember anything else anyone said." Please!
And then I started to wonder if Larry was remembering what was said correctly. So I looked at old threads. Guess what? Larry was lying about the "troll" ignoring what was in the newspaper. The person in question (viu) repeatedly referred to what was said in the article. Larry even quoted viu referring to the article when he accused him of ignoring the article!
And even Larry's claim that people are ignoring Buchanan is false. They aren't ignoring Buchanan, they are pointing out that Larry is ignoring the part that proves that the Dover case couldn't be mooted.
It seems that Larry is lying about just about everything. Why should anyone believe a word he says?
Okay, now that Larry has admitted that Judge Jones didn't give legal advice and the furor has died down, let's revisit a serious topic.
WHAT is "exactly" what you were saying?
Time to step back and clarify. The statements Larry has made lack vital logical and/or evidential components required to be considered an explanation for why co-evolution is a problem for evolution. For example:
in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
First, the use of "may" and "likely" render this argument to be so vague as to be meaningless. In particular, there is no quantification of the term "likely" nor is there any justification for its use. This is important, because the prefatory comment about pig wings seems to imply that there is no problem when traits are locally present. The second major failure is that there is no explanation of why "nothing to adapt to" is a problem for evolution. When this was pointed out, Larry followed up with:
If there is nothing to adapt to, then the mutation confers no advantage in natural selection and may actually be harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism.
But this is nothing more than restating the phrase "nothing to adapt to" in more explicit terms. Agreeing that "nothing to adapt to" means the same thing as "confer(ing) no advantage...(or) be(ing) harmful" does not mean that I accept that the statement identifies a problem for evolution. Larry fails to explain why "confer(ing) no advantage...(or) be(ing) harmful" is a problem for evolution. When it was pointed out that mechanisms exist by which neutral or deleterious traits can be fixed, Larry responded with:
As for how neutral and even harmful mutations can become fixed -- yes, they can become fixed through inheritance if they are not fatal, but because they confer no benefit in natural selection, they do not tend to spread rapidly. Natural selection is supposed to be the big driving force behind gradual evolution of beneficial mutations -- natural selection causes a beneficial mutation to spread rapidly, setting the stage for the next step in evolution. But when the corresponding codependent trait is absent in other organisms, a codependent trait will produce no benefit and hence will not tend to spread rapidly.
But again, Larry fails to connect this to explain why "spreading slowly" is a problem for evolution. If anything, it would seem to be a concession that there isn't a problem.
But they could also be -- and often are -- very complex, and when they are, the problems of intelligent design (or irreducible complexity) and co-evolution are compounded.
And note that Larry never explains why complexity or irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution. Not only has it been shown that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution, evolution generating irreplaceable complexity (which is definitionally identical to IC) was predicted 90 years ago and has been experimentally confirmed.
Let's cut to the chase. You see, the fundamental flaw in Larry's argument is that most of the time, the co-dependent traits that are the end product of co-evolution originate from precursor traits that were ubiquitous in the founding populations. The type of co-evolution Larry is talking about is rare in nature - which is exactly what we would expect. But Larry refuses to actually commit to backing up his claims with real data, because he doesn't have the data - and deep down he probably knows he's not going to find it.
Othui barfed,
>>>>>> You mean if he/she submits a comment that you can effectively answer. We will be waiting a long time. <<<<<<<
Look, you despicable disgusting dimwitted Darwinist dunghills, whether or not I think I can "effectively answer" your stupid comments is never a consideration, because I know that you will never consider any of my answers to be effective.
>>>>>> But you were initially banned for cause in these cases. <<<<<<
Sheeesh. Dunghill, as I said, it doesn't matter whether I gave "cause" for permanent banning or not, because permanently banning anyone can never be justified. Even someone who regularly submits unacceptable comments can occasionally submit an acceptable one.
square-foot barfed,
>>>>>> What a lame excuse. "someone said something stupid almost two years ago so I can't be expected to remember anything else anyone said." Please! <<<<<<
You disgusting Darwinist dunghill, it wasn't just "something stupid that someone said almost two years ago" -- it was something stupid that was repeated over and over and over again while ignoring the real issues.
>>>>> Larry was lying about the "troll" ignoring what was in the newspaper. The person in question (viu) repeatedly referred to what was said in the article. <<<<<<<
False, dunghill. And no one ever claimed that Judge Jones actually said here that he was "going to follow the law," in those words or similar words, as though someone were asking, proposing, or suggesting that he break the law. The whole statement that Jones said that he was going to follow the law was asinine, even if the troll later admitted (very, very ambiguously and very, very grudgingly) to what Judge Jones actually said and/or what the newspaper actually published.
Part 1 of 2-part response to Anonymous --
Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>> Okay, now that Larry has admitted that Judge Jones didn't give legal advice and the furor has died down, let's revisit a serious topic. <<<<<<<
Dunghill, unless you lousy trolls stop putting words in my mouth by saying that Larry admitted this and Larry admitted that, I am going to stop publishing your garbage. I never said that the newspaper report as published did not give implicit legal advice. Even supertroll Kevin Vicklund said (comment of Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:00:00 PM),
Yes, the article does give the false implication that Ed, Larry, myself, and a bunch of commenters at Panda's Thumb read into it. Because it was so poorly constructed, it took me a few reads to realize that Jones had not in fact made the implication. Had the newspaper included more of the comments made by Jones in the final print edition of the article, it would have been more clear what he was saying. Fortunately, someone preserved part of the original "breaking news" article that first appeared on the YDR website, before it was edited to the print edition that Larry is quoting from.
BTW, Kevin Vicklund also said, It is improper to say that Jones literally told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision. For one thing, it is not in quotes. OK, I should have said it was literally what the newspaper reported he said -- big deal. That does not excuse the jerk who kept repeating over and over again that Jones told the newspaper that he was "going to follow the law."
>>>>>>in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
First, the use of "may" and "likely" render this argument to be so vague as to be meaningless. <<<<<<<
Doofus, I couldn't say "certainly" because there is no certainty here -- but the lack of certainty does not necessarily make a statement vague or meaningless. Duh.
>>>>>>the prefatory comment about pig wings seems to imply that there is no problem when traits are locally present. <<<<<<
No, bozo, the example of pig wings was used to show that there is no problem when what the trait adapts to -- in this case, the atmosphere -- is always present. Sheeeesh.
>>>>>> Larry fails to explain why "confer(ing) no advantage...(or) be(ing) harmful" is a problem for evolution. <<<<<<
You don't understand the most basic principles of natural selection.
Part 2 of 2-part response to Anonymous
Anonymous said,
>>>>> But again, Larry fails to connect this to explain why "spreading slowly" is a problem for evolution. <<<<<<
Where the trait confers no advantage, it might not even spread at all. I did explain why it is a problem -- I said, in response to the suggestion of gradual coevolution by means of "alternating" adaptations in two different organisms,
The alternating changes are likely to be geographically isolated from each other because they do not tend to spread rapidly because they confer no benefit when in isolation. How are you going to get all the beneficial mutations into individual organisms if all the mutations are isolated and scattered all over the place? We are back to the idea that natural selection is the main driving force in gradual evolution -- the natural selection tends to cause beneficial changes to spread rapidly, setting the stage for the next step in evolution.
Furthermore, one beneficial coevolutionary mutation may be a prerequisite for another -- meaning that the first, prerequisite mutation would have to be widespread to make it likely that the second, dependent mutation would occur in an individual with the first mutation.
>>>>>> And note that Larry never explains why complexity or irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution. <<<<<<
I pointed out that I made no assumption that any coevolutionary trait is "irreducibly complex." I also pointed out that coevolution can be even more difficult when one or more of the traits is irreducibly complex.
>>>>>> the fundamental flaw in Larry's argument is that most of the time, the co-dependent traits that are the end product of co-evolution originate from precursor traits that were ubiquitous in the founding populations. <<<<<<
"Most of the time"? And you were criticizing me for saying "maybe" and "likely."
Anyway, coevolution has to work all of the time -- not just "most" of the time.
>>>>>> But Larry refuses to actually commit to backing up his claims with real data, because he doesn't have the data - and deep down he probably knows he's not going to find it.<<<<<<
Wrong -- I have used real data. And where is your data?
> That does not excuse the jerk who kept repeating over and over again that Jones told the newspaper that he was "going to follow the law." <
Would it not be following the law to not consider the election results? This seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Are you conceding that Judge Jones did not give the board legal advice? It is unclear in your last post.
>>>>>> Would it not be following the law to not consider the election results? This seems to be a distinction without a difference. <<<<<<<
It is following the law to not consider news reports about the election results. According to some commenters, Jones originally said that he would not consider such news reports but would only consider what was entered into the court records, and that statement is basically OK (just so long as Jones did not imply that he would consider only what had already been entered into the court records). But somehow some dumb newspaper writer twisted that statement around, saying that Jones said that the election results would not figure into his ruling, or something like that (one way the election results could conceivably affect the ruling would be by repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment). That could be interpreted as implicitly telling the school board that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. We need not debate whether that is good advice or bad advice, because judges are not supposed to give any kind of legal advice at all. As I noted, even supertroll Kevin Vicklund conceded, Yes, the article does give the false implication that Ed, Larry, myself, and a bunch of commenters at Panda's Thumb read into it. . . . . . . Had the newspaper included more of the comments made by Jones in the final print edition of the article, it would have been more clear what he was saying. Anyway, the jackass who kept repeating over and over again that Jones only said that he was "going to follow the law" contributed nothing to the discussion, and actually hurt the discussion by obscuring good arguments against my claim that Jones was guilty of improperly giving implicit legal advice.
I hope this clears things up -- it could be that the newspaper was to blame instead of Jones.
But you kept braying about your misinterpretaion as to what Judge Jones said about religion.
At least you came clean and admitted your error about Jones giving legal advice which of course would have been no different had the newspaper story been accurate.
> I hope this clears things up -- it could be that the newspaper was to blame instead of Jones. <
It looks like it would be more accurate for you to say that the newspaper was to blame instead of you. Had the newspaper's account been correct your interpretation was still wrong. Your failure to admit this decreases your credibility.
Owlburt barfed,
>>>>>>> I hope this clears things up -- it could be that the newspaper was to blame instead of Jones.
It looks like it would be more accurate for you to say that the newspaper was to blame instead of you. <<<<<<<
WHAT? Bozo, are you saying that Judge Jones is not a potential cause of interpretations of what he says? And what about all the people who gave the newspaper report the same interpretation that I did? Kevin Vicklund said, "Yes, the article does give the false implication that Ed, Larry, myself, and a bunch of commenters at Panda's Thumb read into it." What about all the people who said that the statement did give implicit legal advice but that that was OK because the advice was "good"? I singled out Judge Jones because he is the primary and most obvious cause of interpretations about what he says -- maybe I should have said that perhaps the newspaper was to blame instead of everyone or anyone else.
>>>>>> Had the newspaper's account been correct your interpretation was still wrong. <<<<<<
How so? I have pointed out many times that the most obvious potential consequence of the school board election results would be repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment -- in fact, repeal before judgment was debated at the board meetings. You have provided absolutely nothing in support of your above statement.
Troll Vasessi's comment does not deserve to be published -- I have published it here only as an example of the many trollish comments that I receive.
Vasessi barfed,
>>>>>>But you kept braying about your misinterpretaion as to what Judge Jones said about religion. <<<<<<
You mean my statement that Judge Jones said that his Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions? That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here, and never came up in discussions of the issue here.
>>>>>> At least you came clean and admitted your error about Jones giving legal advice which of course would have been no different had the newspaper story been accurate. <<<<<<
I never admitted error, you despicable dunghill -- I continued to contend that my interpretation of the newspaper story was correct.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> are you saying that Judge Jones is not a potential cause of interpretations of what he says? <
No, bozo. I am saying that Judge Jones is not a cause of misinterpretations of what he says. Your misinterpretations are a great example.
> And what about all the people... <
They will have to defend their own positions. Your only defense is to censor those who prove you wrong.
> I singled out Judge Jones because he is the primary and most obvious cause of interpretations about what he says <
I just had to repeat that to call attention to it. It's stupidity speaks for itself.
> I have pointed out many times that the most obvious potential consequence of the school board election results would be repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment -- in fact, repeal before judgment was debated at the board meetings. <
What does that have to do with giving legal advice?
> Troll Vasessi's comment does not deserve to be published -- I have published it here only as an example of the many trollish comments that I receive. <
It looks like that backfired. It only shows the wisdom that you are arbitrarily censoring.
> "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger <
I'm new here but I fail to see where you have ever kicked anyone's butt, even in checking the archives.
Owlburt barfed in an unpublished comment,
>>>>>> Your only defense is to censor those who prove you wrong. <<<<<<<
Bozo, I will not publish comments that contain accusations that I censor people just because I disagree with them. If you want your comments to be posted here, you will not include such accusations.
Dunghill Owlburt,
OK, I published your stupid comment, bozo (see above -- comments are published in the order submitted), just so readers can see how stupid it is.
>>>>> No, bozo. I am saying that Judge Jones is not a cause of misinterpretations of what he says. <<<<<<
So Judge Jones is perfect? He can never cause a misinterpretation of what he says?
Didn't I say that in this instance, it appears that he did not cause the alleged "misinterpretation" of what he said (I call the misinterpretation "alleged" because I don't consider it to be a misinterpretation of what the newspaper actually published)?
>>>>>> Your only defense is to censor those who prove you wrong. <<<<<
In the end, I did not censor your comment here, bozo, so that means that you did not prove me wrong, right?
>>>>>> I singled out Judge Jones because he is the primary and most obvious cause of interpretations about what he says <
I just had to repeat that to call attention to it. It's stupidity speaks for itself. <<<<<<<
Who is more obvious here than Judge Jones? The Man in the Moon?
OK, let's look at it another way. I originally blamed Jones for the alleged "misinterpretation,", so it was appropriate for me to say that the newspaper was apparently to blame instead of Jones. If I had originally blamed the Man in the Moon, it would have been appropriate for me to say that the newspaper was apparently to blame instead of the Man in the Moon.
>>>>>>> I have pointed out many times that the most obvious potential consequence of the school board election results would be repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment -- in fact, repeal before judgment was debated at the board meetings. <
What does that have to do with giving legal advice? <<<<<<<
WHAT? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, you lousy troll?
>>>>>>> Troll Vasessi's comment does not deserve to be published -- I have published it here only as an example of the many trollish comments that I receive. <
It looks like that backfired. It only shows the wisdom that you are arbitrarily censoring. <<<<<<<
So why are you blaming me for taking what you consider to be a wise course of action?
> So Judge Jones is perfect? He can never cause a misinterpretation of what he says? <
I didn't say that, did I? It has nothing to do with being perfect. It is that misinterpretation is caused by the shortcomings of the person who misinterprets something, not by the person who has made the original statement.
> Didn't I say that in this instance, it appears that he did not cause the alleged "misinterpretation" <
Nor would he have been the cause of your misinterpretation had the newspaper account been accurate.
>>>>>> Your only defense is to censor those who prove you wrong. <<<<<
> In the end, I did not censor your comment here, bozo, so that means that you did not prove me wrong, right? <
Another one of your countless misinterpretations. You have obviously censored a great number of posts of many people. In this case you finally decided to post my message in spite of the fact that it proved you wrong.
>>>>>> I singled out Judge Jones because he is the primary and most obvious cause of interpretations about what he says <
I just had to repeat that to call attention to it. It's stupidity speaks for itself. <<<<<<<
> Who is more obvious here than Judge Jones? The Man in the Moon? <
The obvious cause of the misinterpretation is the logical shortcomings of Larry Fafarman.
> OK, let's look at it another way. I originally blamed Jones for the alleged "misinterpretation," <
No. The newspaper was responsible for the misquote. They did not say, as far as I know, that he was giving them legal advice. That was purely your misinterpretation.
As for the Man in the Moon, what do your companions have to do with it?
> WHAT? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, you lousy troll? <
A large number of people have tried to point out your error in calling what Judge Jones may or may not have said "legal advice". If you didn't understand the previous posts, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Vasessi said:
>>>>>>> It looks like that backfired. It only shows the wisdom that you are arbitrarily censoring. <<<<<<<
To which Larry brayed:
> So why are you blaming me for taking what you consider to be a wise course of action? <
What perfect timing. You again prove Vasessi's point.
Let's advance the debate on co-evolution a bit - though I may come back to previous comments. Focusing on Larry's main argument, I was unable to find any place where Larry had presented real data. So I ask Larry:
Please present data that there currently exists at least one co-evolutionary relationship that could not have arisen through a series of mutations that were beneficial to at least one partner at each step.
Owlfred (or Owlburt? Which is it?) said,
>>>>>> So Judge Jones is perfect? He can never cause a misinterpretation of what he says? <
I didn't say that, did I? <<<<<<
You pretty strongly implies it.
>>>>>> Nor would he have been the cause of your misinterpretation had the newspaper account been accurate. <<<<<<<
You have presented no arguments in support of that contention.
>>>>> In this case you finally decided to post my message in spite of the fact that it proved you wrong. <<<<<<
But you said that censoring those who proved me wrong is my only defense, so why would I abandon my only defense?
>>>>>> The obvious cause of the misinterpretation is the logical shortcomings of Larry Fafarman. <<<<<<
So, dunghill, you corrected me when I said that apparently the newspaper was to blame instead of Jones -- you said that I should have said the newspaper was to blame instead of me. Well, that's true, the newspaper was to blame instead of me -- but I originally blamed Judge Jones, so it was appropriate for me to say that the newspaper was to blame instead of Jones.
>>>>> The newspaper was responsible for the misquote. <<<<<<
There were no quotation marks, bozo, so there was no misquote.
>>>>>> They did not say, as far as I know, that he was giving them legal advice. That was purely your misinterpretation. <<<<<<<
I never claimed that the newspaper said that the citation of Jones was legal advice, you stupid dunghill.
>>>>>>> A large number of people have tried to point out your error in calling what Judge Jones may or may not have said "legal advice". <<<<<<
I don't care what others have said, bozo, I want to hear your arguments, and so far I have heard nothing.
If my memory serves me correctly, you are the first one who has claimed that explicitly or implicitly telling the school board that it would not do them any good to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment -- i.e., advising them on a course of action in a lawsuit -- is not giving legal advice. Others have claimed that (1) The citation of Judge Jones in the newspaper did not contain such implicit legal advice, or (2) that the advice was "good," and/or (3) that it is OK for judges to give legal advice so long as it is "good" advice. But in my recollection, no one, no one else has claimed that explicitly or implicitly telling the school board that it would not do them any good to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment is not legal advice.
You despicable dunghill, you are just a lousy troll whose goal is to clutter up this blog with your crap. Well, your little game has come to an end.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>>Let's advance the debate on co-evolution a bit - though I may come back to previous comments. Focusing on Larry's main argument, I was unable to find any place where Larry had presented real data. <<<<<<
Wrong -- I have presented lots of real data. To see this data, click on "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" and "Non-ID criticisms of evolution (new #1)" in the post-label list in the sidebar of the homepage.
>>>>>> Please present data that there currently exists at least one co-evolutionary relationship that could not have arisen through a series of mutations that were beneficial to at least one partner at each step. <<<<<<
This should be fairly obvious. For example, a pollinator's ability to detect particular flower colors and/or odors is of no benefit when those colors and odors do not exist, and conversely a flower does not benefit from the possession of such colors and/or odors when there are no pollinators with the ability to detect them. In fact, there is a technical biological name for co-dependent traits in different organisms: mutualism.
This should be fairly obvious.
Not really. Evolution can result in pretty convoluted structures that resulted from purely beneficial mutations, let alone what can happen when you throw genetic drift into the mix.
And frankly, your example is terrible.
For example, a pollinator's ability to detect particular flower colors and/or odors is of no benefit when those colors and odors do not exist,
Light is everywhere. Being able to detect available wavelengths is generally beneficial. Furthermore, vision predates pollination by several hundred million years, so it is obvious that vision did not arise in response to flowers. Furthermore, the structures that detect light do so on a normal distribution curve, encompassing a wide range of wavelengths. A pollinator could learn to visually identify a flower by shape even without color cues. Color cues can serve to make the flower more visible by making the shape stand out.
Odor is similar. Living organisms are kinda like industrial parks, and like industrial parks, produce a great amount of chemical waste, some of which produce odors. Since odors are everywhere, it is generally advantageous to be able to detect them. And while they are more selective than light detectors, odor detectors will detect multiple aromas. And again, smell predates flowers by hundreds of millions of years.
Simply put, vision and smell are beneficial to pollinators even in the absence of colorful or odoriferous flowers.
and conversely a flower does not benefit from the possession of such colors and/or odors when there are no pollinators with the ability to detect them.
Ah, but since pollinators do have the ability to detect colors and odors, those flowers that possess colors or odors that can be detected are at a distinct advantage over flowers that don't possess these traits or flowers that have undetectable colors or odors.
In fact, there is a technical biological name for co-dependent traits in different organisms: mutualism.
Yes, I was well-aware of the term. I am also well-aware that there is extensive literature detailing how mutualisms can evolve from non-mutualisms. The origin of flowers and pollinators is featured in the literature quite often, btw.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Evolution can result in pretty convoluted structures that resulted from purely beneficial mutations, let alone what can happen when you throw genetic drift into the mix. <<<<<<<
You are just throwing around a lot of vague, meaningless jargon.
>>>>>>> Light is everywhere. Being able to detect available wavelengths is generally beneficial. Furthermore, vision predates pollination by several hundred million years, so it is obvious that vision did not arise in response to flowers. Furthermore, the structures that detect light do so on a normal distribution curve, encompassing a wide range of wavelengths. A pollinator could learn to visually identify a flower by shape even without color cues. Color cues can serve to make the flower more visible by making the shape stand out. <<<<<<<
Bees' detection of flowers' colors is highly specialized -- the bees are attracted to the ultraviolet light reflected by flowers.
You are missing the whole point of natural selection. The idea behind natural selection is that a mutation that confers a benefit spreads rapidly. Where evolution consists of a succession of gradual changes, this rapid spread is important because one mutation may be a prerequisite for the next one, and the first trait must be possessed by a large population in order to make it likely that the second mutation will occur in an individual possessing the prerequisite first mutation. Also, this rapid spread is important where all of the mutations must occur in the same genetic population. Where there is no benefit, as when a corresponding codependent trait in another organism does not exist, there is no rapid spread of a trait. So what you get is a lot of isolated traits in different genetic populations instead of having an evolutionary progression of traits or instead of having a whole set of codependent traits in one genetic population.
> You are just throwing around a lot of vague, meaningless jargon. <
If you have no answer to his simple straightforward statement, why do you call attention to it? This seems very self-defeating.
Garfield driveled,
>>>>>> You are just throwing around a lot of vague, meaningless jargon. <
If you have no answer to his simple straightforward statement, why do you call attention to it? <<<<<<
WHAT? "Pretty convoluted structures that resulted from purely beneficial mutations" is a simple straightforward statement? And "genetic drift" is Darwinists' panacea for everything that is unexplained about evolution.
And I can't hide something just by not responding to it. What an idiot.
BTW, anonymous, I would add that my arguments about co-evolution make no references to religious sources. None. Absolutely none.
You are just throwing around a lot of vague, meaningless jargon.
My apologies, does this help?
Evolution can produce convoluted structures that result purely from beneficial mutations, let alone what can happen when you throw genetic drift into the mix.
Bees' detection of flowers' colors is highly specialized -- the bees are attracted to the ultraviolet light reflected by flowers.
Yep. Given a pollinator that can detect a certain color and a flower that reflects that color, coevolution can produce highly specialized color detection solely through beneficial mutations, without requiring simultaneous mutations in the partner species. Bee can see UV better? Instant benefit to bee and flower. Flower reflects more UV? Instant benefit to bee and flower. Bee is attracted to UV? Instant benefit to bee and flower.
You are missing the whole point of natural selection. The idea behind natural selection is that a mutation that confers a benefit spreads rapidly.
In what way am I missing that point? Although I'd disagree that that is the whole point of NS, it is a valid point. But I don't see how it applies to what I've said.
Where evolution consists of a succession of gradual changes, this rapid spread is important because one mutation may be a prerequisite for the next one, and the first trait must be possessed by a large population in order to make it likely that the second mutation will occur in an individual possessing the prerequisite first mutation.
Yes. And your point is... what, exactly?
Also, this rapid spread is important where all of the mutations must occur in the same genetic population.
Why is it important?
Where there is no benefit, as when a corresponding codependent trait in another organism does not exist, there is no rapid spread of a trait.
First, you have yet to show that this is even an issue. Second, that just means that it spreads slowly.
So what you get is a lot of isolated traits in different genetic populations instead of having an evolutionary progression of traits or instead of having a whole set of codependent traits in one genetic population.
Yep, lots of isolated traits in slowly expanding sub-populations - until two sub-populations overlap and NS takes over.
Of course, you have yet to establish that this is even an issue.
And again, what's up with the focus on speed?
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Given a pollinator that can detect a certain color and a flower that reflects that color, coevolution can produce highly specialized color detection solely through beneficial mutations, without requiring simultaneous mutations in the partner species. <<<<<<
To produce a benefit, the partner species must have the corresponding co-dependent trait.
>>>>>>Where evolution consists of a succession of gradual changes, this rapid spread is important because one mutation may be a prerequisite for the next one, and the first trait must be possessed by a large population in order to make it likely that the second mutation will occur in an individual possessing the prerequisite first mutation.
Yes. And your point is... what, exactly? <<<<<<
My point is self-explanatory -- where evolution consists of a sequence of gradual mutations, it is important that each mutation spread rapidly.
>>>>>>Also, this rapid spread is important where all of the mutations must occur in the same genetic population.
Why is it important? <<<<<<<
A co-dependent species often has several co-dependent traits. If each co-dependent trait represents a mutation, then having a rapid spread of mutations will help get all of the traits into a single genetic population. Otherwise, there may just be a lot of isolated mutations scattered all over the place. Getting all of the traits into a single genetic population may be important even where the evolution is not sequential (i.e., the mutations can occur in any chronological order).
>>>>>> Yep, lots of isolated traits in slowly expanding sub-populations - until two sub-populations overlap and NS takes over. <<<<<<<
The sub-populations may be VERY slowly expanding -- maybe TOO slowly (if there is any expansion at all) -- if there is no NS. And you have just stipulated that NS has not yet taken over.
The problem with Darwinists is that many fail to recognize or refuse to recognize that co-evolution presents its own special problems, barriers and considerations. A lot of Darwinists think that there is no fundamental difference between adaptation to other organisms and adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment -- e.g., air and saltwater. Darwinists often speak of coevolution in very simplistic terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure."
To produce a benefit, the partner species must have the corresponding co-dependent trait.
And this is why your bee-flower example fails. UV-vision is not a co-dependent trait - it is independently beneficial (even humans can detect UV, although only for things like circadian rhythms). Would you like to try another example?
My point is self-explanatory -- where evolution consists of a sequence of gradual mutations, it is important that each mutation spread rapidly.
Why? If it spreads slowly, it just takes more time. Is there some theoretical minimum speed limit to evolution that you have discovered?
A co-dependent species often has several co-dependent traits. If each co-dependent trait represents a mutation, then having a rapid spread of mutations will help get all of the traits into a single genetic population. Otherwise, there may just be a lot of isolated mutations scattered all over the place. Getting all of the traits into a single genetic population may be important even where the evolution is not sequential (i.e., the mutations can occur in any chronological order).
Helps being the operative word. In other words, not a requirement.
The sub-populations may be VERY slowly expanding -- maybe TOO slowly (if there is any expansion at all) -- if there is no NS. And you have just stipulated that NS has not yet taken over.
And just how slow is too slow? What is this previously undiscovered minimum speed limit that you seem to believe in?
The problem with Darwinists is that many fail to recognize or refuse to recognize that co-evolution presents its own special problems, barriers and considerations.
No, they simply don't agree that these special problems, barriers, and considerations are a big deal.
A lot of Darwinists think that there is no fundamental difference between adaptation to other organisms and adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment -- e.g., air and saltwater.
Wrong. There is a fundamental difference - and it lies in the fact that other organisms evolve.
Darwinists often speak of coevolution in very simplistic terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure."
How dare they use three words instead of writing a 30-page review everytime they want to talk about how they solved the special problems, barriers, and considerations of co-evolution!!!!111eleventy-one!!11
PART 1 of answer to Anonymous
>>>>>> UV-vision is not a co-dependent trait - it is independently beneficial (even humans can detect UV, although only for things like circadian rhythms). <<<<<<
Wrong -- it is a co-dependent trait. UV colors do not benefit plants in the absence of pollinators that can see UV and are attracted to it, and seeing and being attracted to UV do not benefit pollinators in the absence of plants with UV colors.
>>>>>> Would you like to try another example? <<<<<<
There is a whole category of examples called "obligatory mutualism" -- the organisms are mutually dependent on each other for survival.
>>>>>Helps being the operative word. In other words, not a requirement. <<<<<<<
The degree of help needed could be great enough to make the help a virtual requirement.
>>>>>> And just how slow is too slow? <<<<<<<
And just how fast is fast enough?
>>>>>> No, they simply don't agree that these special problems, barriers, and considerations are a big deal. <<<<<<
In a fairly recent post, I said,
For about 3-4 years now, I have been arguing that coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory . . . . I have now found some scientific papers that back up my position. One paper's abstract says, "Interspecific mutualisms are widespread, but how they evolve is not clear," and the body of the same paper says, "Mutually beneficial interactions between members of different species play a fundamental role in all ecosystems . . . , but their evolution has challenged theoreticians for decades. " The abstract of another scientific paper says, "Cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates, has been a difficulty for evolutionary theory since Darwin." Yet another paper says, "Mutualisms are of fundamental importance in all ecosystems but their very existence poses a series of challenging evolutionary questions." And I have pointed out some of coevolution's "challenging evolutionary questions" that these papers do not even address.
PART 2 of answer to Anonymous
>>>>>>A lot of Darwinists think that there is no fundamental difference between adaptation to other organisms and adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment -- e.g., air and saltwater.
Wrong. There is a fundamental difference -- and it lies in the fact that other organisms evolve. <<<<<<
You are contradicting yourself -- first you say I am wrong for saying that there is a fundamental difference, then you point out a fundamental difference.
The fact that organisms evolve is not the only difference. Another big difference -- which I pointed out many times -- is that widespread fixed physical features of the environment often offer far more opportunities for adaptation than other organisms offer. And though the physical environment does not exactly "evolve," it can change with time.
>>>>>Darwinists often speak of coevolution in very simplistic terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure."
How dare they use three words instead of writing a 30-page review everytime they want to talk about how they solved the special problems, barriers, and considerations of co-evolution!!!!111eleventy-one!!11 <<<<<<
No, they have not solved them -- in many cases they have not even addressed them.
BTW, since you Darwinists are so concerned about brevity and succinctness, why do you insist on using the three-word term "intelligent design creationism" instead of just the plain old two-word term "intelligent design"? What other kind(s) of intelligent design are you trying to distinguish IDC from?
The term "mutual evolutionary pressure" is not necessarily an incorrect term -- it is often applicable. The problem is that Darwinists often think that these simplistic terms are complete explanations and do not try to move beyond them.
This blog has several articles about co-evolution in two post-label groups (listed in the sidebar of the homepage) -- Non-ID criticisms of evolution and Non-ID criticisms of evolution (new #1).
Insects use UV for navigation - they are attracted to UV independent of flowers. This includes insects that are not pollinators nor are descended from pollinators.
You are contradicting yourself -- first you say I am wrong for saying that there is a fundamental difference, then you point out a fundamental difference.
No, I'm saying that you are wrong in claiming that "Darwinists" don't recognize a fundamental diffeference, and then I pointed out what the real fundamental difference is.
Let's skip ahead - running into space limitations here.
Let's look at some quotes from the first paper, shall we?
Under these biologically plausible assumptions, mutualism evolves with surprising ease.
The sentence speaks for itself.
The latter assumption makes it impossible to analyze how initially neutral relationships evolve into mutually beneficial ones and is probably also invalid for many cases of intraspecific cooperation (11).
Included to show that biologists are investigating how mutualisms develop from neutral relationships, despite what Larry claims.
The evolution of mutualism from a neutral relationship occurs when the parameters a and b evolve away from 0 in both partners.
Definition of mutualism used in the model.
In our model, numerical simulations showed that, with the addition of spatial structure, the initial offer a and the reward rate b can increase from very low levels, and long term persistence of mutualism is possible (Fig. (Fig.33Figure 3A).
According to the model, it doesn't take much for mutualism to develop and persist.
This variation suggests that real world mutualisms should be characterized by considerable genetic heterogeneity in the amount that partners invest in each other, a result similar to those obtained by Ikegami and Kaneko (23).
Shows how the model can be (and is) validated by real-world patterns.
Our interpretation of this result is that stochasticity generates many more of the instances of transient local selection for more mutualistic phenotypes that lead to the overall maintenance of mutualism (see above). Also unexpected was the effect of asymmetries in evolutionary rate, which were modeled by giving hosts and symbionts different values for generation time, mutation rate, or mutation magnitude (Fig. (Fig.33Figure 3C). Without exception, the partner with the higher evolutionary rate [probably the smaller symbiont in many natural systems (25) (but see also ref. 26)] had a higher investment and a lower payoff, a result consistent with otherwise puzzling patterns of unequal relative benefits in invertebrate–algal and lichen mutualisms (2).
First sentence, genetic drift plays a major role if present. Remeainder, shows how the model explains a previously puzzling observation.
Overall, our results suggest that the transition from neutral to mutually beneficial interactions should often occur.
Seems to me they're saying co-evolution is not really a problem, at least not in the sense that Larry is talking about.
The real issue with co-evolution is not how they can exist, but how they can persist. Larry's arguments focus on how mutualisms originate, but these papers are focusing on how mutualisms stick around. This second question requires in depth modeling, much more so than Larry's trivial objections.
A character named Vicklund says (above)that Larry has kicked him off this blog, and that he has been banned: although Larry simply doesn't call it banning, according to Vicklund
If that is so, how does Vicklund manage to comment here? And even to say such things as that "Larry is clearly lying," and still have his comments published by Larry?
Is Vicklund so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference between being banned and simply having his comments moderated? Perhaps that's so, since this character has in other respects abundantly proved, at least in my estimation, that his ignorance and irrationality are of stunning proportions.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Insects use UV for navigation - they are attracted to UV independent of flowers. This includes insects that are not pollinators nor are descended from pollinators. <<<<<<<
Well, what about the odor of flowers? Do insects navigate by smell?
Well, isn't that a bizarre coincidence, UV had a purpose other than finding flowers? Evolution seems to have a lot of bizarre coincidences. It almost seems as if evolution were planned or pre-programmed -- so evolution itself gives the appearance of being designed.
What about the orchid that is pollinated by only one species of wasp and must duplicate the female sex pheromones of that species exactly? What about the parasites that don't immediately kill or paralyze their hosts but make dramatic changes in the hosts' behaviors? What about the parasites that have complex life cycles with multiple hosts? Did you look at the articles in those two post-label groups about non-ID criticisms of evolution?
>>>>>> No, I'm saying that you are wrong in claiming that "Darwinists" don't recognize a fundamental diffeference, and then I pointed out what the real fundamental difference is. <<<<<<
What do you mean, the "real" fundamental difference, bozo? The difference that I pointed out is quite real -- it is just one that is not generally recognized by scientists.
>>>>>> Let's look at some quotes from the first paper, shall we?
Under these biologically plausible assumptions, mutualism evolves with surprising ease.
The sentence speaks for itself. <<<<<<
Wrong, that sentence must be seen in context -- its meaning depends on what the author means by "biologically plausible assumptions." Plausible assumptions can be misleading assumptions.
>>>>>The latter assumption makes it impossible to analyze how initially neutral relationships evolve into mutually beneficial ones and is probably also invalid for many cases of intraspecific cooperation (11).
Included to show that biologists are investigating how mutualisms develop from neutral relationships, despite what Larry claims. <<<<<<<<
WHAT? How does that "show that biologists are investigating how mutualisms develop from neutral relationships"? That sentence says that a particular assumption makes such investigation impossible.
>>>>>>The evolution of mutualism from a neutral relationship occurs when the parameters a and b evolve away from 0 in both partners.
Definition of mutualism used in the model. <<<<<<
How does that contradict my quotations?
>>>>>>This variation suggests that real world mutualisms should be characterized by considerable genetic heterogeneity in the amount that partners invest in each other, a result similar to those obtained by Ikegami and Kaneko (23).
Shows how the model can be (and is) validated by real-world patterns. <<<<<<
The sentence shows far less confidence than you claim (it says "suggests" and "should be").
Anyway, how do these things contradict my quotations from the papers? It appears that you are accusing me of quote-mining, but you have not shown how I quoted anything out of context. It looks like you are the one who is doing the quote-mining -- and you are doing a poor job of quote-mining, because your quotes do not match your interpretations even when viewed in isolation.
Well, what about the odor of flowers? Do insects navigate by smell?
I've discussed this briefly on this thread already - it would take more than 4,000 characters to do it justice.
Well, isn't that a bizarre coincidence, UV had a purpose other than finding flowers? Evolution seems to have a lot of bizarre coincidences. It almost seems as if evolution were planned or pre-programmed -- so evolution itself gives the appearance of being designed.
UV is a "widespread fixed physical feature of the environment" - shouldn't we expect it to offer lots of "opportunities for adaptation"? Shorter Larry:
1. Evolution predicts X
2. We observe X
3. ...
4. Design!
What about the orchid that is pollinated by only one species of wasp and must duplicate the female sex pheromones of that species exactly?
1. Orchid reproduces normally. Wasp that uses pheromones found everywhere said orchid grows.
2. Orchid produces pheromones similar to wasp. Wasp is occasionally atracted to orchid, providing supplemental pollination route.
3. Orchids that attract wasps spread due to beneficial mutation.
4. New mutation arises in orchid - scent more closely matches wasp pheromone. This makes wasps more likely to visit.
5. Orchids that better attract wasps spread due to beneficial mutation.
6. New mutation arises in orchid - scent exactly matches wasp pheromone. This makes wasps even more likely to visit.
7. Orchids with mutation spread.
8. Orchids with exact match can rely on wasps for pollination. Loss of original mode of pollination becomes beneficial.
9. Diversity
As it turns out, contrary to what Larry would have you believe, scientists are actually studying this relationship. THey have found that the pheromones result from combining two classes of chemicals which are common biochemical byproducts. The wasps have a small response rate if the right classes are used, a middling response rate if one of the chemicals is a match, and a near perfect response rate if both the chemicals match.
What about the parasites that don't immediately kill or paralyze their hosts but make dramatic changes in the hosts' behaviors?
Note that while these behavioral changes are beneficial to the parasites, they are not necessary for the parasites. These are adaptations that arise after the parasite-host relationship is established. Therefore, to the parasite, this is an adaptation to a widespread feature of the environment. It is certainly fascinating, which is why such relationships are, contrary to what Larry would have us believe, extensively studied by biologists.
What about the parasites that have complex life cycles with multiple hosts?
Take a free-living organism with a complex life-cycle. Add a host for one stage of it's life cycle. Later, add another host for a different stage of it's cycle. Repeat as necessary.
Parasites with multiple hosts are closely related to free-living organisms with complex life-cycles. The complex life-cycle is a pre-requisite for multiple hosts, not a co-requisite. The complex life-cycle is independent of and came before having multiple hosts.
Did you look at the articles in those two post-label groups about non-ID criticisms of evolution?
Yes, it seems to be pretty much the same stuff, plus three other "criticism" that are discussed once, several posts pointing out the SLoT "criticism" is bogus, and some bitching that people booted you after you repeatedly thread-jacked their site and refused to defend your arguments.
I think the following quote beautifully captures a core flaw in Larry's argument. It is taken from Steve Matherson's Quintessence of Dust blog, in a post where he is discussing how evolution opponents improperly attack Dawkins' Weasel program, when it is the Biomorphs program that is at the heart of his argument.
And so Dawkins tackles the concept of cumulative selection in chapter 3, and as we've already seen, he immediately faces a serious problem: the end result of an evolutionary process is the generation of design, of biological machines that are complex and, more importantly, wildly improbable. In other words, such things "can't just happen." The human mind is prone to a serious error when faced with this challenge. The error is to envision complexity arising spontaneously from chaos, in a single step, and thus to conclude that such things cannot be explained naturally. The error is in bold, and Dawkins addresses it first with the simple and effective Weasel illustration. The illustration is highly effective as a corrective for that error, but it fails as a model of evolution, as I explained in the previous post.
Larry is making the same mistake - he insists on envisioning large, single step changes. But biologists envision (and routinely discover) that these complex structures are a result of small, cumulative steps. In particular, these small changes do not have to take place simultaneously with changes in the partner species - each change is beneficial in it's own right (or is simply genetic drift).
>>>>> Larry is making the same mistake - he insists on envisioning large, single step changes. But biologists envision (and routinely discover) that these complex structures are a result of small, cumulative steps. In particular, these small changes do not have to take place simultaneously with changes in the partner species - each change is beneficial in it's own right (or is simply genetic drift).<<<<<<
I went through all of this already. I said that the small steps must spread rapidly because (1) one step may be a prerequisite for the next one, and/or (2) even where one step is not a prerequisitve for the next one, all of the steps must exist in large populations -- otherwise there are just a lot of isolated small steps scattered all over the place in different populations. A small step will not spread rapidly if it does not yield a benefit, and there will be no benefit if the corresponding codependent trait does not locally exist in the other kind of organism.
A small step will not spread rapidly if it does not yield a benefit, and there will be no benefit if the corresponding codependent trait does not locally exist in the other kind of organism.
The core flaw here is that Larry is making a big step change in assuming that the traits start out co-dependent. If at least one starts out independent, the corresponding trait is always present for small step changes. Therefore, there is a benefit, and therefore the trait can spread "rapidly".
>>>>>> If at least one starts out independent, the corresponding trait is always present for small step changes. <<<<<<<
"Always present" where? If the "independent" trait confers no benefit by itself, then that trait does not tend to spread when by itself, meaning that the chances of the corresponding trait appearing in the same area are very small.
As I said, the idea behind evolution by small changes is that these small changes are supposed to produce a benefit and hence spread rapidly.
>>>>>> Therefore, there is a benefit, and therefore the trait can spread "rapidly". <<<<<<
No, I am talking about a situation where there is no benefit until AFTER the corresponding change in the other organism exists at the same time and place. You are putting the cart before the horse.
I must have explained these things several times already. Please go back and read what I said before.
No, I am talking about a situation where there is no benefit until AFTER the corresponding change in the other organism exists at the same time and place. You are putting the cart before the horse.
You have not demonstrated that such a situation exists. You are ASSUMING that the situation exists. You haven't even shown that there is a cart in the first place.
Your line of argument is useless without a solid example of the situation, which you have yet to provide. It is as convincing as claiming that improbable orbits are a problem for physics - unless we observe such an orbit, there is no reason to even consider junking physics.
As I said, the idea behind evolution by small changes is that these small changes are supposed to produce a benefit and hence spread rapidly.
How do we get from there to the idea that natural selection ceases to function if too much time passes?
>>>>>I am talking about a situation where there is no benefit until AFTER the corresponding change in the other organism exists at the same time and place.
You have not demonstrated that such a situation exists. <<<<<<
And you are assuming that such a situation does NOT exist, i.e., that every codependent trait has a benefit outside the codependent relationship. That is a much bigger assumption that I am making -- and it is a severe restriction on coevolution. Understanding the weaknesses and the potential weaknesses of evolution theory are essential to understanding the theory, yet Darwinists ignore such weaknesses, pretending that evolution theory cannot possibly have weaknesses.
And what about my example of pollinators' ability to smell flowers?
>>>>>As I said, the idea behind evolution by small changes is that these small changes are supposed to produce a benefit and hence spread rapidly.
How do we get from there to the idea that natural selection ceases to function if too much time passes?<<<<<<<
"Functioning" is relative -- something can still be functioning and be inadequste. Anyway, anything that makes evolution more difficult or slows it down is a "weakness' of evolution theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home