Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- John A. Davison on March 15, 2005 08:12 PM
- John A. Davison on March 15, 2005 07:53 PM
- Wayne Francis on March 15, 2005 07:27 PM
- Emanuele Oriano on March 15, 2005 05:44 PM
- John A. Davison on March 15, 2005 05:32 PM
- Henry J on March 15, 2005 05:17 PM
- DaveScot on March 15, 2005 05:13 PM
- DaveScot on March 15, 2005 05:02 PM
- DaveScot on March 15, 2005 04:59 PM
- plunge on March 15, 2005 04:56 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on February 16, 2005 04:23 PM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/819
Comment #16568
Posted by John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)
Creationist Timmy
Please descend to The Bathroom Wall. It is lonely down there where I have to deal with the Darwimps all by myself. I need someone to back me up.
Comment #16573
Posted by Creationist Timmy on February 16, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)
Thanks for the complements. But you type to much for my tastes. I’m so busy fightin the atheist scientists I don’t have time to read much. I like to back up Charlie Wagner instead. Years ago he came up with an argument that should win the Noble Prize because it obliterates evolution, and he’s been saying it ever since but the atheists put their hands over their ears and say “I’m not listening BLAH BLAH BLAH”.
Comment #16590
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)
Damn you steve! Next time …
Comment #16593
Posted by John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)
Timy, We scientists are not all atheists.
Comment #16603
Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 16, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)
From MC Hawking
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey’s working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don’t believe.
I’m not saying there’s no god, that’s not for me to say,
all I’m saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I’m about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, “evolution’s just a theory”,
they best step off, them brainless fools, I’ll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that’s right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I’m going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
Comment #16604
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 06:34 PM (e) (s)
Grand Moff, do you think anyone is impressed by those childish lyrics?
I mean, besides me, of course. ;)
Comment #16607
Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 16, 2005 06:49 PM (e) (s)
Great White: I thought they handled the subject with all the respect it deserves, which makes them an admirable exercise in restraint.
And, lest anyone accuse me of being negative and offering no alternative to ignorant, bone-in-the-nose creationists who want to infect my children with their ignorance, I also offering the following solution from the very same MC:
What We Need More Of Is Science
Verse 1
I’m a disciple of science
I know the universe is compliance with natural laws,
but many place reliance on the psuedo-science of quacks and
morons and fools because,
their educations deficient,
they put faith in omniscient,
make believe beings who control their fate,
but the Hawk aint with it, dig it,
their Holy writ aint the least bit legit,
its a bunch of bullshit.
They need to read a book that ain’t so damn old old,
let reason take hold,
though truth to be told,
they’re probably already too far gone,
withdrawn, the conclusion foregone.
But maybe there is still hope for the young,
if they reject the dung being slung from the tongues,
of the ignorant fools who call themselves preachers,
and listen instead to their science teachers.
Chorus
Upon blind faith they place reliance,
what we need more of is science!
Trash Talk
Uh yeah, that’s right!
Fundamentalist assholes!
Screw the whole lot of them.
Verse 2
Look, I ain’t thomas Dolby,
science doesn’t blind me,
think you’re smart? Form a line behind me,
you won’t find me, truth to tell,
to be a man who suffers fools very well.
Quite the opposite in fact,
I aint got time to interact,
with crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack.
New age motherfuckers? Don’t get me started,
I made more sense than them, last time I farted.
Not to put too fine a point upon it,
but the whole new age movement is full of shit.
Please allow me to elaborate,
explicate, expatiate.
from astral projection to zygomancy its a,
mish mash of idiocy.
Instead of the archaic worship of seasons,
they should explore logic and reason.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Fucking new-agers!
Is there any amount of bullshit they won’t swallow?
It’s two-thousand-aught-five goddammit!
When are these morons gonna join us in the 21st century?
Comment #16608
Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 16, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)
p.s., the tracks themselves are a hoot, if you haven’t already heard them (and I suspect many here have).
If you don’t feel like buying the whole CD, email me and, if you’ve got the bandwidth I’ll send you the track of your choice.
-GMT
Comment #16609
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 07:06 PM (e) (s)
I propose we pay those guys $1000 plus any bail money and legal costs to set up in the parking lot of the Cobb County school of their choice and lay that shit down at top volume during lunch hour.
Comment #16613
Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 16, 2005 07:33 PM (e) (s)
Actually, I know an anti-racist skinhead (don’t ask) rapper who is also the two-time amateur bantam weight boxing champion in Texas.
Let him lay it down outside of whatever fortress of droolitude you choose. I’ll make the muthahfuckin’ popcorn.
Comment #16633
Posted by John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 10:21 PM (e) (s)
Pardon me that should be Timmy.
Comment #16635
Posted by Joe the Ordinary Guy on February 16, 2005 10:52 PM (e) (s)
I’ve been trying to decide whether or not all this back-and-forth invective is a Good Thing.
On the one hand, it must be gratifying to insult an opponent such as JAD, and he apparently relishes it, as well. So it would seem to be a win-win situation. Perhaps he has an “insult collection”, and trolling here is how he harvests new specimens.
And the exchanges do make for fun reading for a layperson such as myself.
But what if JAD’s purpose in provoking the Good Guys into to hurling insults is to get them USED to it? Is he conditioning them away from reasoned argument, getting them used to the Creationist model of engagement? And in this way, weakening their defenses, if only a little, for the day when they are called before a school board to defend Science?
While I wouldn’t begrudge the Good Guys some cathartic fun, I’d hate to see “my team” get even a little soft. Guess I’ll assume that your actual work is keeping you all sufficiently sharp.
Comment #16684
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 17, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/17/brazil.croc.fossil.ap/index.html
Despite some similarities with modern-day crocodiles, Uberabasuchus became extinct when the other great dinosaurs died out, and it has no relation to today’s crocodiles, Carvalho said.
What could Carvalho possibly mean when he says “no relation”? Or did he actually say something else …
Comment #16693
Posted by Jeff Low on February 17, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)
If you think evolution is real, then I got news for you.
It is actually possible to prove it just isn’t true.
The proof is quite simple don’t you see?
Where did the DNA instructions come from to make up you and me?
Why they came from Mom and Dad and that’s a simple fact.
Therefore, the code was already there, going a generation back.
If the code was already there then there is really nothing new.
No new coding for evolution to work on, nothing for it to do.
But, people won’t accept it, they just wish
that somehow, somewhere, they came from a fish!
Comment #16714
Posted by Marek14 on February 17, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)
Let’s go through it row by row and see what we will get,
If we will just all agree with you that we’ve been had.
Through variation in our time should clearly stay a low,
The deep time rules the evolution, the fact that causes frown.
Your grandfather from thousand years back might indeed be like you,
But where you get the notion that this ALWAYS must be true?
Our parents made us and theirs have made them, and this of course still holds,
But why, in time that defies thinking, we couldn’t come from molds?
Try looking through the millions of years, try counting them by one,
Your whole lifetime, my mistaken friend, slips out before you’re done.
The world is change, that’s what we’re saying, it’s not frozen in time,
Like picture in a caleidoscope… oh, now I lost a rhyme! :-(
Probably it’s pointless to tell you this but I think you are wrong,
Perhaps the next time, instead of poem, you should sing us a song!
Comment #16722
Posted by Marek14 on February 17, 2005 04:33 PM (e) (s)
To strike a note more serious, though, you still say nothing new,
But what it boils down to is simply “Don’t know, therefore can’t you.”
When you’re not well, you seek a doctor - you accept what he says,
Since he has special education (for which he deserves praise).
You can’t think that you know the physics if you don’t know the books,
You can’t understand anything unless you take good looks,
In the end you shall know something, but you won’t something else,
And you have to take as true something that somebody else tells.
Ah! but evolution is exception, at least as now it stands,
Since it is one things EVERYONE thinks he understands!
You wouldn’t tell your doctor how to operate your knee,
So why is it you come here and “prove” us wrong with glee?
The most of arguments your kind is making is just hopelessly wrong.
(I shouldn’t use “song” here again, so I smartly rhyme with “gong”!)
But where’s the learning curve? Why do you still repeat the same?
Would admitting a refute be such unbearable shame?
Rhymes make no difference here, this argument has passed,
As we now KNOW that changes happen: we have made that test.
If you still have to protest, please do your homework first,
Read YOURSELF what we have to offer, as we just quench the thirst.
Since all we want is KNOWING, and everything bows to that.
We won’t stop because someone tells us “You can’t know that.”
If theory is wrong, we’ll abandon it in time,
What, do you think we’re morons? Or that we do a crime?
I’m here and you’re there, the opposite sides of science fence,
But please tell me - what about all this damned evidence?
If we are wrong so terribly that everyone can see,
Why do the puzzle pieces fit, why we’re on winning spree?
Why are we making predictions and seeing them come true,
When we should just sit cowering knowing that we are due?
You might cover ears from blasphemy and refuse to follow through,
But this, my friend, I’m telling you, is something MONKEY’d do!
Comment #16749
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 17, 2005 11:28 PM (e) (s)
I knew the way JAD acts sounded familiar.
He displays multiple core deficits of autistic disorder and paranoid schizophrenia
Poor social interaction.
Poor communication skills, has difficulty listening to others
Constant us of repetitive use of favourite phrases.
Often talks about one self in third person.
Repetitive patterns of behaviour
Frequent emotional outburst.
Unusual amount of anger.
Indifference to the opinions of others
A tendency to argue
A conviction that you are better than others
A conviction that people are out to get you
JAD do you find yourself a tactile defensive?
Do you find yourself hypersensitive?
As for contacting my boss go straight ahead. My alias of Wayne Francis is ….woops my real name.
Let me give you a little more info about me so you can track me down.
I was born in South Weymouth MA
I grew up in Stoughton MA
I joined the USMC in 1988 and was assigned to the JCS until 1991 where I was transferred to Camp Smith Hawaii FMFPAC for my last 3 years
I moved to Australia in June of 1995.
For the past year I’ve been working for the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Feel free to contact the Minister of Health here in Australia and explain how I’m a believer of evolution and should be fired. Feel free to go on one of your emotional outburst.
That said I’m happy to say I now have JAD’s post filtered so I’m no longer reading them.
Oh JAD … How did your run for Governor? I’m sure others here would love to hear about your run for political office.
Comment #16754
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 18, 2005 12:53 AM (e) (s)
Ed Brayton writes
In two weeks, we will remove the ban on his IP address and hope that in the intervening period, he will rethink his approach to posting here.
Which means, I guess, that I need treat lying creationist apologists with more “respect” right? And if I don’t and someone (e.g., elephantine) who has never posted a single pro-science argument here to my knowledge implies that I’m mentally ill for consistently calling a spade a spade, I need to just roll over?
Is that what you mean by my approach, Ed? If not, why not be more specific? Nothing — absolutely nothing — in my above posts differs in kind or degree from any comment that gets placed here by other commenters every day. Nor does it different from what you and and other posters on this blog write in your own blogs all the time!
Moreover, my so-called “vitriolic” posts are just a fraction of what I contribute here. I post as many links to education, evolution and fundamentalist-related news as anyone on this blog. And I contribute to the scientific discussions as well.
And I don’t lie and play semantic games and act like a hypocrite.
Speaking of which, let’s take a look at this kind thought about Rep. Gerald Allen which Ed posted on his own blog:
Could we dump this cretin into the hole and bury him instead? The world will lose far less of value.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/12/the_real_idiot.php
Real nice, Ed. Real pretty. I’m sure you persuaded a lot of homophobes to “convert” with that comment.
That took two seconds to find, by the way. I’m not going to waste time finding more. We all know there is lots of it.
But why the double standard, Ed?
Why is it that Phil Johnson, Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, Bobby Maddex and the other scum of the earth who are trying to “turn the train around,” subvert the Constitution, and establish a de fact theocracy get your sympathy? What have these liars done to deserve immunity from being called on their lying crap at Pandas Thumb?
I’m really curious.
In any event, if I find a suitable medication which causes me to stop harassing anti-science fundamentalists, I can guarantee you I won’t take it. Perhaps I’ll send it to you, Ed, to experiment with. Just don’t give any to PZ Myers or we’ll all be a lot worse off.
See you in two weeks with bells on.
Comment #16783
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 18, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)
Have you found us yet, Salty?
Comment #16785
Posted by David Heddle on February 18, 2005 08:00 AM (e) (s)
Wayne:
He displays multiple core deficits of autistic disorder and paranoid schizophrenia
I have an autistic son. I am not sure which of those symptoms you associate with autism, and which you associate with paranoid schizophrenia, and why you linked the two. Just for your edification, I have annotated your list with a yes or no depending on whether, in my experience, it is associated with autism.
Poor social interaction. yes
Poor communication skills, yes
has difficulty listening to others no
Constant us of repetitive use of favourite phrases.no
Often talks about one self in third person.no
Repetitive patterns of behaviour yes
Frequent emotional outburst. no
Unusual amount of anger. no
Indifference to the opinions of others no
A tendency to argue no
A conviction that you are better than others no
A conviction that people are out to get you no
I don’t think I am overly sensitive, but my son is such a joy and blessing that I felt compelled to respond.
Comment #16788
Posted by Ed Brayton on February 18, 2005 08:30 AM (e) (s)
GWW-
If you think it’s hypocritical that I write caustic things somewhere else but won’t let you do so here, I suggest you look up the word “context”. There’s nothing wrong with drinking a beer, but you still can’t do it while driving a car or teaching school. There’s nothing wrong with swearing and cursing, in my view, but I still wouldn’t do it in front of my grandmother or in a professional paper. Most people understand that some types of behavior are appropriate in one setting but not in another. What I write on my personal blog, which can indeed be very caustic, is quite different from what I write here. The same is true of PZ Myers, for example, and a few others who also have personal blogs, and that is not the least bit hypocritical. It’s merely understanding context.
As for the rest, there simply is no point in responding to any of it. It’s just more of the same that got you banned in the first place. And the fact that you chose to evade that ban to get in that one last lick rather than being mature enough to accept that we do have the right to decide who gets to post here, in my view, tells us pretty much everything we need to know about the possibility that you will actually change your behavior. So perhaps we should just go ahead and make the ban permanent and save ourselves the trouble.
Comment #16791
Posted by Enough on February 18, 2005 08:41 AM (e) (s)
For your next trick, please ban John A. Davison. I’m tired of sifting through useless crap to read good comments.
Comment #16798
Posted by John A. Davison on February 18, 2005 09:30 AM (e) (s)
I am still looking for what I have been looking for some time now. The posts immediately following 16023, including my post 16114 and the moronic responses that it evoked. It seems that Panda’s Thumb chooses to bury that particular sequence. There is no need to ban me as as long as I keep receiving the sort of special treatment that Pim or someone keeps giving me. It is eerily reminiscent of “Boot Camp,” that intellectual Leavenworth they constructed just for me over at good old EvC. I have lost none of my abilities to close down forums. One of my greatest achievements, with the help of a couple of other skeptics of Darwinian mysticism, Phillip Engle and Peter Borgher, was to permanently disable “brainstorms,” from which it has never recovered as any fool can see should they visit that site. Pim van Meurs used to post there and ARN also. As near as I can tell this is his last stop, his Alamo as it were, or if you prefer “van Meurs last stand,” gallantly defending the biggest hoax in written history. Now if it will make everybody happier to be rid of me, feel free to grant me the greatest gift of all, the most perfect demonstration of ideological bigotry and intellectual insecurity that any real scientist could ever want, lifetime irrevocable banishment. I have had about all I can absorb from this “groupthink” team of intellectual athletes know from this day forward as the “Panda’s Thumb Sixty-Niners.”
Comment #16802
Posted by Enough on February 18, 2005 09:42 AM (e) (s)
John, you’re a deluded as you are long winded. I hope you never breed.
Comment #16829
Posted by John A. Davison on February 18, 2005 11:47 AM (e) (s)
At 76 I guess you won’t have to worry about that. At least you admit that your problem is genetic too. You are beginning to understand the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. We are all victims of our genes just as Einstein realized long ago. Good luck with yours.
Comment #16832
Posted by John A. Davison on February 18, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)
Dear Wayne Francis or whoever you really are in post 16749. If you ever get around to reading any of my papers (heaven forbid) you will discover that my language and attitude are quite different than what you observe concerning my demeanor here and at other internet snake pits. It can be explained with the age old saying:
WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS DO.
Comment #16834
Posted by John A. Davison on February 18, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)
As I used to say over at good old EvC while I was incarcerated in “boot camp,” - Who’s next? Sockittome. I need all the publicity I can muster.
Comment #16836
Posted by John A. Davison on February 18, 2005 12:22 PM (e) (s)
Properly named Enough who has apparently had enough of little old me as indicated in post # 16791. I agree that there is no point in reading my posts. My posts are obviously directed at those, like yourself, that refuse to read my papers. Did anyone ever tell you that is what journals are for? I’m doing my best to be a little more short winded.
Comment #16911
Posted by Engineer-Poet on February 18, 2005 06:21 PM (e) (s)
<observes a moment of silence for GWW>
Comment #16926
Posted by Scott Davidson on February 18, 2005 08:13 PM (e) (s)
Well having had a look at Mr Davison’s “unpublished manifesto” I thought I’d make some comments on what I saw as some of the flaws in his hypothesis. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Most of my quotes come from his unpublished manifesto found at his website.
Is evolution finished?
Is it that evolution has ended? Or are there only so many niches that can be filled at a time. Most of the great radiations have occurred shortly after a major extinction, such as mammals after the demise of the dinosaurs, where large numbers of niches have been vacated, allowing generalists to become specialised. Another way of putting this would be that only species can coexist against each at a time. A small island can only support a small number of vertebrate species, a larger island a few more. Given that there have been no mass extinctions since the cretaceous / Triassic and the current anthropomorphic one, why should we expect new families to have evolved in the last two million years? I would however, make the prediction that should a large proportion of current species become extinct then in the future we will see new families forming, over time of course, from the survivors (undoubtedly rodents and cockroaches).
Referring to the “law of reversion to average”
I have already mentioned the Law of the Reversion to the Average discussed by Burbank. This would seem to be an anti-evolutionary law since it returns the variants to the original wild type. It is clearly demonstrated by the role natural selection plays when domesticated animals are returned to the wild. The aberrant selected forms rapidly disappear in favor of the more conservative types which come to resemble their more distant ancestors.
Gee I wonder what might be happening here? This result is also observed amongst feral cattle and sheep. I thinkt he magic word here is abberation. I wonder if it might be that once back in the natural environment the selection pressures are different from the ones on the farm or orchard. Hence that the wild-type then represents the best local adaptation for the species in the wild, as opposed to the form best favoured by Ms Agriculturalist or Mr Horticulturalist.
On artificial selection:
“Why do these attempts fail? Apparently they fail because they represent the selection for individual mutant genes, from which one can draw the formal conclusion that such alterations may have little or nothing to do with the evolutionary process. It should also be noted that dogs and goldfish reproduce only by sexual means.”
I really don’t think that Mr Davison understand the process of speciation. There is no reason that selection for “individual” mutant genes should produce a new species, unless those genes alter what the individual recognises as a potential mate. Once you start altering the systems by which animals recognise potential mates then you begin the process of speciation.
“It is the discrete nature of species that allows an amateur bird-watcher like myself to identify every bird I see with a simple key or even a picture. It is obvious from the absence of intermediate forms that a primary role for natural selection is to prevent variation and accordingly to maintain the status quo, a conclusion reached by Punnett long ago as was indicated earlier.”
Unfortunately species aren’t always that discreet, at least not all the time. Some of these have already been brought up in previous posts. A good bird example is the pied stilt and black stilt in New Zealand. The black stilt is a non migratory wader, whereas the pied stilt is migratory, a different colour morph and has different behavioural patterns. Due to habitat change and reduced black stilt numbers brought about by human settlement, black stilts and pied stilts now encounter each other and interbreed, producing viable offspring. Now under your saltation hypothesis we wouldn’t expect to see different species breeding, due to chromosomal reorganization, even closely related ones. Yet there are examples of closely related species that can produce viable offspring if they interbreed. This result supports gradualist theories of evolution rather than the “hopeful monster” kind.
On a philosophical note:
Catastrophism is the idea that many of Earth’s geologic features formed as a result of past cataclysms, whereas uniformitarianism states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth’s geological features.
“Can the notion of uniformitarianism be applied to living systems? The answer at every level is a resounding no. A muscle cell, having contracted, must relax before it can contract again. An amoeba grows and then it stops to divide before it recommences growth. Embryos undergo cellular differentiation, then stop when the definitive state is reached. Most creatures grow until they reach adult size and then stop. In other words, living systems practice autoregulation and self-limitation.”
Wrong the correct answer is yes at every level. Uniformitarianism can indeed be applied to living systems. The underlying idea of uniformitarianism is to explain the geologic features in terms of processes that operate today. For example current biological processes, occurring at the same rates as observed today can account for the diversity of life
“It is of interest to compare the predictive value of the Darwinian and semi-meiotic models with respect to evolutionary rates. The Darwinian view predicts long periods of gradual change with many intermediate forms. The semi-meiotic concept is the very antithesis, with new life forms being produced instantly as a result of the cytological events which occur during the first meiotic division in oocytes bearing one or more chromosome rearrangements in heterozygous form. As I indicated earlier, one half of the products of oocytes bearing a single heterozygous rearrangement will be like the original type and one half will be a new chromosome structural homozygote and, possibly, a new and discrete species. As improbable as this may seem at first glance, it is nevertheless precisely what the semi-meiotic hypothesis predicts — namely, instant speciation.”
Our current understanding of Evolution does indeed imply gradual change. But there is nothing in it to imply constant change over time. If a species is well adapted to its environment then natural selection will select for the wild-type (sharks). Put individuals in a new environment then natural selection will operate in different directions. Alter the environment and selection pressures will change.
Problems with Saltation
Another issue I have with saltation is that for it to work it requires two of the “hopeless monsters.” I’m guessing that the saltation must be quite a rare event, yet their needs to be two occur within the span of a generation for the speciation to work. One individual is an evolutionary dead end. Population viability analysis has a concept referred to as quasi-extinction, a point at which the population is effectively extinct. One population size that springs to mind is obviously one, but very small population sizes generally aren’t good, especially considering ol’e Mother Nature is “red in tooth and claw.” The odds that only two animals will survive and produce enough offspring to create a species aren’t necessarily all that good. How would inbreeding affect this?
Additionally, most of us carry some potentially lethal alleles, which while rare in the population as a whole are much more likely to be shared by realted individuals. There are biological reasons why overly intimate family relationships are a bad idea, the offspring of two closely related sibs are much more likely to be homozygous for deleterious reccesive alleles.
What happens with the new hopeful monster once its reached sexual maturity? As mentioned before it needs to find a mate with the same saltation as it which may not be likely. How is it going to recognize this mate? Will the members of the “parent” species not look like potential mates to it? In which case it is simply screwed. If it can’t produce viable offspring with it’s “parent” species, yet it recognises them as potential mates then the odds of it finding a compatible mate are even further reduced.
Saltation simply doesn’t work, whereas a gradual process operating on a population will.
Does the best explanation come from invoking miracles or to rely upon processes that we can observe?
I really have too much time on my hands.
Oh and I’ve much enjoyed reading the comments of Great White Wonder since I started visiting this blog. To borrow a line from another of my favourite websites:
“She has balls that clanketh”
Comment #16928
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 18, 2005 08:57 PM (e) (s)
Scott,
Watch it with comments like this -“Saltation simply doesn’t work…” . He really doesn’t like to be called Salty, and things like this might set him off. I don’t know if you’ve seen his dark side yet. It is quite amusing.
Comment #16929
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 18, 2005 09:57 PM (e) (s)
Hi David,
While your son may not have all the characteristics that can be associated with autistic disorder
has difficulty listening to others
Constant us of repetitive use of favourite phrases
Often talks about one self in third person
Can be associated with autism. I have a cousin that has 2 of 3 of these traits.
As for the other no’s they are associated with paranoid schizophrenia.
The only reason I link the 2 is because I see traits of both coming from JAD.
In no way did I mean to imply that they normally go together.
You have to admit that JAD does seem to exhibit all of these traits.
Comment #16930
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 18, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)
Case in point
Dear Wayne Francis or whoever you really are in post 16749.
Seems to think he is the only person that posts under his real name anywhere.
Sheeesh I gave him my life story and he still thinks he’s better then me, when it comes to posting atleast, trying to imply that I try to hide myself via an alias.
He’s a self confessed troll that tries to imply that he is this only because of the way we all communicate with eachother.
He is someone that I no longer have time for.
Comment #16931
Posted by Henry J on February 18, 2005 10:48 PM (e) (s)
Re “The Darwinian view predicts long periods of gradual change with many intermediate forms. “
Actually, Darwin expected that evolution may very well occur mainly in isolated or fringe populations. IOW - punctuated equilibrium. :)
It was scientists after Darwin that put in that stuff about gradual over millions of years.
Henry
Comment #16952
Posted by John A. Davison on February 19, 2005 06:38 AM (e) (s)
Mr. Scott Davidson, no relative of course, claims that I don’t know anything about speciation. Of course he is correct. Nobody knows anything about speciation as it remains a total mystery just as does every other aspect of evolution. What I do know is that the Darwinian version of it is a total disaster, in conflict with everything we know from the laboratory and the fossil record.
Furhermore I have proposed a new hypothesis to explain it, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis or PEH for short. I note that no one even mentions that hypothesis. They are to busy informing the whole universe what an asshole I am. I am pleased as punch. Don’t stop now as it is the best proof imaginable that you are all dead wrong.
John A. Davison, etc. etc. etc.
Comment #16954
Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s)
You’re right, a bunch of people claiming you’re an asshole is the best proof that we’re all dead wrong.
Comment #16980
Posted by slpage on February 19, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)
I am not banned, I am not GWW.
Please leave me out of your paranoid, destructive fantasies - you and Davescot and homer. You people seem to have convinved yourselves that you are cleverer than you really are.
Get over it.
I have never posted here as anyone else, and rarely post here at all.
Comment #17014
Posted by John A. Davison on February 19, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)
I am sorry for the trouble I have may have caused. My computer has been acting up lately in several ways. In the meantime, let me make a brief statement about evolution.
No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new life form (evolution) because no one has ever observed that event. There is every reason to believe that it is no longer occurring and no compelling reason to think otherwise. All we have seen is the production of varieties through artificial selection and, in some instances only, the production of subspecies through observable means. Those can be explained as due to the accumulation of micromutations of the sort known as Mendelian alleles. All real evolution involved entirely different mechanisms in which the environment played virtually no role whatsoever beyond possibly acting as a simple trigger to release an inner potential.
That is why Avida, the subject of this and so many other threads, is a monumental joke. One cannot mimic a process not subject to exogenous influences. The entire Darwinian model is a myth, without a scintilla of validity.
I have attempted to present this perspective in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis only to have it received with contempt, denigration and ridicule. Not a single documented fact upon which it soundly rests has even been considered.
The entire Darwinian fable rests on Crick’s central dogma as its foundation. I agree entirely with Pierre Grasse:
“But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick’s central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its sole CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true.” page 224, (his emphasis).
“However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind…” ibid page 210
“At most, the environment plays only a similar role with respect to organisms; it can only provoke and set in motion some potential that is already present.. Schindewolf 1993, page 312.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that evolution WAS front loaded from its beginning or more likely several beginnings. The entire Darwinian scheme is a fairy tale, a farce, a scandal and a hoax not necessarily in that order. Why anyone can still accept it boggles my ancient mind.
John A.,Davison, unfair of course, unbalanced from trying to communicate with Darwinian atheist zealots and still unafraid to spread his heresies wherever he can.
Comment #17019
Posted by John A. Davison on February 19, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)
I love this silence. It is so revealing. Thank you very much.
Comment #17022
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 19, 2005 06:21 PM (e) (s)
John A. Davison,
please explain the difference, if any, between these statements:
“No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new life form (evolution) because no one has ever observed that event.”
“No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new star (astronomy) because no one has ever observed that event.”
“No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new planet (geophysics) because no one has ever observed that event.”
“No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of a new subatomic particle (quantum physics) because no one has ever observed that event.”
“No one, and I mean no one, knows anything about the emergence of AIDS (medicine/microbiology) because no one has ever observed that event.”
Oh, since you’re at it, you might want to also tell me why I should ignore the fact that going back a few thousands years there are no longer any modern day animals’ skeletons to be found (fosilised or otherwise) (except a few anecdotal exceptions), but we do find fosile evidence of creatures that look similar to them - and the further back we go, the less like them they look, but do remain at every point similar to those before and after them. Take a look at the whale evolution fosile sequence, for example, and explain why I should follow your unsuported hypothesis instead of the perfectly reasonable evolution theory.
Also, I am going to challenge your statement anyway - speciation (defining as species “a population that will interbreed” and speciation as “from a set of beings belonging to one species, obtain two” has been observed in the wild more than a few times, and has been duplicated in labs even more times. Please explain how a saint bernard and a chihuahua can interbreed without human help or admit they are different species (I admit I’m not good at dogs - so if those are similar in size, pick the biggest dog and the smallest)
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17026
Posted by John A. Davison on February 19, 2005 08:31 PM (e) (s)
Grey Wolf
I don’t recall defining a species that way. Dobzhansky defined species as forms whose hybrid is parially or completely sterile. I think that is a good solid testable criterion. I already commented on dogs in an earlier post. They are all wolves, Wolf. No pun intended.
Comment #17029
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 19, 2005 09:34 PM (e) (s)
JAD,
Sorry, I’ve been at work all day. Let me follow my own instructions and see, so I can give you a specific answer to your question.
Ok, when I click on the url it takes me to PastorBentonit’s post #16484 on the Bathroom Wall. When I click on the “here” link it takes me to the Bathroom Wall archive at post #16463. From that point I can scroll all the way back to #11589, and all the way forward to #16749.
Evidently that doesn’t happen for you? I’m at a loss. For what it’s worth, I use Internet Explorer.
Generally speaking, I hate computers. I suspect that they’re sentient things which connect up at night while we’re sleeping, and concoct new and more devilish ways to fuck with our heads. They made it so we depend on them, and now they’re having their way with us.
Comment #17035
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 19, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)
JAD,
Sorry again - I was focused on answering your question about the links and missed your last request - “And please don’t call me Salty. It makes me irritable.”
I’ll be more than happy to oblige, provided you agree to stop your own silly name games, which make me irritable. Generally speaking, you get what you give.
I notice that, at this point, if you click on The Basthroom Wall link on the main page it will also take you to PastorBentonit’s post and the “here” link. You might try that also. Don’t know if that’ll have any better results.
Comment #17040
Posted by steve on February 19, 2005 11:21 PM (e) (s)
New article in the NYT magazine called Unintelligent Design
Comment #17049
Posted by Jason Spaceman on February 20, 2005 02:56 AM (e) (s)
19 Kansas State University biology professors have signed an opinion piece that appears in today’s Topeka Capital-Journal:
‘Intelligent design’ at odds with a biotech image (requires login & password)
We view the proposed changes in Kansas Science Standards (the minority report which is likely to be adopted by the State Board of Education) with dismay and disbelief.
The proposal introduces non-scientific ideas into the curriculum to promote the concept of “intelligent design” as a “scientific” alternative to the existing curriculum. Intelligent design is based on the belief that an intelligent being created and directs the universe.
Proposed revisions to the biology curriculum have a thinly veiled goal of institutionalizing unverifiable interpretations of the natural world in our schools. It is inappropriate to introduce this non-scientific view in science classrooms.
Comment #17058
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 06:51 AM (e) (s)
Bob Maurus
One of my friends who knows a lot about computers has informed me that it is possible for posts to be deleted from the Panda’s Thumb end for just my computer. It has something to do with cookies I guess. Naturally that would be something I would like to believe as I have had no difficulty at all with any other aspect of my internet forum communications. Just this one instance on the Bathroom Wall. You have to understand that I know very little about what is going on in the wonderful world of cyberspace. Thank you for the help in any event.
Comment #17059
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 07:14 AM (e) (s)
I see no evidence for any intervention going on but otherwise I have to pretty much agree with Grasse:
“Let us not invoke God in realities in which he no longer has to intervene. The single absolute act of creation was enough for him.”
page 166.
“Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between ‘either randomness or the supernatural,’ a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living beings; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say.”
ibid page 107.
My own bias is toward several separate creations, as huge gulfs exist that I can’t imagine transitional states for. Leo Berg postulated “thousands of primary forms” without ever explaining why he thought so. The simple truth is that nobody knows anything at all about how or how many times life was created. Created it was, that is for sure and I don’t think it was an accident.
John A. Davison
Comment #17060
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 20, 2005 07:23 AM (e) (s)
You’re welcome, John,
As far as I know, you can set your computer to enable cookies or reject them. Most commercial sites - NY Times, retail outfits, etc - put a cookie on your computer when you visit the site. Some of them are, I think, capable of gathering information on product interests and the like, but they also allow that site to load faster the next time you go there.
I have a friend who takes care of computer operations for Southern Bell here in Atlanta; I’ll ask him about the problem you’re having.
Comment #17061
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 07:45 AM (e) (s)
Great White Wonder denies that he is Scott Page and I am inclined to agree. He shows much to much restraint. Someone produced this list of Page aliases, which does not include Great White Wonder:
SLP
SLPx
Pangloss
Pantag
IamNoOne
Random Mutt
Scott L. Page
Of course I can’t vouch for its accuracy.
John A. Davison
Comment #17063
Posted by David Wilson on February 20, 2005 08:51 AM (e) (s)
Bob Maurus
One of my friends who knows a lot about computers has informed me that it is possible for posts to be deleted from the Panda’s Thumb end for just my computer. It has something to do with cookies I guess. Naturally that would be something I would like to believe as I have had no difficulty at all with any other aspect of my internet forum communications. …
If you’re using Internet Explorer (IE) to access the web there is no need to invoke such outlandish hypotheses to explain your difficulties. I have just rebooted my computer onto a Windows 98 partition (which I almost never use) and tried to load your comment #16114. Even after getting the latest update from Micro$oft, I could not get IE to load the relevant thread beyond comment #15644. So if it’s any consolation, my copy of IE is even more brain-dead than yours.
IE is the only browser I could find that had this problem. Even the ancient copy of Mozilla which I have on my Windows 98 partition loaded the entire thread without any problems, and I can confirm that the Windows version of firefox loaded the entire thread from comment #11589 to #16584. On my Linux partition, none of Netscape, Mozilla, or the Gnome or StarOffice browsers had any problems loading the entire thread.
So if you really do want to see the rest of the thread you are interested in, I suggest you follow Wesley Elsberry’s advice and download the firefox browser (warning: clicking on this link will start the download—-I am assuming it is the Windows version you will need). It took me about 20 minutes to download it on a dial-up line, and the installation was completely painless.
Comment #17070
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 20, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)
David,
We’ve got Windows XP, IE browser, broadband connection. No problems with the thread here.
Comment #17086
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 12:16 PM (e) (s)
Thank you. I already downloaded firefox and it didn’t solve the problem. Now I can no longer post on the Avida thread. It shuts off prematurely also before reaching comments. Beats me.
Comment #17105
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 20, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)
John A. Davison, I see you have managed to ignore most of my post - and answer none of it. I did not ask those three questions (one per paragraph) just because. They should stablish, in my eyes, your exact position on several important issues - to whit, the possibility of scientific study, the evidence for evolution theory and the fact of evolution. And I never claimed that you define species that way - I don’t give a nickel* about how you define species - only how biologists define them.
At any rate, there have been examples of groups of animals that have been separated into two groups that have after a while not been able to produce fertile offspring, both in labs and nature. Since you made me have to look it up, (as you can see from my infrequent posting, my free time is rather chaotic and infrequent), please use the examples found in both of these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html…
Oh, and if you even think of uttering “they are all fish” or “they are all plants” or even “they are all bacteria” (as DaveScot is known to do), you’ll reveal yourself to be a pathetic uneducated wretch, which you have not so far. So I give you fair warning of it.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
* original word substituted to prevent website from being blocked
Comment #17106
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)
Grey Wolf
Since you don’t regard me as a biologist, I am inclined to disregard you. Thank you very much.
Comment #17117
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 20, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)
John A. Davison, you have not given me any reason to believe you are a biologist. The fact that you keep evading what come down to extremelly easy questions by a non-biologist on very basic stances on science reinforces my opinion of the fact. This is, however, irrelevant. Those aren’t questions for a biologist, only to difference between a creationist troll (I would use a different set for other kinds of trolls) and someone worth debating with.
Indeed, I wonder why me thinking you a biologist or not would make any difference on the matter. I assume you’re educated and willing to at least state your position on issues central to this website. I couldn’t for the life of me say what degrees any of the main posters of this site hold, but I will listen to them.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17125
Posted by John A. Davison on February 20, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)
Grey Wolf
My positions are all over the place, in published papers, in online versions of those papers, in my home page, in the archives of “brainstorms”, at Terry Trainor’s in tne Documents section of Talk Origins forum. My position is that Darwinism in all its trappings is a monumental joke. There is absolutely nothing about it that is of any signifcance whatsoever. It is a hoax and a disgrace. What more can I or need I say? I thought I had made that fairly clear already. Apparently I failed. Incidentally, if it will make you happy, I am very definitely a creationist of the Einstein, Spinoza variety. If you think I am troll why don’t you just ignore me? Why waste your valuable time on a moron like me?
John A. Davison
Comment #17135
Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 07:50 PM (e) (s)
As I read this article about State of Fear, I was reminded that I’m happy the anti-science crowd usually consists of such nuts. It provides a lot of fun, and is easy to oppose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30BARCOTT.htm…
Comment #17140
Posted by DonkeyKong on February 20, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)
So wait a sec.
You want to teach as fact that amino acids evolved into cells when you have no evidence for this except for a previous lack of cells before a point in time??
You have no, zero, nada, bupkiss support for this.
Evolution isn’t science its religious belief.
As such it has no place in K-12 unless you stick to what you have factual support and outlaw teaching the parts that are religious belief on your part.
Comment #17149
Posted by colleen on February 20, 2005 10:20 PM (e) (s)
This is just a thank you for all the time & effort put into PT.
I majored in Anthro 25 years ago. I assummed the bad science i.e. ID, in schools debate was hopeless.
After Cobb County I surfed blogs for the first time. I’ve spent like 50 hours since in the evo/cre thing.
PT is awesome.
Comment #17159
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 21, 2005 02:18 AM (e) (s)
John A. Davison, I asked three times because I am not friend with making snap decissions. However, given that you have refused, three times, to answer *easy* and *basic* questions - the first and last of which are direct queries to your one unsupported assertion previously in this thread - I am going to brand you as a troll. A polite troll, so far, but a troll in the sense that you join a comunity with the intention of getting into a shouting match without any kind of support for your position.
I am not interested in long treaties on biology - I would need a far more specialised education than I got on the topic to be able to follow them. However, to this day, I have not needed such education to tell between proper science and pseudoscience. The questions I asked are part of the way I can tell - if you give proper answer to them, then I might consider taking time I don’t have to hunt down what you’ve said elsewhere. However, your claims - like the fact that we cannot know of something because we weren’t there or that no speciation has ever happened - fly in the face of facts and evidence, so I think it is not far fetched of me to ask for explainations before branding you as a troll.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17165
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 07:09 AM (e) (s)
Grey Wolf
I never said that speciation never happened. I said that it is not happening now. That is what the evidence actually indicates. If you had read any of my papers you would know what I believe and why I believe it. You would also realize that I am not alone in what I believe at all. If you choose to regard my work as pseudoscience, which is what you imply, there is nothing that I can do for you. I can assure you that you are not alone. I hope that makes you feel better. I have never been much impressed with majority opinions in scientific matters.
‘
John A. Davison
Comment #17175
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 21, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)
John A. Davison, actually what I am implying is that I have not yet seen your work at all - all you have offered in this place is baseless and unsupported declarations, assumptions and hypothesis. Once more I point out that you have not yet answered any of the three basic and simple questions I posted for you. The rule of thumb used in engineering is that someone refusing to explain his or her methods after three promptings hasn’t got a logic behind them. I am going to apply it to your case. I am sorry it came to this.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17199
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 21, 2005 10:17 AM (e) (s)
I never said that speciation never happened. I said that it is not happening now.
And this is where JAD and other creationist get fuzzy.
We’ve shown examples of recent speciation.
We’ve provided examples of the a few different recent speciation events.
lets go with the definition of “that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding” (Dobzhansky 1937)
Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
from Some More Observed Speciation Events
So now with evidence verified in the lab people like DavidScot say things like this in comment # 16081
random mutation + natural selection has never been observed to result in anything more than fine tuning of basic body plans. It has never been observed to create a novel new anatomical feature
DaveScot will not define his definition of “body plans” but as we can see from Comment # 16947
DaveScot believes “gene sequencing machines”, the “space shuttle” and “Blogs” are all “novel new body forms”
Seems he doesn’t grasp the amount of time that a “new body plan/form” is expected in natural selection. By his definition he doesn’t grasp what a “new body plan/form” even is. Until he defines “body plan/form” there is no use talking to him about it..
Fact – we have seen and verified in the lab instances of speciation.
Fact – JAD ignores people who point this fact out to him.
Fact – DaveScot moves the goal post using definitions he has no clue about.
Comment #17220
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)
Wayne
I do not ignore people who insist that evolution is going on all around us. I expose them as living in a fantasy world. What are you picking on DaveScot for? I can tell you why. It is because he happens to agree with me. That is the only reason. You Darwinps are all alike wherever you are to be found. You are just a monumental groupthink, none of whom has a clue about the real world. If you have verified cases of controlled laboratory speciation you wouldn’t be claiming it, you would be demonstrating it and publishing it, complete with the parental form, a materials and method section and a conclusion that would send you right off to Stockholm for the Nobel Prize That is nothing but a flaming lie and you know it. I am getting tired of all this wishful thinking on the part of a bunch of atheist lunatics. Get with the program, grow up and hear the birdies sing. Darwinism and all the natural or artiicial selection in the world has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution now as in the past. It is as, I keep repeating, a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a bunch of liberal sedentary morons with their butts glued to their chairs at Harvard, Oxford and Cornell, not a scientist in the lot.
John A. Davison
Comment #17266
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 21, 2005 01:13 PM (e) (s)
And with his latest comments, John A. Davison has revealed himself to be a common troll. I was wondering, for he had been too much of a polite person - but no longer. His true self is now revealed onto us. Oh, and I will ask you to take back those words. I am part of the conversation, and you have pluralised. I am not atheistic, and I’m pretty sure I’m not mad (my doctor agrees).
I also note that beyond his (once again) unsupported word, he has not managed to disclaim Wayne’s example.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17315
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)
Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at “brainstorms,” Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda’s Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes you precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.
John A. Davison
Comment #17316
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)
Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at “brainstorms,” Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda’s Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes you precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.
John A. Davison
Comment #17317
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)
Sounds good to me. Talk to each other. You will soon run out of things to say, just like they did at “brainstorms,” Fringe Sciences and EvC. They are now, for all practical purposes, dead. Panda’s Thumb is joining them in intellectual oblivion. If anyone wants a rational conversation email me. Of course there goes your precious cowardly anonymity. I am though lecturing to an auditorium crawling with brainless Darwimps.
John A. Davison
Comment #17341
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 21, 2005 06:19 PM (e) (s)
What are you picking on DaveScot for? I can tell you why. It is because he happens to agree with me. That is the only reason.
Once agian JAD’s Paranoid Schizophrenia shows through. I’ve been picking apart DaveScot’s misguided logic before you ever even showed up. Lets see….ah here we go in Comment # 12878 posted on January 7, 2005 12:25 AM I point out his flawed logic. There are at least 13 posts from me pointing out DaveScot’s bad logic before you ever showed up on the scene on with Comment # 15240 on February 7, 2005 03:15 PM
Despite what you think this blog and peoples comments on them do not revolve around you.
You asked for evidence and multiple people have answered your question and as Enough said in Comment # 17108 says
Nice duck.
with a host of posts like Comment # 16458
where you make statements like this
You are just a huge collection of unfulfilled sociopathic nobodies with nothing else in your empty lives but the autogratification you get from denigrating your intellectual superiors.
and
John A. Davison, gleefully unfair, unbalanced by senile dementia and not only unafraid but enjoying his waning years immensely in the greatest thrill any scientist can ever experience, the destruction of a defective hypothesis and replacing it with one infinitely more sound.
All the paranoid post about how you where being censored ignoring EVERYONE that was telling you that you in fact where not being censored. All your post point to the same thing. You are not mentally stable. Your “infinitely more sound” hypothesis has gone no where not because there is a conspiracy against you but because you seem to listen to no one that points out the problems with your hypothesis.
As far as the Great DaveScot, goes being the grandfather of the modern computer that he is and greatest programmer on Earth claiming that GA programs can not write other programs without human intervention when I look at one such non existent program every day, I noticed he didn’t make a peep when you went on your long rant about being censored. If he is as knowledgeable about computers as he claims to be he would know that, since Panda’s thumb use static HTML files for post, there is not trivial way to sensor 1 person in the manner which you described. That in fact it is highly consistent with a browser or proxy caching issue. But he did not which shows is character, like most creationists, that will not allow him to point out any problem with the logic of anyone remotely sharing some of his hypotheses even if it has nothing to do with these hypothesis.
So either rebutt the facts that have been shown to you of instances of speciation which you claim not to have occured in the last few million years or keep trolling and have more and more people just ignore you here on PT like it seems people have ignored you on other forums and real life.
Comment #17345
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 06:42 PM (e) (s)
For two people that are so clearly out of touch with reality, DaveScot and I sure are attracting a lot of mindless denigration. I just wonder why. Keep raving Wayne as it is music to my ancient ears. Who is next as I used to say over at EvC before they were forced out of complete frustration to ban me. You bore me Wayne. That goes for just about everybody else too.You won’t know what to do when I finally flush this place. The only difference between this dump and EvC and Brainstorms and Fringe Sciences is that you people are just a little harder to really piss off.
Comment #17347
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)
Just when has anyone anywhere in the professional literature or on any internet forum ever pointed out anything that was wrong with my hypotheses? I have a couple of closely related ones you know. You don’t find out what is wrong with hypotheses unless you are first willing to test them. Then if they fail that test one might be justified in making a comment. Otherwise one is just pissing up a rope. Everything now being disclosed by molecular biology and chromosome reorganizations favors a prescribed front loaded evolution in which there is virtually no room for chance, something Leo Berg recognized 83 years ago. Exactly the same can be said for ontogeny.
Darwinism is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science. Yet you morons here at Panda’s Thumb just keep right on believing in it for what can only be ideological reasons. You clowns keep talking about “Darwinian theory” when no theory even exists. You are literally worshipping something that isn’t even there. That is sick. You talk about my paranoid schizophrenia when that is precisely your own malaise. You won’t find me talking about things that don’t exist. I am a hard-headed old bench physiologist not a flaming mystic.
Comment #17352
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 21, 2005 08:01 PM (e) (s)
JAD,
For what it’s worth, you’re one offensive, unrestrained post away from being Salty again. You give no indication of wanting a dialogue, no indication of being anything but a contentious, self-congratulatory and egotistical blowhard. When you finally do flush this place we will all collectively deeply inhale the resultant fresh air and promptly dismiss you from our memory. So much for fleeting and self-proclaimed fame.
Comment #17354
Posted by colleen on February 21, 2005 08:18 PM (e) (s)
Grand Moff Texan #16607
Are New Age, Crystal believers etc. whatever, against teaching evo in schools, too?
Comment #17366
Posted by Henry J on February 21, 2005 09:56 PM (e) (s)
Something I wonder about. Some rejectors of theory have referred to it as “amoebas to people” (or something to that effect), but did they invent that or is/was there an actual hypothesis of amoeba ancestors to the animal kingdom? I wouldn’t have thought so offhand, since to my thinking the way amoebas move around doesn’t look like it would lend itself to colony type living, which I’d think would be prerequisite to evolving into a multicelled whatever. But that’s just a guess, so I’m left wondering if there are indications as to what sort of microbe might have been ancestral to the animal kingdom (and perhaps the fungi kingdom as well).
Henry
Comment #17369
Posted by John A. Davison on February 21, 2005 10:02 PM (e) (s)
Now you miserably impaired clowns out there, you listen to me for a change.
I am now in the process of writing a paper entitled “There is No Evolutionary Theory,” so I don’t have a lot of time to mess with you all right now.
As for calling me Salty, let me remind you that salty is short for saltationist, an appelation properly applied to Leo S. Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt and of course yours truly, lttle old me. It is the only rational view of evolution imaginable and one that will be never reconciled with the gradualist accumulationist, mindless, pointless, random, mutation happy, natural selection intoxicated crock of intellectual garbage known far and wide as neoDarwinism. Call me salty. Vent your mindless spleens. Relieve yourselves, hopefully without removing your pants. I love it so.
John A. Davison
Comment #17371
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 21, 2005 10:22 PM (e) (s)
John, you’re simply an asshole, whether or not we call you Salty. Why are you wasting your time here trying to impress your self-proclaimed brilliance on a bunch of alleged Phillistines who are demonstrably unwilling to acknowledge it? Have you nothing better to do? Are you so desperate for notice that you’re willing to debase yourself to get a response, any response, regardless of how derisive it is? Are you really that pathetic? Has your rejection by your peers rendered you that petty? You have my sincere pity then.
Go spend your remaining time completing your paper, so that it too can be rejected or ignored by your peers. So far as we’re concerned you’re a momentary distraction who will not be missed.
You’ve been fun, Salty. I’ll raise a margarita to your memory if I remember.
Comment #17374
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 21, 2005 10:43 PM (e) (s)
Ok one last time to get through JAD’s inability to read to answers he has requests. Just because you ignore them JAD doesn’t mean they are not out there.
JAD claims speciation no longer occurs, but as Greywolf pointed out here is just one example verified in the lab.
Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
So JAD what do you say about that? Where will yo
Comment #16484
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 16, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)
JAD, your post 16114, full of over-the-top invective and plain assertions and so little else, is in fact discussed here. Come on, there are even a couple of scientifically relevant questions there for you (and the rest of us!).