news aggregator

The article highlights a recent paper in Nature reporting on the sequencing of the genome of the coelacanth, a famous fish often called a "living fossil." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Don't miss Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen C. Meyer on the Michael Medved show today. Bruce Chapman http://www.discovery.org/p/7

In the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin documented a fascinating and troubling discovery. Evolution News & Views

"No human contrivance operates with either the degree of complexity, the precision, or the efficiency of living cells." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

The evolutionary story is being imposed forcibly on the data. This is a pattern we've observed before. Evolution News & Views

The other day I commented that in the face of tragedy, Darwinism and its Janus face, scientific materialism, rob us of the ability to say anything truly meaningful. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

It's been Exhibit A -- literally, offered as evidence in a famous court case -- for critics of ID who argue that our genome can't be a product of design. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Angst-ridden columnists may find the language in the Louisiana Science Education Act confusing, but school administrators and teachers don't. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501

That lone bright dot in the sea of dark is neither electric light nor rocket exhaust. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501

From Darwinian evolution to climate change, science has become a major flashpoint in the culture war. Evolution News & Views

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Paranoid schizophrenic much, Gary?

There's a much simpler, and far more likely to be true, explanation for your situation:
You're an ignorant loser who's wasted his entire life pursuing a chimera.
Note well that this is a description, not the ad hominem logical fallacy with which you have recently become obsessed.

How does it feel to have wasted your whole life?
How does it feel to have been called on it on virtually every site where you have expressed your effluent?

If you had the programming skills you pretend to, you could find work.
If you had the modeling skills you pretend to, you could find work.
Tragically, there is little to no work for obsessive-compulsives with dishonesty issues, logorrhea combined with a serious case of incoherence, and a total lack of self-awareness.

I think it would be appropriate, to say nothing of hysterically funny, were we to set up a foundation to collect your 'greatest hits' as a memorial to the awesome power of human stupidity unleashed.

But trust me on this, if nothing else.  No one at all takes you or your silly "theory" seriously enough to contribute even a nickel to suppressing it.  There's nothing there to suppress, which everyone has been telling you for free [modulo the cost to you of an internet connection].

No one takes your or your awesome lack of ability seriously enough to contribute even a penny to prevent you from acquiring funding.  Your awesome skills in that regard, and that regard only, have been as close to demonstrating even minimal competence that you have displayed.

Post by timothya
KF posts forty listed points, each of which is a matter of debate, and then prevents anyone from commenting on them.

That must be how Right Reasoning works.

Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ April 25 2013,14:14)Someone kick Nick Matzke in the balls to deter him from posting over there.

People can't resist touching the poop.
<s>Kill Nick Matzke, he's been violating the rules of the evilutionist community.</s>

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.

And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Quote You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
This is exactly wrong, and a big reason it's so easy to see that you not only don't understand science, you're incapable of the logical thought processes that are necessary to *do* science.  *You* have to support *your own* contentions, which you have not come close to doing in a way that remotely resembles rationality.

This famous cartoon, which I might have posted earlier in the thread, illustrates your problem perfectly:
 


Quote And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Every time it looks like you couldn't possibly dig your hole any deeper you manage to do it.  You now have fantasies about some nefarious forces *funding* attacks against your "theory."  Wow.

Just for fun, though, why not tell us exactly what you would do with your "theory" if you had all of the funding you think you need.  Tell us about your research plan (you do have one, right?) and give us a general overview of the necessary facilities, personnel and equipment you'll need.  Then tell us about the test methods you've developed.  You do realize, I hope, that if you have nothing more than 40 pages of gibberish and a little VB program, it's a little unreasonable to expect anyone to give you money.  You also must realize that if you've feverishly struggled for years and the yield is only 40 pages of gibberish and a poorly-structured VB program, there is no reason that anyone should think that you're capable of doing the actual hard work of science.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,23:03)         Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2013,15:32)Gary might find this useful:


Everyone in this forum is OK with this?

A "theory" is a fact with evidence behind it that has been repeatedly confirmed and a "fact" is essentially the same thing but may be modified or even discarded tomorrow?
I'm mostly okay with it, but would have put emphasis on phrasing things differently.  Fact is closer to "single data point".  If my thermometer says it's 62 degrees outside, that's a fact.  The color temperature of a CFL bulb I just installed in a hall light?  That's a fact.

The explanation behind the climate processes that resulted in the temperature being 62 degrees?  That trends towards theory.  The concept of black body radiation that is used to come up with the measurement of the color temperature comes from a larger body of knowledge explaining how light works.  That again is the realm of theory.
I have to consider it another of the usual quote-mined redefinitions for hypothesis, theory and fact which were invented to stop the Theory of Intelligent Design, even though such redefinitions would stop all new theories from ever being written.

Control freaks love definitions that cripple scientific progress, and their submissive flock of sheeple love to follow them, which is why none in this forum said anything about it.

  Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
Read it again, you missed a rather important distinction.  Theory is EXPLANATION, it's the HOW.  A fact is a correct observation.
The only question I have is whether Jim specially made that in order to demonstrate how easy it is to misled a forum like this one.

Can you show me where it says "it's the HOW" a phenomenon works? Where do you see that in their definition for what a theory is? Or did you ignore the rather glaring errors and make inferences from the word "explanation" in order to rationalize it as a viable definition?

  Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
As to the point at hand, I'd like to see HOW an explanation of various words used in the field of science can be perceived as an insult used in an ad hominem.  You think "you're part of the problem" stated towards people that abuse scientific terms is an insult?

I don't think you want to understand this, but I'll take a stab at it.  If I say "your understanding of scientific terms is wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem.  Saying that you're an idiot because you refuse to understand basic terms and persist in using the wrong terms after being corrected isn't.  It may be accurate to call it an insult, but the fact remains that you've been demonstrated to be incorrect.

And I'll say it again, the fact that you're avoiding discussing the way in which you're wrong by focusing on a dictionary definition and stressing the part about avoiding addressing the points in contention is amazing.  You owe at least a half a dozen people here new irony meters.

You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.

And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.

This year marks the centenary of the death of Alfred Russel Wallace, sometimes portrayed as "Darwin's goad". However, as Andrew Berry argues, Wallace should be remembered as a "visionary scientist in his own right, a daring explorer and a passionate socialist". He was awarded the Order of Merit, the highest honour that could be given by the British monarch to a civilian. He has left a -

"- huge scientific legacy, which ranged from discovering natural selection to defining the term species, and from founding the field of evolutionary biogeography to pioneering the study of comparative natural history." (page 162)

The portrait of Wallace is unveiled at the launch of Wallace100 (Source here)

Wallace's first exhibition (four years in the Amazon rainforests) ended in disaster and he narrowly escaped death. As he sailed home in 1852, the ship caught fire and all the specimens he had so carefully collected, including numerous living animals, were lost. Wallace watched the burning wreck from a lifeboat, and it was 10 days before rescuers arrived on the scene. Ever the scientist, he wrote:

"During the night I saw several meteors, and in fact could not be in a better position for observing them, than lying on my back in a small boat in the middle of the Atlantic." (page 163)

Two years later, he was off to the Far East for an 8-year trek. During this time, he established himself as an academic writer and an extremely successful collector, with over 1000 specimens new to science. A landmark paper pointed out that related species tend to be found in the same geographical area.

"Wallace had a prodigious ability to spot patterns in the apparently chaotic (and largely uncatalogued) world of tropical diversity. This is the skill of the true naturalist: to generate a mental database of observed plants and animals that can be referenced when similar forms are encountered elsewhere. It led to his first attempt at biological generalization, a paper he wrote in 1855 while in Sarawak, Borneo: 'On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species' (often called the Sarawak Law)." (page 163)

Ten years later, Wallace proposed a remarkably modern definition of the species concept:

"In his brilliant 1865 paper on the papilionid butterflies of southeast Asia, he parses variations within and among populations, among subspecies and species, and arrives at this definition: "Species are merely those strongly marked races or local forms which, when in contact, do not intermix, and when inhabiting distinct areas are generally believed to have had a separate origin, and to be incapable of producing a fertile hybrid offspring."
It is emblematic of history's neglect of Wallace that most undergraduates today are taught that the biological species concept was introduced in 1942 by Ernst Mayr." (page 163)

Many students have been introduced to the role played by Wallace in 1858 in triggering a joint presentation alongside Darwin of evolution by natural selection. Suffice to say here that the last word on this has not been written.

However, although Darwin's name is now dominant in evolutionary theory, Wallace is perceived as the Father of historical biogeography. The groundwork was laid in 1857, in a paper about the Aru Islands (off New Guinea). Textbooks today record his discovery of the distinction between Australian fauna and Asian fauna, separated by Wallace's Line.

"It is tempting to see echoes between Wallace's serendipitous path through life and his contingent interpretation of natural systems: his most famous biogeographical discovery also had a dose of luck. In 1856, having missed a connection as he tried to make his way to Sulawesi, he spent a couple of months on the islands of Bali and Lombok, and noted drastic differences in the wildlife even though the islands are only some 35 kilometres apart. To the south and east, the Australian fauna dominated; to the north and west, the Asian one. He had identified an ancient biogeographic split across southeast Asia that biologist Thomas Henry Huxley later dubbed 'Wallace's Line'." (page 163)

Wallace the scientist is often contrasted with the "other Wallace" who dabbled in "suffrage and socialism", "spiritualism and phrenology". But Berry cautions against thinking like this. "But Wallace's worldview was far more coherent than is often claimed." (page 164) Differences with Darwin came to the fore regarding human evolution. Whereas Darwin expected evolution by natural selection to transform an ape-like animal into a human, Wallace rejected this scenario. He argued for "some kind of non-material intervention in the genesis of humans". His religious views allowed him to be open to this hypothesis, although his arguments were drawn from scientific observations of different races of humanity.

"The more I see of uncivilized people, the better I think of human nature on the whole, and the essential differences between so-called civilized and savage man seem to disappear." (page 164)

Berry comments:

"[Wallace realised that] many humans have abilities that they never have the opportunity to use. Such a situation, Wallace reasoned, cannot evolve through natural selection alone, which promotes only those traits that are useful. Wallace concluded that human evolution required some divine intervention. This argument shows an excellent appreciation of the mechanics of natural selection [. . . ]" (page 164)

Darwin's reaction reveals his own worldview, which was sometimes deistic and sometimes atheistic - but which never allowed any active role for God in the history of life. Berry puts it this way:

"Darwin was horrified, writing to his friend in 1869: "I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child."" (page 164)

Whilst Berry is willing to respect Wallace's integrity in departing from Darwin in this key issue, he does not elaborate on the broader implications of worldview thinking. No mention is made of Wallace's Man's Place in the Universe (1903), which discusses the teleological anthropic principle, or his World of Life (1910), which is devoted to intelligent evolution. Wallace saw himself as a theistic scientist who recognised design and purpose in the natural world. Thus, he is a powerful witness against those who portray intelligent design per se as antiscience. People are free to reach different conclusions, but Wallace should not be dismissed as someone who sacrificed reason and science to satisfy religious scruples. This is a worldview issue and, at this level, both theists and atheists are equally religious in their thinking. We can echo Berry's closing words, with the proviso that in the "etc., etc., etc." are found Wallace's advocacy of intelligent design in the natural world.

"As we remember Wallace 100 years after his death, let us celebrate his remarkable scientific achievements and his willingness to take risks and to advocate passionately for what he believed in. He was, after all, both a scientist, and, in his own assessment, a "Red-hot Radical, Land Nationaliser, Socialist, Anti-Militarist, etc., etc., etc." In short, a whole lot more than Darwin's goad." (page 164)

Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution's red-hot radical
Andrew Berry
Nature, 496, 162-164 (11 April 2013) | doi:10.1038/496162a

Sidekick status does Alfred Russel Wallace an injustice. He was a visionary scientist in his own right, a daring explorer and a passionate socialist, argues Andrew Berry.

See also:

Flannery, M. Why Darwin Is Remembered More than Wallace, Evolution News& Views (5 March 2013)

Flannery, M. Hijacking Alfred Russel Wallace, Evolution News& Views (24 January 2013)

Tyler, D., Why Alfred Russel Wallace deserves to be remembered, ARN Literature Blog (11 March 2008)

Website: Alfred Russel Wallace

Post by Alan Fox
Quote (The whole truth @ April 25 2013,23:43)   Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.

Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.

Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.

F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.

Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.


Strong measures = comments [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-

csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]off![/URL]

Post by Febble
Only 5,681, and quite a lot of that is title:


[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/for-record-afs-insistent-strawman-misrepresentation-tactics-and-false-accusation-of-fraud-

csi-is-a-bogus-concept-so-it-would-not-figure-in-anyones-calculations-exposed/]FOR RECORD: AF’s insistent strawman misrepresentation tactics and false accusation of fraud (“CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations . . . “) exposed . . .[/URL]


Comments are closed.

Post by The whole truth
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2013,02:09)Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.

Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.

Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.

F/N and for record.
Uh oh, you've gone and done it, Alan. gordo is going to take "strong measures", which is sure to mean that Mr. Leathers is being limbered up. Plus, he's going to headline the case, for record no doubt, which means yet another 10,000+ word screed filled with the same old shit that gordo has spewed 10,000+ times.

Does anyone know where there's a good bomb shelter? I'm concerned about exposure to deadly tard radiation when gordo's head explodes.

Post by Alan Fox
Hi Franklin *waves back*; Glad you're joining the experiment.

Kairosfocus, I see has addressed a long, faux-indignant screed here. He still omits to include a meaningful definition of CSI.

Amid all the bluster, Elsberry and Shallit remain unanswered.

F/N and for record.