AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Alan Fox

form_srcid: Alan Fox

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.80.12.147

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Alan Fox

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Alan Fox%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/08/22 16:46:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Who is Dr Shapiro and where can whatever it is that he says, be found?

Date: 2005/08/22 16:50:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Googling gets me:
Howard M
MarkH
Ron
Ehud
Michael
Jonathan
on first 10 searches.

Date: 2005/08/22 16:55:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry

I left out Francine

Date: 2005/09/07 06:27:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

Professor Shapiro has just confirmed to me that he is not a supporter of ID nor any form of creationism. He finds current theories of the origins of life unsatisfactory (please note this is abiogenesis, not evolution, which many others have pointed out to you, are not the same) and argues that the way forward is better science.

He also recommends his later book "Planetary Dreams" (Wiley 1999). Thank you for directing me to this source.

GCT

I'm wondering why you are arguing about Newton's second law of motion (summed up as F=ma) when SLOT refers to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Excuse me if I misunderstood something here.

Date: 2005/09/07 06:57:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
GCT wrote
Quote
NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.


Sorry, GCT, missed this earlier.

Date: 2005/09/07 08:06:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.


Do you read others' posts? Nobody has claimed that anything is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Quite the opposite.

Date: 2005/09/07 08:15:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend.

Date: 2005/09/07 11:31:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

Date: 2005/09/07 11:37:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend in that he does not support your "arguments". I would stay and engage you in a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed.

Best wishes
Alan Fox

Date: 2005/09/22 10:55:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
God, this is a sad little blogsite. What purpose is served by responding to the drivel served up by Evopeach?

Date: 2005/10/08 06:26:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
evopeach wrote
I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.
[QUOTE]

A hydrogen nucleus is a proton. They are identical; the same thing. Add an electron and you have a hydrogen atom. Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus. Add two electrons and you have a heium atom. This is basic stuff.

I notice you post prolifically here. None of your posts serve any useful purpose other that to demonstrate your wilful ignorance and your poor skills in the use of insults.

Is it some form of obsession? Why not take up a more satisfying hobby?

Date: 2005/10/08 10:43:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.


Oh, the irony!

Date: 2005/10/10 08:00:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
David Chiu has been proposed to me by an ID proponent as a leading light in the ID camp. Apart from his CV and list of publications on the Guelph uni website, and the fact he is listed as an ISCID fellow, I can't find anything out about him. Has anyone heard of him and could anyone point me towards his seminal work, if it exists.

Thanks in anticipation.

Date: 2005/10/10 20:34:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Superior intelligence, who can say without more evidence? Spelling's a bit weak though.

Date: 2005/10/11 02:26:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Chimp

I wish you luck with that approach. :)

Date: 2005/10/11 13:32:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

1) Ma = Mm + Mm + Mm +Mm + Mm +...
where Ma represents macroevolution and Mm represents microevolution.

2) All forms are transitional as no offspring is identical to a parent (save for a clone)

3) As new discoveries are made, a theory is developed, modified or discarded. Rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian deposits would be a problem for evolutionary theory.

4) Evolution begins after abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a separate problem. Robert Shapiro thinks more work needs to be done and present theories are weak. He is not, however, a creationist, and believes that good science can address the problem.

Date: 2005/10/11 13:50:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

Your alternative theory is...

Date: 2005/10/11 13:53:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

And your alternative theory is...

Date: 2005/10/12 05:10:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I recently began reading comments on Bill Dembski's uncommondescent blog and posted the odd comment myself. I soon noticed comments were rapidly deleted and registration cancelled. As I don't have a fixed IP address, he couldn't ban it. Others noticed the practice and there was dicussion on PT and elsewhere about the lack of integrity it demonstrated. There then followed  a period where dissenting posts were tolerated. But there was a new development; unwelcome posts remained on view to the poster, but became invisible to others. I assumed I was being ignored, but, no, I was invisible!

I believe this speaks volumes for the integrity of William Dembski

Date: 2005/10/12 05:54:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah so Bill is religiously motivated. Thanks for the confirmation. So much for the claim that ID is science and not religion.

Date: 2005/10/12 06:00:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
He and his colleagues have research to do.


ROTFL What? Where? Bill Dembski is a pedestrian mathematician and demonstrably dishonest.

Date: 2005/10/12 06:35:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Please call me Alan

Jellyfish have a hard time being discovered as fossils. They are eaten, when they die they decay, there are no hard parts such as bone to fossilise. Most fossils that do exist remain undiscovered, still buried in undisturbed strata. I find it amazing that so much fossil evidence has been discovered.

Not nearly continuous, really continuous. All living organisms on Earth have descended with modification via viable antecedents from a common ancestor. Well that's the theory. I feel that you disagree. Would you have an alternative theory to propose, or are you just in denial about evolution?

Date: 2005/10/12 07:00:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ghost of Paley

You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds

Date: 2005/10/12 10:32:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Not JAD, I see that now. No mention of semi-meiosis.

I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.

Date: 2005/10/12 21:54:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Paley

I read the paper and alsoa more recent paper which cites your earlier (2002) paper. The evolving nature of genuine scientific research is well illustrated. There are problems with cladistic relationships depending on the method of analysis. So the science is improved and theories are adapted as knowledge develops. This seems an eminently reasonable approach.

Date: 2005/10/12 22:00:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Rimby

Ad hominem! I am not a trained seal :)

Date: 2005/10/12 22:30:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Paley writes

Quote
Fox seems to think citing a man's personal faith refutes his arguments


In the case of Dembski, I think it is his ego, not his faith, that is the real driving force. As to the quality of his arguments... Where does one start. David Wolpert has made mincemeat of Dembski's NFL theorems here. Mark Perakh has published much material demolishing Dembski's stuff for example here

Wesley Elsberry, Matt Young, Jeffrey Shallitt have all shown Dembski's work to be worthless. Dembski never responds to critics, slyly corrrects errors without acknowledgement and continues to collect royalties form his scientifically vacuous books.

Paley says

Quote
I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms.


I hope you don't rely too much on Dembski's ideas or you may not get too far.

Whilst agnostic myself, I don't presume to advise others on their personal beliefs, but when  creationists attempt to force their beliefs into schools, that must be resisted.

Date: 2005/10/14 10:11:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry about that. Try here.

Date: 2005/10/14 22:27:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach. I think it's reasonable to give the source when you cut and paste. We all then have the opportunity to see the full context.

Date: 2005/10/15 09:05:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Rimby

No, I'd already seen something on PT about this, so sorry to put you to any trouble.

It's evopeach. Whenever you see text without spelling mistakes, you can be sure he's just lifted it from somewhere (probably a creationist site such as AIG) and pasted it. I think he should at least acknowledge the source.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:36:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

If you have Adobe reader, have a look at this PDF file. It covers a lot of the points about early evolution, symbiogenesis etc.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:46:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley

Are you referring to this link, that I posted on another thread? Perhaps you can point out where there is any support for your "theory"?

Date: 2005/10/17 06:10:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry Henry

The full url is http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/research/bib/KooyHeng2005.pdf

Is that OK? Tried it myself a few times and the file download is offered.

Anyway, what are you doing slumming with the likes of Paley and Evo?

Date: 2005/10/17 07:04:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Partly wondering if Evopeach is really serious in what he says, given that he's basically accusing tens of thousands of biologists of sharing a common delusion. That would strike me as extremely unlikely even if I didn't follow the gist of the argument.


Argument from authority? Works for me, too! I think Evo is driven by insecurity; the fear that the fundie myths he regurgitates are just that.

Date: 2005/10/17 07:44:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I look forward to it.

Date: 2005/10/17 08:19:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their preconceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.


What data are rejected? ID has done no research, produced no data. There is always lively debate within the scientific community about the quality and relevance of individual research results; new findings have to fight for acceptance. Repeatability is the key.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread


Try posting on PT. You'll find unsupported contention cuts little ice with real scientists.

Quote
I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.


The ones you linked to here did not do that in fact or in purpose.

Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.


Conclusions unsupported by those data, perhaps. Especially if you are emulating Uri Bill Dembski.

Quote
Intelligent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.


All that IDists have done is to make assertions. They have done no research, produced no evidence, tested no theories. ID is not science.

Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data.


Symbiogenesis and horizontal gene transfer is an uncontroversial theory for single-celled organisms. What you seem to be proposing, that genetic information can be incorporated in the genotype of a multi-cellular organism by ingestion is laughable.



Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.


Ah, the Satanic trinity. Evolutionary biology continues to build on the ideas of Darwin. Origin of Species is not the evolutionists' Bible; rather a useful reference of past work on which to build and continue to develop our understanding of how life evolves.

Date: 2005/10/17 08:23:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
HPLC_Sean

You beat me to it. I promise I hadn't read your post before posting mine and didn't crib "laughable".

Date: 2005/10/17 08:47:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

I, for one, am looking forward to reading Professor Behe's testimony. Since he has produced nothing new since "Darwin's Black Box" nearly ten years ago, it is hard to speculate on what he can contribute.

Date: 2005/10/17 11:25:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach

Your reading comprehension could be improved.

I wrote
Quote
he has produced nothing new since "Darwin's Black Box" nearly ten years ago


His later stuff has nothing new to offer. Unless you can cite something earth shattering from his later material.

Date: 2005/10/17 11:41:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
As you intend to post more later, I won't preempt you.

Just a small point. I missed the reference to echinodermata in Kooijman & Hengeveld (2005). Could you point me to it?

Date: 2005/10/18 07:32:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Evopeach wrote
Quote
I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that


Just a reminder that Professor Shapiro recently specifically confirmed that he does not support creationism or intelligent design in any form.

Date: 2005/10/19 21:31:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ghost of Paley

I'm sorry to say you have become boring. I will wait until your forthcoming paper is universally acclaimed and read it. Until evidence demonstrates otherwise, I will file you under "cranks".

Best of luck
Alan.

Date: 2005/10/21 01:52:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You're on Evopeach.

I bet on a win for the plaintiffs. (ID to lose, in case you weren't sure.)

Date: 2005/10/22 23:44:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The one useful thing he did add to this board is a dissenting opinion.


I agree. Have a look at the surreal world of Uri Bill Dembski's blog where the comments are a pathetic mix of sycophancy, hubris, venom and just plain IDiocy. Try injecting reason and see how long your comment lasts. Lack of censorship is a major demonstration of science's resilience to criticism.

Mind you, Evo did overstep the bounds of civilised conduct, and he would have had to go when he lost his bet, anyway.

Date: 2005/10/23 11:17:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Good read! Thanks, Steve.

Date: 2005/10/24 10:21:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Behe claimed 5 reviewers looked at DBB before publication. Atcheson and the 10 minute phonecall, we know about. Robert Shapiro damns the book with faint praise here (and promises a fuller explanation soon) here

And now a third reviewer has spoken here.

Date: 2005/11/06 12:13:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Paris isn't France. Here in the Languedoc I don't need to lock my car at night. Local youths call a friendly greeting when we pass in the street. Healthcare is available as and when necessary. The sun shines and the food's wonderful. Learn Occitan.

Date: 2005/11/13 21:20:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Ghost of Paley. I felt a few minor corrections were needed in your oped
Quote
There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased different culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't aren't permitted to assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses may degenerate. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution opinion later.


Are you sure you'll have time to work on your solutionopinion piece whilst preparing your paper and working on your theory of geocentrism.

Come on, admit it. You are parodying. No-one can be (apparently) this lucid and yet so completely irrational.

Date: 2005/11/14 10:41:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley inquires
Quote
How are my opinions irrational?


Geocentism is not rational, gene transfer by ingestion in multicellular animals is not rational. But your analysis of problems that can arise from rapid immigration of culturally different groups seemed quite lucid. I am curious as to your solution and why you think we in the poster's graveyard need to know this. Jacques Chirac, Ariel Sharon, and other national leaders would surely benefit more from your opinions and be able to put them into practice.

Mr The Ghost of Paley adds
Quote
Remember, this is an American board, so you can't get Big Bro to shut me up - you'll have to support your diatribes with logic n' evidence.


American... Eh alors?

You have this board confused with Dr Dembski's blogsite, perhaps. No arbitrary censorship here. Not even for being boring.

Diatribes, moi? I'm not the one espousing crazy ideas in a parody of a crank pseudo-scientist.

Date: 2005/11/14 21:07:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
you might want to write something that less resembles Mein Kampf.


Seconded.

Mr Ghost of Paley, you cannot be serious.

BTW French TV can be rather deferential to government, which is why I have satellite for BBC UK.

There's nothing wrong intrinsically in offering assistance to immigrants who wish to return to their home country; this has been done in the UK with refugees from the Bosnian conflict, for example. Resources are finite and limiting immigration to a level that matches those resources seems perfectly reasonable. Pulling the rug out from under immigrants who have been allowed to settle, by the use of compulsion or economic pressure does hint at a "final solution".

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is
Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


One man's freedom is another's oppression. One rôle of government is to ensure there are checks and balances so that there is an equal amount of freedom for all its citizens. The unbridled free market is a carte blanche for exploitation and corruption.

Date: 2005/11/15 21:02:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Ghost of Paley

Your Danté quote seems quite appropriate. Lost in Héll and unable to climb out.

Date: 2005/11/16 20:47:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I suspect none of the "Doomsday" scenarios of social breakdown will happen. Theft over toil (as illustrated by Dawkins with his digger wasps) is only a good strategy till equilibrium is reached. The parasite cannot survive without the host. Repressive and exploitative regimes or anarchy could be considered extremes with an equilibrium where the general population is little enough affected that the simplest strategy is to endure.

Considering "Darwinian" ideas such as selfishness versus altruism, competition for scarce resources by an increasing population, etc., could be appropriate here. Evolution in action; maybe this thread is not so far off the mark.

Date: 2005/11/16 21:07:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
PS

I'm still convinced Bill is a chain-yanking parody.

Date: 2005/11/16 22:35:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Someone on PT posted this excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" which has some relevance to Bill's ideas.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Date: 2005/11/18 10:13:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
that's the problem with literature; it leads to differing interpretations.
Yes, for example the Bible in its many translations and editions, from Nicaea onwards, seems open to a wide variety of interpretations
Quote
as a Frenchman
 not until I can apply for citizenship next year.
Quote
think of your nation's speech codes?

If you mean the highly regulated media here, not much. Apart from the occasional gem, television is poor quality compared to BBC, newspapers are expensive and contain very little real critical analysis, tending to be deferential to politicians.
Quote
how do most French people feel?


Where I live (Languedoc-Roussillon, though some now want to change the name to Septimania, the area's old Roman name, may not be representative of the rest of France. People are generally tolerant of immigrants, as there has been immigration from Italy (encouraged and financed by the French government) at the end of the 19th century, and  a considerable influx of Spanish refugees and exiles (Los Rojos) around the time of the Spanish Civil War, but Parisians are generally detested. Amazingly, people from the Champagne area are also loathed, because the Champenois formed a large contingent of the Albigensien crusaders, so cultural memory can be quite long. The exception to this tolerance is to recent immigrants from their former colonies in North Africa, mainly Algeria. Les Arabes are not welcomed and ghettos exist in major towns and cities, with the results you have seen.

My French friends and neighbours are charming, formal in public, lively in private, parochial and chauvinistic. Most seem too concerned with their immediate situation to worry too much about world affairs, except when it involves their pride or their pocket. In brief, they are surprisingly normal, like people I knew back in England.

But I wax lyrical...
As time permits am happy to provide more info.

The Cathars now.. the Holy Grail... the legend of Mary Magdalene.

Date: 2005/11/19 11:09:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Thanks for the info; you gave me a slice-of-life I couldn't obtain anywhere else.


No problem. Now what about some quid pro quo. A bit of background from you may shake my conviction that you are parodying.

Date: 2005/11/19 11:23:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Wikipedia suggests the logical fallacy of the "straw man" is committed if one does the following

Quote
1)Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

2)Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

3)Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4)Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.


So I think Hyperion needs to substitute "misreprestenting " or mis-stating" for "stating" in

Quote
You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.

Date: 2005/11/19 11:29:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dr Elderberry, where's that spellcheck button?

S/B "misrepresents"

Date: 2005/11/19 12:20:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Brauer

If you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

Anyway, this place is no substitute for the bathroom wall.

Date: 2005/11/19 20:20:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
the only problem with the place is, far fewer people come here
which is the problem. OK Henry, the link's there, but it is too many clicks away for most people to bother.

Date: 2005/12/03 22:09:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Salvador

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?

Date: 2005/12/05 00:10:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote, with that disarming irony
Quote
Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact.


As with evolutionary theory, evidence accumulates with your every post to establish the theory beyond rational argument.

Salvador, you wrote

Quote
Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical.


I agree to the extent that Mr Paley does not lack wit or literary skill. Which is why I find it impossible to believe he is serious about geocentrism. By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?

Cogzoid

I hope you can laugh and sneeze OK now. Having just had my prostate removed, I can empathise. But, looking on the bright side, forced recuperation at home for the next couple of weeks or so will allow endless opportunities to engage the rapier mind of Mr Paley.

Date: 2005/12/05 01:56:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Definitely not the "real" Cordova, Lenny. That creepy mixture of superciliousness and false bonhomie is missing.

Date: 2005/12/05 11:10:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Evolution tries to account for specified complex information from materialistic processes.


No-one other than Bill Dembski and his sycophants use the term "specified complex information" or attach any meaning to the term. Like the rest of Dembski's gobbledygook, the term is meaningless. The theory of evolution manages very well without such nonsense. Your above assertion is meaningless.

I doubt even Salvador appreciates your poor attempt at impersonation, whoever you are.

Date: 2005/12/05 11:19:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski.  Good medine for the soul.  It will clarify thy confused thinking.


Ah! Maybe this is Bill himself shilling. Perhaps the fast-food trade is a liitle slow this time of year.

Date: 2005/12/05 11:31:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley asks

Quote
I'd appreciate any insight on this.


You know, I'm tempted to believe you would. I see a difference between your playfulness, and the simple baiting* of the fake Cordova. However, I can't believe you take this "crystal spheres" nonsense seriously.

(*in the sense of provoking, eg baiting bears)

Date: 2005/12/10 23:53:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Stevestory

As someone due to receive radiotherapy after surgery, I'd be interested to see the source material, which may have some relevance for me.

Thanks in advance

Date: 2005/12/11 00:11:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley asks

Quote
By the way, how do you guys feel about the physics discussions? Are we communicating our points well? Just looking for some guidance here......


Well, Mr P, you're no Dawkins. I still see nothing developing your idea about horizontal gene tranfer via ingestion in multicellular organisms (gut to gamete), or anything convincing (or even coherent) about geocentrism. I agree with Mr Cox and still think you are pulling our chains.

Date: 2005/12/11 09:38:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
.
Thanks Mr P. I hope so too.

Date: 2005/12/11 10:30:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
My surgeon says the radiotherapy is precautionary but there will be side-effects so the possibility of less aggressive alternatives is appealing. I'm not due to receive it until fully recovered from surgery which gives me about 12 weeks for research. It does look as if Stevestory is right that the new discovery is not soon enough for me, however.

I shall definitely be trying the laughter treatment.

BTW I'm back-pedalling on atheism, maybe agnosticism is closer in describing what I believe (today, at least).

Date: 2005/12/13 00:33:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I don't if anyone else will find this site as hilarious as I did, but it has to be worth a look.

The musings of Professor Emeritus John A Davison

Date: 2005/12/17 06:20:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
It seems the Prof. (and just about everyone else) has given up on his blog. Perhaps Evopeach would like to grab the baton and run with it.

Date: 2005/12/18 00:13:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr the ghost of Paley posted on a Panda's Thumb thread

Quote
   Eric wrote:

   I enjoyed science and math in high school, and quickly learned to avoid both in college. The undergraduate math classes were just dreadful—“Theorem. Lemma. Lemma. Proof. Theorem. etc.”. The professors would just stand there and copy proofs from the textbook to the blackboard.


Yes! Eric, yer a man after Paley’s own heart! Math has to be the worst taught subject in the curriculum. Can anyone tell me why math “teachers” at all levels spend 90% of the time transferring the textbook to the blackboard? If you understand the text, the lecture is pointless; if you don’t, the lecture reinforces your insecurities. I recommend Morris Kline for further insight on this issue.
I also find the American habit of shoving algebra down everybody’s throat to be quite dreadful. Outside of percentages, fractions, and statistics, math is completely irrelevant to many people’s lives, yet every child is forced to grind through mapping, domain and set theory. Stooopid.


Could this explain why Bill is struggling to finalise his geocentrism arguments and is a bit tardy with the "gut to gamete" paper. You should have paid more attention in those math classes, Mr P.

Date: 2005/12/19 07:11:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Jason

Would have missed this otherwise. Vintage Dawkins!

Date: 2005/12/22 08:11:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us
Quote
No, I haven't given up.


And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?

Date: 2005/12/22 11:43:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mea culpa, Bill. I was all excited over the Dover decision. Blaming black people as disproportionately criminal rather than disproportionate victims of crime and exclusion seems racist. Racism is an unfettered expression of the innate tribal instincts we all possess, but that the veneer of civilisation sometimes manages to keep in check. But this is a forum related to evolutionary biology so I suggest we avoid the issue in future.

Excuse my cultural ignorance, but your reference to the Yenta is lost on me.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your seminal work on HGT. BTW, will you be cribbing from Professor Davison at all?

Date: 2005/12/23 09:15:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin.

Date: 2005/12/29 05:18:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley.

Date: 2005/12/30 07:18:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You must know the guru Mahatma Coat as well.

Date: 2006/01/05 00:33:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ahem,

gut to gametes, Mr P?

Date: 2006/01/05 00:39:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
How is economics any better at forecasting than fortune telling?

Date: 2006/01/06 11:56:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper?

Date: 2006/01/06 12:15:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Economics can help us predict the consequences of our changes.


But how is it any better at prediction than fortune telling? Does anyone objectively record predictions to see how they compare with reality. It seems to me that predictions of future growth by government spokesmen are often short-term and of a sufficiently wide margin to be meaningless, and figures are often be massaged  retrospectively to fit the prediction.

Date: 2006/01/06 12:21:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Can you edit posts here after posting?

Mr P, what would really floor Dean would be that "Gut to Gametes" paper.

Date: 2006/01/06 13:08:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I hope that really isn't the point you were really trying to make, and that you really meant to just be arguing for the value of predictive models in economics.


And are these predictive models better than fortune telling?

Date: 2006/01/06 13:37:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, I'd like to see evidence that economists can do more than provide justification for politicians' economic decisions that they intend to make anyway.

Economics seems to have the same basic flaw in predictive power as Demski's EF; you can't factor in the unknown. I have heard pundits talk about the economic cycle, but the economy is chaotic.

I accept that very short term predictions may come off, but, like weather forecasting, anything long range is about as good as rolling dice.

Date: 2006/01/06 13:44:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I take it back Flint. I just posted before seeing your latest post.

Quote
(I've never even HEARD of southpark. Is it a TV show? I don't watch TV...)


Too much blogging. It's a great show, which I miss as I can't get it here.

Date: 2006/01/06 23:47:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Is it me in my neophyte ignorance, or is there no way to register to be able to comment on his site. I just can't help myself taking the odd peek
Quote
#

Dickie looks upset. A choirboy probably kicked sand in his girly-man face. :-)

Comment by DaveScot — January 5, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
#

He looks terribly sad to me.

Can somebody tell me why a zoologist is going to be chatting Philosophy/Theology with religious types?

Comment by Bombadill — January 5, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
#

Note to Dawkins, the clear genius he is, science itself was borne out of religion. Hospitals started with religious groups, charities started with religious groups. I could go on, but only a handful of people on earth are ignorant enough to claim religion has done evil things to us and hasn’t contributed good.

Atheistic regimes in the 20th century killed more people than any religious reasons combined in the entire history of man- yet, he wants to kill religion because an atheistic science is best for the world?

This man is simply out of his mind.

Comment by Josh Bozeman — January 5, 2006 @ 4:12 pm

and, blood boiling, I seethe in frustration at the likes of Ex sergeant Springer and Joshua Taj Bozeman (who never lets his sublime ignorance prevent him from uttering the most astonishing inanities) being able to hold forth unchallenged. Life just ain't fair.

Date: 2006/01/07 06:49:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Steve, I know it makes sense, but all the same...

It's really post-Dover syndrome, not enough excitement in my life now. (Still off sick and really,really bored.)

Date: 2006/01/08 04:11:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Or...

What about plan B.

We could cut & paste the most inane and idiotic (pun intended) posts and tear them to shreds here. No, it wouldn't be as much fun as posting direct, Grayman.

Date: 2006/01/09 04:58:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You might consider it a loss worth taking, but it's still a loss.


No, it's an investment, just like a lottery ticket.

Seriously, I have been grumbling about paying high French social security since moving to France four years ago. but since I was diagnosed with cancer 4months ago, operated on within 6 weeks, and receiving all (I hope and believe) necessary aftercare, with the further assurance that my illness is 100% covered for life (as all long-term illnesses such as diabetes, etc.,) I am relieved and grateful to be in a "socialist" system. where healthcare is available quickly and efficiently to those that need it.

Date: 2006/01/09 09:14:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
*Ahem*

Gut to gametes? I know there are different timezones...

... mais quand-même!

Date: 2006/01/09 10:00:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
JimB, I'm English, I was being ironic :)

Mind you, life is a lottery, and whether to "invest" in healthcare is also a lottery for an individual or a community. Being part of a caring community is less of a lottery than going it alone, i suggest.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:12:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Flint asks

Quote
If I invented a preventive treatment that was guaranteed effective, and I sold it for an affordable price, would you buy it?


If you knew that alcohol and tobacco shortened many people's lives would you ban them, knowing the loss of income from reduced taxation, which might otherwise contribute to additional healthcare.

BTW, I agree with Dean,  preventative healthcare, especially dietary advice and education within the public school system, could have huge benefits to the US economy.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:20:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't

Date: 2006/01/09 10:35:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see!


I hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm  disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:49:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Then I'd let people make whatever informed decision they saw fit.


Then why not cocaine, or heroin. (BTW if anyone gets offered morphine as a painkiller after, say, an operation, my advice is say "yes please"). Tax income, no policing of drug crime, pure product with controllable doses and no cutting with lethal stuff such as scouring powder. Prohibition was a disaster, control and taxation works with alcohol and tobacco; why not?

Date: 2006/01/09 10:59:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Perhaps it all boils down to whether we choose theft or toil?
Indeed, if we can choose as individuals.

Date: 2006/01/09 11:05:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr P,

Disappoinment doesn't quite cover it, If you come up trumps, I'll be flabbergasted. Best of luck. :D

Date: 2006/01/09 11:28:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Yes, amusing article Mr P.

The "discrepancy" between claimed and observed attendance at church made me chuckle. But can you afford these distractions, with your paper to hone into shape?

Date: 2006/01/09 11:32:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I think you may be a closet socialist, JimB. :D

Date: 2006/01/09 12:05:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm now firmly ensconced in my capitalist home :) !


Me, too!

Date: 2006/01/10 00:50:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley

I just came across This site which seems perfect for you to enter your "dangerous questions" rather than waste your time with us peasants.

Quote
What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

Date: 2006/01/10 09:27:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Welcome to the club Mr Christopher.

Mind you, I managed to get booted from Uncommon Dissent four or five times (It's a bit vague because mane posts were subsequently deleted and I didn't start taking screenshots straight away). It does reflect badly on ID proponents that they feel unable to sustain genuine dialogue with critics.

Telic Thoughts and ISCID are prone to the same knee jerk banning of unwelcome posters.

Date: 2006/01/10 11:55:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I too thought Keiths was a polite and patient poster. His time at Dembski's blog was bound to be limited, because he made the regular sycophants appear to be such IDiots. Maybe he'll call in at PT, (or perhaps we already know him by another name).

Date: 2006/01/10 12:26:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
If it was Benjii you want to contact, I have come across him here

Date: 2006/01/10 15:32:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This is unbelievable. DaveScot is posting threats on Pharyngula


#57296: DaveScot — 01/10  at  05:55 PM
Those of you that may not know, I help to run Uncommon Descent, Dr. Dumbsk's blog on Intelligent design.I just wanted to let you know that we are watching you rubes here and at the Panda's Thumb. If you are found making smarmy comments about Dr. Dumbski or disparaging ID you will be summarily banned from Uncommon Descent. I run a tight ship and I will not tolerate two-faced phonies.


(Vowels added back in, some errors may have occurred)

Date: 2006/01/11 03:06:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah! But if you built it, would they come?

(Apologies to K Kostner.)

Date: 2006/01/11 05:54:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr P asks Ms Stahlhut

Quote
Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it?


Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated :)

Date: 2006/01/11 05:59:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry, Henry. Now you point it out, that should have been Dimbski :D

Date: 2006/01/11 06:44:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You're still posting, Mr P.

Date: 2006/01/12 02:59:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Julie

In response to a question by ericmurphy way back on page 3 of this thread:

Quote
The Ghost of Paley
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?


Paley wrote:

Quote
Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science.
My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist


And we've been waiting for him to elaborate ever since.

Date: 2006/01/12 11:41:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr P

You're not letting your "intense scientific scrutiny" distract you from adding the finishing touches to your "gut to gametes" paper, now, are you? One can only bate one's breath for so long, you know.

Date: 2006/01/12 23:54:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks, Julie, that was most informative. You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT.

BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development?

Date: 2006/01/13 06:32:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hope you do find time, Julie, and thanks again.

Date: 2006/01/14 03:30:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
*pops head round garden gate*

Have I got the day wrong?

Date: 2006/01/14 10:21:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mt P,

I think you are spreading yourself a bit thinly, you are becoming positively wraith-like. Not to nag or anything, But...

Gut to ganetes...?

Date: 2006/01/14 10:24:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Or, even...

Gut to gametes.

Date: 2006/01/14 10:36:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I don't know where I came across the news (to me) that Great White Sharks maintained their body temperature higher than that of the surrounding water, and thus are able to be active predators on colder water than other species. But it shows to me that evolution is still happening.

I do recall John A Davison mentioning more than once that some species of shark (presumably those that bear live young, such as the Great White, have a "true" placenta. I'm not sure what John meant by true in this context, possibly to do with his front loading hypothesis.

Luckily for me we have a resident shark expert on PT who may expand on the subject.

Over to you, Sir T.

Date: 2006/01/14 11:53:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Anyone fancy a spliff... Oh, sorry, didn't see you there, vicar.

Date: 2006/01/14 12:15:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bloody ####, Sir T

That was more than I bargained for, and it's past my bedtime.
Much appreciated though, and I will have a look at links and get back with any further thoughts. Blog time will be a bit restricted from tomorrow as have to go back to work

Date: 2006/01/16 21:01:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hey guys

I just spotted DaveScot has posted on JAD's blogsite, telling him his new password and inviting him back to Uncommon Dissent. Anyone interested in offering bets as to how long before the Professor gets banned again? (My guess: 4 days after his first post)

Date: 2006/01/17 05:39:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Here it is. I have been winding him up a bit there. My only excuse is I was very, very bored. :)

Date: 2006/01/21 03:23:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.

Date: 2006/01/21 04:05:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Is this paper on shark evolution, the one you intended to link to, Sir T?

Date: 2006/01/25 09:54:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what progress with your "guts to gametes" paper, Mr. P.

You seem to have been distracted by Mr. Brazeau. If you want to give up on the enterprise and admit defeat, we'll all understand.

Date: 2006/01/25 11:35:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.


LOL. The irony is breathtaking.

Date: 2006/01/25 13:06:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

Dr. Davison

I was suggesting you may find people more receptive to your ideas if you did not wreath them in pejorative rhetoric. Also an attack on hypothesis X is not a proof for hypothesis Y.

You wrote:

I mean no one has a working hypothesis for the origin of biological diversity that he is willing to present. No one that is except myself.

What about the theory of Intelligent Design as proposed By Behe and Dembski?

Comment by Xavier — January 25, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
#

ID is design detection as of now. It doesn’t say or predict exactly how a designer would choose to do the designing.

Comment by Patrick — January 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm


Is Patrick confirming there is no theory of Intelligent Design?

Date: 2006/01/26 11:54:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I thought the programme was simplistic in its presentation, but that's maybe because I already knew the outcome of the Dover trial. I was struck by the contrast in charisma level between Behe and  Dembski, or maybe I am prejudiced against Bill. He shouldn't have agreed to that shot of him walking along the railtrack.

I agree that the producers managed to give ID a dishonest flavour, though the rather creepy Stephen Meyer helped in that regard.

Date: 2006/01/26 12:35:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From the mad Professor
Quote
#

Thank you DaveScot

PLEASE TAKE NOTE you denizens of “Panda’s Pathetic Pollex,” especially those at Wesley Elsberry’s inner sanctum, “After The Bar Closes,” where the indiscreet elite meet. Read it and weep!

“War, God help me, I love it so!”
General George S. Patton, with Albert Einstein a fellow predestinationist.

Comment by John Davison — January 26, 2006 @ 5:00 pm


Over an article from him quote-mining  Julian Huxley and others. John, (I know you read this thread) it is evidence that is important, something that your rants lack.

Date: 2006/01/27 01:16:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Whilst researching "Leo Berg" & "nomogenesis" (I know. I need a cure for my obsession with JAD) Google bizarrely found me this comment on the joke site,
Teleological Blog
 
Quote
Comment by John A. Davison — January 11, 2006 @ 4:30 am

Also please do not identify me as an IDist. Most of the Idists that I know want nothing to do with me nor I with them. When their high priest, William Dembski, banned me from his forum he lost a valuable ally and I see no sign that my one time friend DaveScot is about to reinstate me. Egos are terrible things. Dembski has a huge one. So do many others who have identified themselvs with the so called “Intelligent Design Movement.” You are a notable exception. I suspect it has to do with your sincere Christianity.


Davison's prescience is uncanny!

Date: 2006/01/27 07:18:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Russell

you beat me to it. That man Springer is shameless.

Date: 2006/01/27 07:49:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
JAD is also holding forth on this  ISCID thread.

Quote
ATTENTION PLEASE ALL YOU DENIZENS OF PANDA'S THUMB AT WHAT IS TRANSPIRING HERE.


What is transpiring is, in fact, vast amounts of pseudo scientific bull####

PS to John (or anyone else) In what subject did Dr. David L. Hagen obtain a Doctorate.

Date: 2006/01/27 07:57:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Look you two, I'm sure the South African government and peoples are grateful for your advice, but does Mr P. really have time for this with his "guts to gametes" to prepare.

And what about Cogzoid and Ericmurphy!

Date: 2006/01/27 11:35:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Mea culpa. :-(

Comment by DaveScot — January 27, 2006 @ 3:45 pm


This has to be a first!

Date: 2006/01/28 00:10:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Stephen,

I think there's a fundamental* first step that ID has to take before researching anything. Someone has to come up with a hypothesis which can be tested. Behe's "hypothesis" that some biological systems could not have evolved, because they are "irreducibly complex" cannot be falsified, because of the impossibility of proving all biological systems evolved.

Dembski's EF etc., have no relevance to biological systems and make no positive predictions that could be tested.

Until someone can think of a testable hypothesis, there is no useful research that can be done. And I think Behe and Dembski know that. But there is nothing to stop them or anyone else from trying.

Playing Devil's advocate, they could look for the designer's footprint somewhere, maybe in DNA code, but how would they know his shoe size?

*pun intended.

Date: 2006/01/28 04:32:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote

Those subnormal morons over at After The Bar Closes are nothing but a bunch of gossiping barnyard hens. If they had an ounce of spine they would be after me instead of DaveScot. He is the moderator and he can do whatever he pleases with lightweights like the Panda's Thumb crowd. They remind me of Harry S. Truman's description of an adversary he once had:

"He is a living miracle with neither brains nor guts."

Amen Harry baby, my kind of guy!

How do you like them rotating vertical spindles? Climb on and enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.


(from his blog)

Date: 2006/01/28 05:56:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
SteveS

You don't think Dougmoran was being ironic?

Date: 2006/01/28 07:12:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
According to his CV

Publications:

1954.   Muscle apyrase as a function of temperature in the cockroach,
       crayfish and minnow.  Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics,
       48: 485-486.  With A.G. Richards.

1955.   Body weight, cell surface, and metabolic rate in anuran amphibia.
       Biological Bulletin, 109: 407-419.  Ph.D. thesis.

Then nothing except his his semi-meotic nonsense.

1956.   An analysis of cell growth and metabolism in the crayfish
       (Procambarus alleni).  Biological Bulletin, 110: 264-273.

1957.   A fluid drop model of the elliptical red blood cell.
       Experientia, 13: 472-477.

1958.   Studies on the form of the amphibian red cell.
       Anatomical Record, 132: 426-427.  Abstract.

1958.   Organ metabolism in mature mammals as the product of allometric
       mass and rate.  American Naturalist, 92: 105-110.

1959.   Studies on the form of the amphibian red blood cell.
       Biological Bulletin, 116: 397-405.

1959.   Determination of form of the amphibian red blood cell.
       The Physiologist 2.  Abstract.

1961.   A study of spotting patterns in the leopard frog.
       1. Effect of gene dosage.  Journal of Heredity, 52: 301-304.

1963.   Gene action mechanisms in the determination of color and pattern
       in the frog (Rana pipiens).  Science, 141: 648-649.

1964.   Animal organization as a problem in cell form.  In: J.R. Gregg
       & F.T.C. Harris (eds.), Form and Strategy in Science: Studies
       Dedicated to Joseph Henry Woodger on the Occasion of His
       Seventieth Birthday.  Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

1964.   A study of spotting patterns in the leopard frog.
       3. Environmental control of genic expression.
       Journal of Heredity, 55: 47-56.

1964.   Spotting variation in the leopard frog: a test for the
       genetic basis in the Rana pipiens "burnsi" variant.
       Journal of Heredity, 55: 234-241.  With L.W. Browder.

1966.   Chimeric and ex-parabiotic frogs (Rana pipiens):
       Specificity of tolerance.  Science, 152: 1250-1253.

1967.   Evidence for cell transformation following embryonic
       transplantation in the frog.  Journal of General
       Physiology, 50: 1096.

1969.   Activation of the ephippial egg in Daphnia pulex.
       Journal of General Physiology, 53: 562-575.

1973.   Population growth in planaria: Dugesia tigrina (Gerard):
       Regulation by the absolute number in the population.
       Journal of General Physiology, 61: 767-785.

1976.   Hydra hymanae: Regulation of the life cycle by time
       and temperature.  Science, 194: 618-620.

Then nothing except his semi-meiotic stuff.

Date: 2006/01/28 08:13:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Our in house pet masochist, Alan Fox, has done exactly what I wanted him to do. Look at the wonderful responses he has been able to evoke there at "After The Pub Shuts Down." I am especially grateful that the #### fool listed my publications at least through the seventies which include three single authored papers in Science one of the most widely read and respected science journals in the world. Who at Panda's Thumb can claim as much I wonder? Who at Panda's Thumb has published anything of note anywhere? It is pretty hard to tell as they hide behind their cowardly aliases while they spew thir mindless viriol, glued to their bar stools congratulating each other over their knowledge of an event that has never been witnessed.

Thank you once again Alan Fox for proving once more to be my greatest ally as well as by, in so doing, proving also that your IQ must be in the room temperature range.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"Davison is the Darwinians'worst nightmare."
Terry Trainor

Alan Fox just proved it.

"Since God found it necessary to limit man's intelligence, why didn't he also limit his stupidity?
Konrad Adenauer

Beats me Konrad. Ask Alan Fox. He knows everything.

11:15 AM


He's noticed.

Date: 2006/01/28 10:20:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Russell said

Quote
And, at least for the meantime, evolution of modern animal forms is largely i-dotting and t-crossing relative to the radical developments associated with the past.


Till the next big meteor strike, maybe.

I agree that John does seem to have some challenging ideas, but it seems impossible to draw him into debate. He does not respond well to criticism or queries. You either accept what he is saying as a good student should, or you are out of his lecture hall. He has said he has a recurring nightmare of lecturing to a hall empty of students and I suspect he still craves the respect that his former position gave him.

(Reminder to self; always spellcheck before posting.)

Date: 2006/01/28 10:26:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote:

Quote
More later.


Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime? :D

Date: 2006/01/28 11:23:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Too technical for me. And I am deaf to the music of the spheres. Biochemistry was my field, so I hope to be able to follow your argument better with HGT.

Date: 2006/01/28 21:22:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Johnson,

Maybe you could answer a few queries.

Could you comment on Dr. Elsberry's remarks:

Quote
In looking at Davison's "manifesto", I personally found some reasons for concern about the validity of various points. Since I have long heard similar claims about chromosomal rearrangement and speciation, the claimed novelty of Davison's hypothesis seems more hype than substance. There seems to be a lot of textual interpretation within the work which purports significance in the real world. Quotations seem to be treated much as "proof-texts" are in apologetics. Many of his claims about what "Darwinism" must entail are arguable, and some are simply wrong. I think that in Davison's particular case, he might hold a correct position with regard to speciation events being often due to chromosomal rearrangement without having grounded his other corollaries in much besides his personal prejudices, buttressed with some quotes from others having congruent prejudices.


Why did he stop publishing in mainstream biology in 1976?

What is David L. Hagen a doctor of?

Many thanks, Otto.
Alan

Date: 2006/01/28 23:07:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks to William (Isaac) Dembski for spotting Meyer's article in the UK Daily Telegraph

From his article:

Quote
Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins.


As it was developed by Philip Johnson, and considering the wedge document, not to mention the dearth of scientific research, this seems a bit rich.

Quote
By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.


Natural selection is not "blind and undirected", Species adapt to fit their niches, as those niches change over time via climate change, continental drift, cataclysms such as meteor strikes, etc., etc.

Quote
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".


The vast amount of work produced since Behe's (1996) assertion seems to have slipped by Mr Meyer, though not by Judge Jones, fortunately.

Quote
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence.


An unscientific assertion. What uniform experience can be considered evidence and how is that scientific?

Quote
The informational features of the cell at least appear designed. Yet, to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.


Not X does not prove Y. What evidence is there that there is an "Intelligent Designer" at work. People may believe this, many scientists are theists, but belief is not science.

Quote
So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.


Abiogenesis is an intractable problem, and may remain so for  a very long time, but the leap of faith to an Intelligent Designer is not science, it is religion.

Quote
Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.


"Pandas and People" and the wedge document clearly demonstrate the evolution of creationism into intelligent design.

Quote
Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."


What theory. Please, please state the theory of Intelligent Design. I heartily agree with the quote from Flew. Do you not see the irony there Dr. Meyer?

Same old canards. The problem is this will be new to many English readers, who will be unaware of the duplicitous nature of the Discovery Institute and the creo/ID movement in general. At least they do not (yet) have a significant support base in the UK. Is there a link on the Telegraph website for comments? I didn't spot one. Maybe the paper will publish an opposing view.

Date: 2006/01/29 01:15:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
He reminds me a lot of the knight in Monty Python except he has one heck of a lot of pretty solid information that seems to support a lot of his wild claims.


Almost right.

He reminds me a lot of the knight in Monty Python except he has not one jot of pretty solid information that seems to support a lot of his wild claims.

That's better. Unless you would like to cite some we've missed, other than from the list of respectable but dead scientists such as:

George Mivart (English comparative anatomist) died 1 April 1900 was excommunicated by the Catholic church for suggesting separation of science from religion.

Alfred Russel Wallace (English naturalist) died 7 November 1913, suggested Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest " to Darwin and remained a lifelong supporter of evolution.

William Bateson (English geneticist) died 8 February 1926, brought the work of Gregor Mendel to the attention of a wider audience. "Bateson had a combative, forceful personality, well suited to his self-appointed role of Mendel advocate. However, Bateson was reluctant to believe in the chromosomal theory of inheritance. He was vocally antagonistic to the idea and it wasn't until 1922 after a visit to Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly lab that he publicly accepted chromosomes and their role in heredity." From http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/

Reginald Punnett (English geneticist) died 3 January 1967 (aged 92, retd. 1940) Co-discoverer with Bateson of genetic linkage.

Henry Fairfield Osborn (American paleontologist) died 6 November 1935. From 1891 was associated with the American Museum of Natural History and established one of the foremost collections of fossils. His name has been linked to the idea of "orthogenesis"

Robert Broom (Scottish paleontologist, but spent his working life in South Africa) died 6 April 1951. Had a distinguished career searching for and studying hominid fossils.

Richard B. Goldschschmidt. (German geneticist) died April 1958 (aged 80). Suggested the idea of macro-mutations sometimes referred to as "hopeful monsters".

Otto Schindewolf (German paleontologist) died 10 June 1971 (retd. 1964). Has been associated with Goldschmidt's idea of "hopeful monsters" and saltation.

Pierre Grassé (French zoologist) (1895-1985) Wrote "Evolution of Living Organisms" with many comments expressing scepticism with the theory of evolution.

Date: 2006/01/29 03:29:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Christopher

To avoid you giving more offence, you should be aware that it is Dr. Johnson. (No, not that one, he's dead.) This is Dr. Otto Johnson M.D., father of Dr Johnson (no, not that one) M. D.

So show a little more respect, please.

Date: 2006/01/29 03:36:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bye John

Date: 2006/01/29 04:16:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'm sure that is the generally accepted view, Caledonian. Which is why JAD's assertion that evolution only takes a species to eventual extinction may have a ring of truth. Once a species has found its niche, rapid environmental change will leave it "high and dry" and less developed species can take over the territory.

Date: 2006/01/29 04:40:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'll add my two penn'orth and pop them a letter, or do they have email?

I've been waiting for the strawberries Romanov to be served. I think they're holding them back for the posh folks.

Date: 2006/01/29 04:43:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Don't blow Otto's cover, Caledonian, Stephen Elliot will be disappointed to have missed him.

Date: 2006/01/29 08:23:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
No worries Stephen, that is public information. If you decide to try the ISCID forum, see if you can find out what David L. Hagen holds a doctorate in.

Bad link to ISCID, tried to find direct link, seems you have to go to Brainstorms and go from there.

PS did you get to the Adnams pub?

Date: 2006/01/29 08:31:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Probably just an inadvertant omission.


Worth pointing out to the Telegraph though. I'll give it a go.

Date: 2006/01/30 10:34:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
As an aside - Davison is not an emeritus prof at UVM.  He is just retired.


I could try a bluff here and say "that's why I put 'Emertitus'." It was, however, just a typo. My bad, as you colonials put it. :)

Date: 2006/01/31 06:41:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Old people, feel free to correct me if you like.


As a kid at school from the mid fifties, I certainly remember the excitement of Sputnik, the Space Race, former UK prime minister Harold Wilson's "white heat of the technological revolution" speech, Scientific American and advances in molecular biology, encouragement form my high school to pursue a degree in science.

No such enthusiasm for science and technology other than IT and media studies in the nineties, when my daughter was in the education process.

Date: 2006/01/31 06:49:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Stephen wrote

Quote
JAD does have a lot of knowledge.


I'm not so sure. he seems stuck in a time warp, and does not seem to have taken on board (in fact rather utterly rejected) any biological developments since the seventies. Look at the sources he constantly quotes; all dead and all but one or two retired before the genetic code had been elucidated.

Date: 2006/01/31 07:00:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
For example, do you think we can learn anything from this rant on UD?

Date: 2006/02/03 05:55:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

Dr Davison

I think your PEH is nonsense but I agree with part of your comment #80

That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation.

Comment by Xavier — February 3, 2006 @ 3:11 am


Someone else just got banned from Common Descent for this comment.

Date: 2006/02/05 07:22:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Avocationist

Must just correct you on thinking that evolution is a random process. Whilst mutations are random, natural selection is most definitely not random. Those organisms that survive best in their particular environment are the ones whose genes pass on their "fitness". This non-random selection is where information is increased and where Dembski's talking of random walks fails at undermining evolution.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:48:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Site down for maintenance. I wonder what changes there'll be when it's back on line?

Date: 2006/02/11 11:50:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I think John is a one trick pony but looking at his mention of phishyphred on UD I suspect phred is a sock puppet. I think he may have had some help from "psycho" Springer but who knows?

Date: 2006/02/12 05:00:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

Hey folks there is some guy called fishyred or something like that that is raising #### over at “After the Bar Closes.” I think he may be Russian. Its a hoot.

Comment by John Davison — February 11, 2006 @ 3:51 am
#

fishyred? What thread topic over there, Dr. Davison?

Comment by Scott — February 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
#

The one with far and away the most posts and viewers, the one that deals with this forum of course. There were 561 posts the last I looked. What a compliment!

Comment by John Davison — February 11, 2006 @ 9:25 am


The above plus phishpaste's instant dislike of Sir_T confirms for me that he is John Davison.

Date: 2006/02/16 06:03:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr the ghost of Paley

Work is a bugger. I have hardly had time to lurk lately.

I guess "guts to gametes" is not even on the back burner, now.

Date: 2006/02/16 06:42:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But it should be worth waiting for.


If you post it on a new thread, I will look out for it.

Date: 2006/02/20 05:48:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Seems Springer and JAD have had another parting of the ways if Davison's own blog is to be believed.

Quote
I have been banned from any further participation at "Uncommon Descent." It is probably just as well since, as is typical with internet forums, I soon outwear my welcome by presenting views irreconcilable with either of the two major camps, the atheist Darwinian mystics and the closet Christian fundamentalists, neither of which groups were willing to participate in my "Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses." I should have known better than to try to communicate with either faction.

Date: 2006/02/20 07:07:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hmmm!

Am I mistaken or is there some sort of religious aspect to this UD thread? Who is marching out of step, I wonder, Isaac Dembski or Dave Springer?

Date: 2006/02/20 21:18:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sir T

“Your highness, when I said that you are like a stream of bat's piss, I only mean that you shine out like a shaft of gold when all around it is dark”

BTW, my claim to fame is that I met Eric Idle's mother... more than once!

Date: 2006/02/20 23:56:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Eric's mum was known to all in my home village as Nurse Idle, she was the local district nurse, and regularly checked us schoolkids out for nits (that's head lice eggs). The family lived in the next village but I never met Eric; I think he was sent to a private school. His mum was very proud of him and most of her conversational ploys started with "my son, Eric... "

Date: 2006/02/21 00:11:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote


The pages herein are a courtesy for my good friend Professor Emeritus of Biology John A. Davison.

Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge of biology with me, John.
Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:31 am



No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

This seems sadly ironic, now.

Date: 2006/02/21 03:57:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
By the way, was Nurse Idle funny?


Pretty scary, as I recall. But, then, I was only a kid.

Date: 2006/02/23 00:31:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
DavePicoFarad

Just curious, but what is the answer to the suggestion that a systems engineer does not require any formal academic qualification, and do you... sorry, does Dave Springer have any qualifications appropriate to his current calling?

Date: 2006/02/24 22:03:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The original paper is available on line. Here is the abstract.

Certainly seems to shoot JAD's "the environment never had anything to do with it" out of the water.

Date: 2006/02/25 05:26:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have already established beyond any reasonable doubt that NO ONE with ANY hypothesis for the MECHANISM of organic change was willing to present his version when I instituted the First Annual Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses (FATEH) on my blog - prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

After 473 posts still NOBODY has surfaced, absolutely no one. There is only one formal conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment. I am the only living soul within the range of cybershot who is willing to stand by what he has published. There is not a living Darwinian who will admit to being a Darwinian. That includes their most famous living hero Sir Richard Dawkins who didn’t even have the common decency to acknowledge my personal invitation. Indeed it was only a pair of antiDarwinians that even bothered to respond, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, both of whom were too busy with more important matters to take the time to present a 500 word summary of their convictions, assuming of course that they even had any.

How can such a situation exist? I will now tell you exactly why. It is because I am the only poor misguided soul in the whole world who is convinced he is on the right track with his version of the mechanism of organic change. EVERYBODY else must realize that they either have no hypothesis at all or are so insecure about the one they do have that they refuse to expose themselves to the cold facts revealed by the fossil record and the experimental laboratory.

Now there is nothing new about this bizarre phenomenon. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) is firmly based on the work of about a half dozen of some of the greatest minds of the past 150 years, not one of whom has been properly acknowledged by the ruling hegemony known as the Darwinian establishment. I, like all of them, simply do not exist. You will find none of us in the works of the Darwinian spokespersons or if you do it will be for some trivial contribution which had nothing to do with the central question which has always been the MECHANISM for organic change. A good example is Sir Richard Dawkins congratulating William Bateson for his work on homeosis or S.J. Gould, after recognizing Otto Schindewolf as the greatest paleontologist of his day following that with the snide comment that all of his evolutionary conclusions were “spectacularly flawed.” Both Bateson and Schindewolf had dismissed the Darwinian model as useless as did Grasse, Broom, Osborn, Petrunkevitch, Berg, Punnett, Goldschmidt and God only knows how many others both before and since. The destruction of the Darwinian fairy tale began with Mivart 12 years after the publication of Darwin’s opus minimus and has continued unabated right to the present. Failure to acknowledge this continuing mayhem has been a scandal unprecedented in the history of science dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Experimental Physics.

There is a simple reason we several scientists (I am one no matter what you may hear to the contrary) have been deliberately and cynically ignored. It can be summarized in a single word - fear, fear that if we were allowed to exist that it would destroy the reputations of all those whose pride would not permit them to acknowledge that they had dedicated their entire professional lives to a myth. Don’t you ever question that they don’t know they are through because they do. They have always known it but, like the congenital intellectual cowards that they all are, they are unable to admit as William Bateson, one of the great minds of evolutionary science, was so willing to do:

“that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species nor on evolution in general.”

My contribution and unforgivable sin has simply been to integrate the conclusions of my predecessors into a coherent, rational form which could be presented as an alternative to both the Lamarckian and Darwinian mythologies. I have done so. Where are my published critics? I will answer that question too. They don’t exist either just as they never existed when confronted by those that made my work possible. It is a miracle. Darwinism exists because it has neither supporters nor critics. It is a law unto itself not to be either challenged nor accepted. Like gravity, it just is! I wish I could say I was kidding but I can’t.

Now I challenge the denizens of “Esley Welsberry’s Neighborhood Bar and Grill” to reprint this post in it verbatim entirety on its by far most popular thread, the “Uncommon Pissant” one, the one that has thousands of views, the one that most perfectly demonstrates the collective “groupthink” character of the membership of Panda’s Thumb, the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. I’ll be looking for it and if it isn’t there I will be asking why.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — February 19, 2006 @ 12:20 am

Date: 2006/02/25 06:09:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I did post the following comment as I know Psycho still reads them before deleting:

"Berlinski is about as good a satirist as you are a biologist, Mr Springer."

Date: 2006/02/25 23:46:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
(Bugger, don't you just hate the time zone difference. A night out and lie-in and I miss Psycho Springer.)

PicoFarad

Our last conversation at UD was curtailed when you snitched on me to Isaac Dembki. I was pointing out to you that there is no plan or blueprint encapsulated in the oocyte genome, and you got rather upset about the phrase "there is no plan".

Dawkins has a good explanation about how embryological development is controlled by DNA in "The Ancestor's Tale", p 426

Quote
Embryonic development is controlled by genes, but there are two very different ways in which this might theoretically happen. The Mouse's Tale introduced them as blueprint and recipe. A builder makes a house by placing bricks in positions specified by a blueprint. A cook makes a cake not by placing crumbs and currants in specified positions but by putting ingredients through specified procedures, such as sieving, stirring, beating and heating.* Textbooks of biology are wrong when they describe DNA as a blueprint. Embryos do nothing remotely like following a blueprint. DNA is not a description, in any language, of what the finished body should look like. Maybe on some other planet living things develop by blueprint embryology, but I find it hard to imagine how it would work. It would have to be a very different kind of life. On this planet, embryos follow recipes. Or, to change to another equally un-blueprint-like analogy, which is in some ways more apt than the recipe: embryos construct themselves by following a sequence of origami folding instructions.


Dawkins goes on to describe the process of embryological development and the rôle of HOX genes in a lucid manner that you may be able to follow. I thoroughly recommend the book to you, if only to enable you to argue your "case"  a little more coherently

PS to JAD, there is a footnote which states:

This favourite analogy was first used by my friend Sir Patrick Bateson, a relative of Sir William, as it happens.

See also p425 for a favourable mention of William Bateson.

Date: 2006/02/26 00:26:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The statement you quoted says the conspirators concluded they couldn't fire him


I think the main reason they didn't fire him was they didn't employ him in the first place.

Date: 2006/02/26 00:37:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hmmm...

So how would a housebuilder get on with a recipe book, and a cook with a blueprint. Methinks you are somewhat disingenuous, Psycho. The problem is that science is about finding useful things out, not obfuscating. IDers seem more skilled at twisting the meaning of words than at doing anything useful like producing or testing a hypothesis.

How's the carpal tunnel syndrome, by the way?

Date: 2006/02/26 01:12:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
My God folks, people are still taking Sir Richard Dawkins seriously. It is not possible. It defies all reason that such a creature could still be given any credibility at all.

In the 1920's there was another charlatan like Dawkins only this one was a devout Lamarckian by the name of Paul Kammerer. He conned the entire world for some time into believing that the environment could alter the color patterns of salamanders and the breeding habits of the Midwife Toad. He was finally exposed as a charlatan largely through the efforts of Bateson and Noble, an American herpetologist. Once exposed do you know what he did? He killed himself. That is exactly what I have predicted will be the fate of Sir Richard as I can see no alternative for him. Egomaniacal unstable ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Paul Kammerer, Josef Goebbels and Adolf Hitler unravel very quickly when they are finally revealed as their self generated empires collapse around them. They have no ethical or moral fiber to sustain them. Actually they never did have any or they never would have placed themselves in such a position in the first place.

Now don't misunderstand me. I do not wish for Dawkins to do himself in. I want him to go right on writing more books, each more deranged than its predecessor, hopefully while tucked away securely in a rubber room somewhere so he can't hurt himself any more than he already has. He is already history and doesn't even realize it. Judging from the mindless ravings of our own precious Falan Ox, neither do the retards over at Elsberry's Berlin bunker.

The whole lot of you congenital, clonal catastrophes are doomed. Get out the machine pistols, the cyanide and the gasoline and be sure to leave instructions to have your surviving cronies do their level best to burn up the evidence that you ever existed. That is going to be the tough part.


Sorry SteveS I just couldn't resist! :p

Date: 2006/02/26 03:52:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.


Sigh!

The point is there is no one-to-one mapping of genome information. DNA encodes proteins. There is no plan.

Date: 2006/02/26 04:18:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Russell

Sorry, should have included a link. You'll find it here if you collapse quotes and scroll down to comment 562. I see the good professor has also noticed my omission.

Date: 2006/02/26 04:25:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
For the record, there may have been a decay in the speed of light.

 Salvador is a gem.

Date: 2006/02/26 04:42:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Maybe a dumb question,

But a single cichlid species gets dropped in (via eggs on birds feet or some other improbable but not impossible scenario, presumably) to  virgin territory of a new isolated lake. If in the population there was sufficient variation, such that some individuals were better able to exploit bottom feeding and others top feeding, and two species developed accordingly, would this be sympatry or allopatry. It seems to me that the line dividing environments may be a bit fuzzy.

Date: 2006/02/26 05:39:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Jeannot

Date: 2006/02/27 03:18:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'm ashamed to say I did not realise this had happened to Professor Perakh until reading this post. There is more comment here. I admire Professor Perakh immensely, having had some brief email correspondence and having read a fair bit of his devastating critiques of Isaac Dembski.

The linked article also reminded me of what a slimeball Dave Springer is. Such contrasts between the integrity, charm and wit of Professor Perakh and the devious, dishonest, ego driven likes of Psycho Springer need promoting.

I hope Professor Perakh is making progress in getting his life back in order. Is there any news, Wesley?

Date: 2006/02/27 03:36:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From recent postings at JAD's blog:

Quote

   JAD,

   Fair enough on the spiritual question. I used to spend time at a couple of philosophy forums, and I am used to taking people's metaphysical positions seriously.

   When you say you've rejected the fundamentalist position, I am not sure what you mean. Special creation? I ask this because as you have pointed out yourself, no one really has much of an idea about the 'how.'

   Yes, it may be true that I can't reason with the PT crowd. The whole thing is quite eerie really. Russell reads Darwin's Black Box and thinks, "you've got to be kidding." I read Miller's answer to the flagellum problem and think "you've got to be kidding." I read Berlinski's coup de grace on the fish eyes rebuttals and think "can I get a sperm sample from this man?" They read it and call it a "bumbling attempt."

   There's something fascinating going on.

   I guess I'll come see what ISCID is about.

   7:42 PM
avocationist said...

   Thanks for telling me about ISCID. I like it.

   I'm sorry for the stupid question, but can you explain why you say chromosomal rearrangemenats cause evolution but not allelic changes? Since chromosomes contain many genes, what do you really mean by rearranging them? Are you simply saying that wholesale chunks of changes would be coordinated together as opposed to little bits at a time?

   9:13 PM
JohnADavison said...

   avocationist

   We see only that portion of the genome that happens to be turned on at a given time. The chromosome is a "reaction system" not just a row of genes acting independently. When chromosomes are expermentally or naturally rearranged, certain genes are turned on, others silenced. I recommend you read Goldschmidt who was the first to reject the particulate gene as having any significance in evolution. Also there are definitely preferred regions in which chromosomes are likely to undergo rearrangements. I mentioned some of this in my PEH paper. That is a rapidly growimg literature and everything that is being revealed pleads against randomness and for predetermination.

   You just have to purge your mind of the mistaken notion that allelic genes ever had anything to do with evolution. They didn't and they don't. One can accumulate all the mutants in the world and the species remains discrete and identifiable.

   I have a Dachshund named Otto, named after Otto Schindewolf. He has short legs but a normal torso exactly as does a human achondroplastic dwarf and for the same reasons. The dwarf remains a human and Otto remains a dog. We are all very similar genetically. Our differences are largely due to which genes are turned on and which turned off. It is the structure of our chromosomes that determines these differences.

   There is no doubt in my mind that everything in the organic world resulted from predestined forces that unfolded from within over the millions of years when evolution was actively proceeding. Each step in that process was instantaneous, discrete and irreversible exactly as in the development of the individual. Evolution is no longer in progress and to assume that it is is without foundation.

   Gradualism, natural selection and allelic mutation, none of these ever had anything to do with creative evolution. They are all figments of an atheist inspired imagination. I have said all this many times and it falls on deaf ears, ears that Einstein recognized as deaf to the "music of the spheres."

   I am happy to see you are back. Now will you review some of my recent posts and consider transmitting them over to the Bunker? it seems Falan Ox has run out of gas after doing as I asked only once. I don't see how they can ban you for doing that and it means a great deal to me to be able to force those poor misguided brain-washed Phillistines into the realization that they have wasted their lives chasing a phantom. If I can goad them into a state of communication and recognition I can destroy them with their own words. Of that I am certain. The Darwimps continue to practice the same old technique they have employed from the beginning. They have no critics. They must not and accordingly do not. It is as simple as that.

   It is hard to believe isn't it?

   In the meantime:

   "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
   Albert Einstein

   "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source.... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
   ibid

   Thanks for posting.

   10:22 PM
JohnADavison said...

   avocationist

   You ask if I have rejected God. Absolutely not. I have assumed one or more Gods. Someone or something had to write the programs. Those are my Gods. I call that God in the singular the Big Front loader in the Sky (BFL) for short. What I have rejected and still do reject is the fundamentalist notion of a personal God just as Einstein and Grasse did. If such a God exists I regard it as a bonus and nothing more. I also feel that the notion of two Gods is well within the province of religious dogma. What is Lucifer but a fallen angel anyway? Aren't angels Gods of sorts?

   I regard Dichard Rawkins as an instrument of Satan and, like Satan, he has his legions of faithful followers too just as the Fundies have theirs. It is the eternal battle over how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident or is he the product of a plan? I am convinced he was planned and the plan has been executed and finalized. There is no better proof of this than the silence with which my challenge has been met to name a single mammalian genus more recent than Homo and a member of that genus younger than ourselves.

   If I may wax mystical for a moment and please don't take me seriously maybe, and that is a big maybe, that is the true significance of the last words presumably spoken from the cross:

   "It is finished."

   I sure would like to think so. Wouldn't anyone?

   So on that inspiring note let's return to the hard-headed world of bench science where absolutely nothing is being revealed today to support the biggest joke in the history of science, Darwinian evolution, the evolution that never was.

   Incidentally, this one would be a natural for transmission to the Bunker don't you think? I sure would appreciate it.

   Thanks for posting.


I wonder if you guys aren't being a bit hard on Avocationist.
I seem to see a genuine desire for understanding, but maybe I'm just a sentimental old softie.

Date: 2006/02/27 22:05:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Careful, PuckSR, you are being watched!

Quote
What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too.

You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis.


From JAD's own blog.

Date: 2006/02/28 00:47:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
It seems "PicoFarad" has come to the attention of DaveScot. I wonder how that happened?

Date: 2006/02/28 01:07:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Richard Sternberg gives his personal account of the affair.

Date: 2006/02/28 01:11:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel Morgan has a different perspective.

Date: 2006/03/01 07:12:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
PuckSr over at the Bunker still doesn't get it. Dog "species" didn't "evolve." They are simply varieties of the wolf. Got that? Write that down. Evolution, which is not even going on any more, is the production of new species, ones that could successfully propagate only with one another. Incidentally that never took place gradually either. like very other genetic change those too were instantaneous, discrete and unmistakable. There hasn't been a new genus of either plant or animal in the last 2 million years and there is not a documented production of a new species in historical times. Get used to it. Even one of your one, Julian Huxley, who coined that wonderfully meaningless catch phrase "Modern Synthesis" realized that evolution was finished and said so in no uncertain terms much to the chagrine of the Darwimpians. So embarrassed that one of their own let the cat out of the bag, they have had to pretend he too never existed and they still do. What a bunch of cowardly, ideologically hamstrung, illiterates they really are. It was their "prescribed" fate to be losers, no question about it.

It is hard to believe isn't it

I am interested only in exposing the Darwinian myth by whatever means remain at my disposal. Having exhausted all rational means, I am now laughing at all of those so weak minded as to subscribe to any aspect of it. My personality has now and never had anything to do with the truth, a truth which has no place for the atheist Darwinian model. Nothing, absolutely nothing in neoDarwinism ever had anything to do with evolution except to inhibit it long enough to maintain the balance of nature so that the next ascending, preprogrammed event could appear right on schedule. That was the sole role of Natural Selection, the cornerstone of the Darwinian fable. Robert Broom suggested a similar idea in one of his books when he said that the ecological balance always had to be maintaimed or evolution could never have occurred. The only difference between Broom and myself is that he believed the Plan (with a capital P) was still in progress. I do not. I think it ended about 100,000 years ago when Homo sapiens appeared, full blown in his present immutable state.

There is probably not a single creature on the face of this earth that can ever become anything very dfferent from what it is right now, another conclusion which Broom had reached and with which I completely agree. Julian Huxley stole that from Broom, made it his own, and then accused Broom of mysticism. I exposed the entire scandal in my Manifesto.

I am still waiting for any response to any of the challenges I have presented ever to appear. They will not because they cannot be met. Got that you Darwimps wherever you may be? Write that down. What a bunch of "prescribved" losers you all really are.

I have joined with Mivart, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Osborn, Broom, Berg, Grasse and many others. We belong to a very exclusive club. None of us exist in an evolutionary literature dominated by a bunch of non scientists whose entire lives have been dedicated to writing science fiction for a gullible, uneducated, naive audience of like minded "prescribed" homozygous atheists. Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, not a scientist in the lot, continue to reign supreme and I love it. I wouldn't have it any other way. Their demise is imminent and long overdue. My only desire at this point is to live long enough to see Dawkins and his thousands of devoted followers try to explain what happened. That is going to be something to behold.

The best evidence revealing the Darwinian nightmare is the way I, like every one of my brilliant predecessors am not allowed to exist. Not only do we not exist in the professional published literature, we do not even exist in the shadowy, meaningless, ephemeral, ideologically constipated world of cyberspace. Needless to say I am as pleased as punch.

The flagellum both the bacterial variety and the eukaryotic one appeared in one step fully formed without any intemediates whatsoever as did ever other cell organelle, the nuclear membrane the centromere, the centriole, the basal granule of the cilium, the mitchondrion, you name it. None of these had any intermediates and to imagine that they did is pure Darwinian pie in the sky gradualist nonsense. The whole notion of gradualism is foreign to everything we know about living systems. Did you ever hear of a gradual muscle twitch or a gradual pregnancy or a gradual nerve excitation or a gradual, fertilization or a gradual cell division or a gradual embryonic induction or a gradual allelic mutation? In physiology it is called "The All-or-none Law." Got that? Write that down.

Date: 2006/03/02 11:25:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Come on Tacitus, JAD is harmless. He managed to alienate his only supporter, and I doubt his cause is going any further. However, I admit that my own obsessional interest in his motives and psyche isn't shared universally, and I won't relay any more stuff from him. Apologies to anyone offended by this thread.

Date: 2006/03/03 22:00:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The whole process of shuffling, taping, and reshuffling is not for the faint of heart.


Couldn't you get a computer software engineer to write a simulation program which would save on sticky tape.

Hey, what about DaveScot. He doesn't seem too busy these days.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:07:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
As there are some comments abous 2SLoT I wonder if quoting a short edited passage from JAD on thermodynamics would be in order:

Quote
Neither ontogeny nor phylogeny can ever be reconciled with any aspect of themodynmics because both processes proceed from the simple to the complex, something no heat engine can ever do.

Here are some revealing facts, facts that were revealed during the first decade of the last century.

You put a fetilized hen's egg in a bomb calorimeter and incinerate it collecting all the energy and recording it. You now repeat the experiment with a hatched chick. The ratio of the chick calories over the egg calories is about.63. In other words this conversion was carried out with an efficiency of 63 percent. It is actually much worse than this because before any of the molecules can be synthesized into chick they must first be released by hydrolysis from their stored state in the yolk and albumen. Assuming the same efficiency for each of these processes it means that the efficiency for each must be the square root of .63 or about .80.

A system with an efficiency of 80% can not be reconciled with thermodynamic principles. Life in all its forms violates everything we know from steam engines which is what thermodynamics is all about. A friend of mine used to call it thermogodammics. (omitted) Life in all its manifestations violates everything we know from themodynamics.


(from his blog)

Does this make any sense?

Date: 2006/03/04 05:14:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
JAD (see relevant thread) pontificates on thermodynamics.

Date: 2006/03/04 06:47:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Psycho Springer hasn't inititiated a thread in the last thirteen.
You don't suppose Dembski has realised Psycho is our greatest asset on UD, and clipped his wings. That would be a shame.

Date: 2006/03/06 01:23:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Steve Reuland says in this previous PT thread:

Quote
I’m with Andrea about how misleading it is to call introns “junk”.

When saying "AKA junk DNA", he is acknowledging the name that has stuck, not claiming DNA is junk. Psycho is a master of obfuscation.

Date: 2006/03/06 01:54:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
However credit to Psycho for drawing my attention to magnetosomes.

It seems there may be indications of transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, when comparing structure between the kingdoms. Thanks for bringing this further evidence for evolution to my attention, Mr. Springer.

Date: 2006/03/06 02:09:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
In the interest of balance there was this comment from Smile on JAD's blog. It seemed a mean trick to post a couple of huge slugs of random letters with a little insult interspersed, but he then deleted them and said:

   
Quote
Dohn Javison

   Thank you for participating in my experiment! It was my theory that, if I entered your blog spouting meaningless, repetitive nonsense; called it science and then interspersed this drivel with nasty personal insults (a) my posts would be deleted (b) I would get banned or © the blog would grind to a hault. The results were beyond my expectations! I had no idea you would consider deleting my posts and banning me, realize you don’t have a clue and then just run away! You will be pleased to hear I have deleted my posts so you can get back to delighting the world with your insight. I hope you will remember the results of this experiment when you complain about the policies of other sites.

   Must be nice to be involved in science again, no?

   I love it more!

   Smile :)


Good point, eh, John?

Date: 2006/03/07 10:47:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sir T

I know you're right, but I think it has become an addiction. I'm going to try cold turkey and delete his bookmark.

Give me another slap if I break my resolution.

Cheers
Alan

(Maybe I'll try scuba-diving;:))

Date: 2006/03/07 11:15:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Latest UD thread...
Quote
How’s this for ID research …


Going from this topic heading to the linked article I am surprised to find that it has absolutely nothing to do with "Intelligent Design" research.

Date: 2006/03/08 20:45:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 08 2006,20:30)
Renier,

Would that be an evolving method?

Thordaddy

Quote
Would that be an evolving method?


Now you're getting the idea. Science is also work in progress. It does indeed evolve. Well done!

Date: 2006/03/09 03:52:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 09 2006,04:45)
Now DaveSLOT thinks that Panda's Thumb drove these students to set fire to churches.  I just wonder if they violated the 2nd law in the process.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/901

Reading the latest news report I can find on Google, it seems that there is absolutely no connection between the insinuation of Psycho Springer (anti-religious motivation) and reality. Why did I even bother to check?

PS How do you use the live feed thingy?

PPS Alice in Wonderland parody made me LOL

Date: 2006/03/09 04:44:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Seems Psycho is firming up on on the allegation

Quote
College students and hate speech directed at religion abounds on Panda’s Thumb and you know it. All the dopey Dawkins “religion is the root of all evil” fans are drawn to it like flies to shi bees to flowers. I suggested the perps were probably exactly the kind of anti-religion zealots that Panda’s Thumb attracts. That’s neither gratuitous or unwarranted. -ds


I'd say DaveSnot's further remarks are gratuitous, unwarranted and bordering on libellous. Would not a demand for a retraction and an apology be in order?

And does anyone else find DS's shrill tone in the face of a perceived attack on religion a bit odd, he being an agnostic and all?

Date: 2006/03/09 21:21:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From UD thread on church burning:


Quote
(ThePolynomial)

Nobody believes teaching ID is murder. While Dawkins may accuse religious people of child abuse, he never calls for violence in response–he specifically despises religion because he believes it has caused violence. Any student of his wouldn’t burn churches.

(Psycho)

Any student of his wouldn’t burn churches. That’s an unsupportable assertion. I still fail to see why making a connection between speech that contains mockery and hatred of Christian fundamentalism, such hate-speech written by university faculty and students, is unreasonable when university students torch a dozen fundamentalist churches. This seems very reasonable to me and I stand by it. To anti-religious zealots posting all their bigotry on Panda’s Thumb I say if the shoe fits, wear it. -ds

Comment by ThePolynomial — March 9, 2006 @ 4:48 pm


So pointing out to DaveSnot that he is making an unsupportable assertion is an unsupportable assertion. Welcome to DaveSnot in Wonderland!

Date: 2006/03/11 05:56:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Just as there are extremist Christian fundamentalists who advocate bombing abortion clinics, so I believe there are extremist agnostic or atheist Christian haters who would burn down churches. I want to make myself clear that PT is not to shoulder any of the blame for this terrible crime whatsoever; I also want to make clear that I do not accuse any of the moderators there of having the sort of mentality that is conducive to acts such as this. I do, however, think that PT is the sort of place that can be a haven for those who do. I think this is what Dave is trying to get at.

You’re wrong about what I’m trying to get at. Hateful speech leads to hateful acts and PT admins breathlessly participate in it (like PZ Myers) or they let it flourish without attempting to stop it in any way. If someone actually conspired or threatened to commit a specific criminal act they might draw the line there but I’d have to see it to believe it. As far as I’ve seen they have no lines drawn and divest themselves of any responsibility for what’s said there. I think they should seriously consider the consequences of their anti-religion rabble rousing speech and shoulder some blame for where it can lead - hateful speech leads to hateful acts. If they were over there making the same kind of hateful mocking speech about blacks, homosexuals, jews, women, native Americans, handicapped, or whatever there’d be mega-outrage. The sad fact of the matter is that it has become politically acceptable to mock and hate fundamentalist Christians. And you’re so inured to it you don’t even care that it’s directed at just about all the authors on Uncommon Descent except me. And I’m the one that’s belligerant about it instead of you all. Go figure. There’s no way I’m apologizing for acting like a teed off Marine. -ds

Comment by crandaddy — March 10, 2006 @ 8:56 pm


(From this comment at UD with crandaddy trying to get Dave2lot to stop digging his hole deeper.)

In characteristic fashion Davephot continues to justify his calumnies. But his "directed at just about all the authors on Uncommon Descent except me" remark suggests he has not noticed that (apart from Red Reader and Dougmoron, who aspire to emulate ds's sparkling prose but generally lack his unconscious humour) all the mockery here is indeed directed at him.

Dave, you are a real star; our lives would all be poorer without your pearls of wisdom.

Date: 2006/03/12 05:04:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Guys, especially Sanctum, this is not being very kind to someone in rehab. You keep bringing JAD to the top of the pile, and my fingers start twitching.

I begin to think Sanctum might be a JAD sockpuppet.

Date: 2006/03/12 08:51:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
That use of "opines" seems very familiar to me. Some previous commenter over-used that word. Can't for the life of me think who it was. It wasn't a certain Mr Farfarman, was it?

Date: 2006/03/12 09:02:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry folks

It was in fact Thordaddy on PT (23 comments in less than two days in January). Déjà-vu all over again.

Date: 2006/03/12 09:06:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Arden

Your post crossed with mine. All has become clear to me now.

Date: 2006/03/13 10:05:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Shi

You could avoid being abused by taking your theory elsewhere. Why not compare notes with Professor Davison; I'm sure you will find a more sympathetic ear there. (Unless you are Shi Huang, in which case, you didn't get very far there either.)

Date: 2006/03/13 10:20:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Jeannot

I had a lapse but I'm back on the wagon  ;)

Date: 2006/03/13 10:30:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Avocationist

I know how you feel. I was like you once. I couldn't resist John's charm and witty repartee, but I found it was a smokescreen to ensnare me into considering the merits of his PEH. Don't do it. Don't go to ISCID and read that paper. I did and I am only just now being allowed out on my own again. Please feel free to email if you find the urge overwhelming.

yours in recovery
Alan

Date: 2006/03/13 10:35:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Well, if he's serious about his "gut to gametes" theory, I'm eager to see it exposed here (like others).


Yes I hope it will appear soon and be very diverting. I could do with being diverted.

Date: 2006/03/14 11:45:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah, you need to tick option to view avatars.

Well, Arden, I think I'm going to untick. No offense, but, I thought Wesley's beard was bad... but...

Making snide comments about the blogzcar will get your option ticked, buddy. (Strike one) What I’m wondering is if there’s any good reason why this shouldn’t be the last snide comment I see from you on this blog. Three strikes and you’re out so I’d put a little more thought and research into your next comment if you want to continue participating here. -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 12:23:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Avocationist

I don't know whether you got around to reading Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale", but I highly recommend another book which my daughter pased on to me to read, just recently. It is "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World" by Francis Wheen. It does put some current issues into a broader perspective. Anyone who needs an antidote to the po-mo nonsense of Plantinga will enjoy it.

This is not a shill, Francis is only a distant relative  :)

Date: 2006/03/16 19:56:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Did anyone read the comments being posted on that blog? Apparently those propagandists believe that anything that is fiercely pro-Darwin is not slanted at all. Personally I find the most annoying people are those that tell me to “shut up” whenever I make a good point. Maybe the propagandists were bullied when they were kids and now they’re pouring out their hate onto the “fundamentalist boogeymen” that we all surely are. :(

Comment by jasonng — March 16, 2006 @ 11:50 pm


From this thread. The only poster at PT being told to shut up on a regular basis was Larry F. Ergo jasonng must be Larry. (Sorry if this has been mentioned before.) Nice to know we're getting at them.

Who's being got at now, buddy, mention your crap elsewhere. you're outa here. -dt

Date: 2006/03/16 20:30:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end.

The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt

Date: 2006/03/16 21:01:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Shi says:

Quote
ID lacks a credible theory that must incoporate the merits of Darwinism in micro evo while at the mean time explain the macro evo.  The ID people are presently not good enough to do that yet.  All they are doing is to point out what is inadequate with Darwinism.


Exactly what you seem to have been doing. Pleased to see that you now realise that Behe's IC and Dembski's "No Free Lunch" etc. are only attempts at claiming flaws in evolutionary theory. Neither they nor anyone else have proposed a positive hypothesis which offers an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on earth, other than "poof", "Goddidit" or "Big front loaderdidit".

Date: 2006/03/17 05:04:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Viola
Quote
is:

   * Viola, a musical instrument
   * A type of acoustic guitar from Brazil Viola (Brazil),
   * The name of a character in William Shakespeare's play Twelfth Night.
   * Viola name of a character in Free Radical's video games TimeSplitters 2 and TimeSplitters: Future Perfect.
   * The systematic name of a group of flowering plants. The Viola genus includes violets, pansies and violas (also known as Johnny Jump Ups).
   * ViolaWWW was an early web browser developed by Pei-Yuan Wei.
   * Viola is a fairly uncommon female given name.
   * Viola is a surname used primarily by some of Spanish descent. Roberto Viola, for instance, was briefly President of Argentina.
   * Viola is a football player from Brazil present in the World Cup 1994.
   * The name of several places in the United States of America:

       Viola, Arkansas
       Viola, Delaware
       Viola, Illinois
       Viola, Kansas
       Viola, New York
       Viola, Tennessee
       Viola, Wisconsin

   * Viola is the word for purple in Italian.


I don't think any of these match the context of Thordaddy's post, Jeannot, perhaps he did mean "voilà", which of course translates as "voilà".

À propos, vous êtes de quel coin, d'origine?

Date: 2006/03/17 07:51:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
C'est presque Suisse! Moi, je me suis installé en Aude depuis  quelques années, mais toujours, je massacre la langue  française.

Date: 2006/03/17 09:00:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah, c'est ça qui arrive quand on tente de frimer. :) Par contre, vous avez maîtrisé parfaitement l'anglais, avec aucune accent en vos écritures (peut-être je me trompe ici, qu'est-ce c'est,  le mot pour "comment".)

Date: 2006/03/17 10:28:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
since you guys are all on a french kick, how do you think they will fair at the cup this year??   another flame out in group stages?


On verra.

Date: 2006/03/17 11:50:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I think they will beat Wales and take the Championship


That 31-6 thrashing was uncomfortable to watch. On present form, France has to be favourite.

Date: 2006/03/17 20:29:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

It has always struck me as odd when engineers who are ID proponents claim “design recognition” as an engineering talent. I am a degreed engineer and have been involved in all phases of professional engineering and I have never heard (outside of ID discussions) of engineers performing “design recognition.”

To see if my experience is unusual, I did a lot of Google searches on “design recognition” and on “recognize design” together with “engineering,” “AIAA,” and “IEEE,” and I did not find any mention of “design recognition” as an engineering activity. I’m sure I didn’t reach the entire web, so help me out here. (Hint: It helps to filter out “award.”)

If you can find a professional engineering society or an engineering educational institution that has discussed engineers performing “design recognition,” (or the same thing under a different name) then please let me know.

If you were really an engineer you would have solved this problem. Try this. -ds

Comment by Freelurker — March 17, 2006 @ 6:42 pm


(From UD.)

Dave2lot, master of the unrelated synonym, appears to claim "reverse engineering" is synonymous with "design detection/recognition". Dave, what has pulling apart someone else's design and reworking it to avoid copyright infringement to do with ID.

Your copyright has just been infringed ,pal. Write that down.-ds

Date: 2006/03/18 01:40:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
no not the six nations...

the one that matters   the world cup!


Huge confession, here. Haven't been following the soccer. There doesn't appear to be much on French terrestrial TV about it and I don't subscribe to any premium satellite channels. No doubt I'll be watching if either England or France  do well enough in the groups.

Jeannot

T'es gentil. Je suis jamais sûr si je puisse tutoyer ou non.

Date: 2006/03/18 09:48:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This is the Dr Mackintosh who avoids answering emails such  as belowl

Quote
Hi Dr Mackintosh

I am curious how your research in flame stability etc. gives you the insight to state in your recent letter to the Times that:-
"Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong."

You are in danger of becoming as infamous as Professor Bill Rubinstein. You might take a peek at http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001042.html
and http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001070.html#c32259

Best wishes
Alan Fox

Date: 2006/03/18 22:18:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
We observe that socks disappear


Are you sure about that, Jay Ray?

Quote
How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things?


That's a very succinct way of putting it, may I use it when appropriate?

Date: 2006/03/18 22:49:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Now I come to check, bloodyhe11, you're right.

You should publish :D

Date: 2006/03/18 23:15:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Alan,

And what is Mumbo Jumbo about, and why did you recommend it?


Mumbo-Jumbo is a book my daughter recently left with me to read. It covers a lot of the background to how ideas of today have roots in the past. Wheen is "not a fundamentalist. But I'm an admirer of what you might call 'Enlightenment values' though they go way beyond the Enlightenment). Things like scientific empiricism, the separation of church and state, the waning of absolutism and tyranny, yes, I cling to those." It is also very funny.

I recommended it as I thought you might enjoy it. It proves the old adage "there is nothing new under the sun". I realise now why some regular posters get irritated with newbies (I include myself here) who repeat questions and ideas which have been raised many times before. It must feel like playing "Whack-a-mole" sometimes.

Also to Corkscrew if he's lurking. I noticed you mention Lysenko-ism in one of your posts. Have you read "A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian" by Marina Lewycka? Another very funny book, but with some poignant insight into what the political and personal life was like in 1930's Ukraine.

Date: 2006/03/19 05:54:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Ecoli has chemical sensors, which set of a signalling cascade when they sense nutrients, which makes the flagellum spin less regularly, therefore it is more likely to move toward the food source.


This is not quite right, the movements are random and the increase or decrease in nutrient concentration causes a "tumble" and movement in a new random direction. The bacterium has no "steering" option, only to rotate its flagellum/a in a clockwise or anticlockwise  direction, producing a "tumble" or random linear movement. To quote from this article, which is not too technical:

Quote
The motor runs either clockwise (CW), as seen by an observer standing on the outside of the cell looking down at the hook, or counterclockwise (CCW), with protons continuing to flow from the outside to the inside of the cell. Switching direction involves the proteins FliG, M, and N.

In a cell wild type for chemotaxis, CW and CCW modes alternate (with exponentially distributed waiting times). When the motors turn CW, the flagellar filaments work independently, and the cell body moves erratically with little net displacement; the cell is then said to "tumble". When the motors turn CCW, the filaments rotate in parallel in a bundle that pushes the cell body steadily forward, and the cell is said to "run". The two modes alternate. The cell runs and tumbles, executing a three-dimensional random walk.

When different flagellar motors in the same cell are studied under conditions in which they cannot interact mechanically, they change directions independently. Yet, when a flagellar bundle drives the cell forward, all of the motors have to rotate CCW. The events that bring about this coordination are not yet understood. The mean run interval is about 1 s, whereas the mean tumble interval is only about 0.1 s. Both of the times are exponentially distributed. Although the change in angle generated by a tumble is approximately random, there is a slight forward bias. When, by chance, a cell moves up a spatial gradient of a chemical attractant or down a spatial gradient of a chemical repellent, runs are extended. When, by chance, it moves the other way, runs revert to the length observed in the absence of a gradient. Thus, the bias in the random walk that enables cells to move up or down gradients is positive.

Finally, the behavioral response is temporal, not spatial. E. coli does not determine whether there is more attractant, say, in front than behind; rather, it determines whether the concentration increases when it moves in a particular direction.* Studies of impulsive stimuli indicate that a cell compares the concentration observed over the past 1 s with the concentration observed over the previous 3 s and responds to the difference.


*my emphasis.

Date: 2006/03/19 06:05:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hmmm

You don't suppose Mattison0922 was trying to fly under the radar at UD by feigning a pro ID outlook, whilst really being a Ph D in biology?

Date: 2006/03/19 06:15:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dave2lot in Sephen's earlier post.

Quote
He can find an outlet for them elsewhere. Blogs the world over must surely clamor for such intelligent contributors as the erstwhile “Valerie”.


Indeed we would all welcome Valerie here. Especially if he/she has saved those posts.

You go find another oultet too, buddy. You're outa here. -ds.

Oultet?

I don't have time to read my own posts, let alone spellcheck, I can leave that to you, stooopid. Except I can't because you're toast. -ds.

Date: 2006/03/19 06:27:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Is this the lesson you wish to portend?


  1.  To serve as an omen or a warning of; presage: black clouds that portend a storm.
  2. To indicate by prediction; forecast: leading economic indicators that portend a recession.

Perhaps you meant convey.

Quote
You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.


  1.
        1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
        2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
  2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Stones, glass houses?

Date: 2006/03/19 06:39:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Aardvark

Quote
Morris then alllegedly published a retraction on UD, or am I reading this wrong?


That seems to be Davesnot's spin, "but apparently uncovered evidence in support of ID without realising it:" doesn't equate with the original NASA news release.

Date: 2006/03/19 07:24:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The private doesn't know the answer, sgt., but the private will find the answer, sgt.. :D

Date: 2006/03/19 11:56:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sanctum

You are DaveScot and I claim my five pounds.

(This allusion may be wasted on non-British posters under the age of 60)

Date: 2006/03/19 12:06:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
#

I’ve removed comments about Valerie. Stay on topic.

Comment by DaveScot — March 19, 2006 @ 4:47 pm


for example!

Date: 2006/03/20 08:43:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
First you thought I was JAD and now I'm Davescot?
Sadly I am neither - no soup for you.


Well, you're hardly likely to admit it it if you are DaveScot. It is odd that Springer is about the only person who gives credence to JAD's ideas, and now we have you apparently promoting them. The no soup remark is lost on me, I would welcome an explanation.

Quote
How's rehab?


I was doing fine until someone decided to start relaying again!

PS well done Tacitus' parents.

Date: 2006/03/20 10:12:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Twice.

I used to watch Seinfeld, which was shown on UK TV. Must have missed the soup episode.

It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.

JAD has a perfectly respectable platform at ISCID, where he maintains a saner persona, (do you not think it odd he is banned at UD and ARN, if his work is so relevant to ID, and as ID is so short of appropriately academically qualified proponents) so I don't really understand why you or he think he needs to post here.

Date: 2006/03/21 01:19:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
"Does he take sugar?"

If I were inclined to search through JAD's various web postings, I think I could find John generally claiming that ID should not even be debated, as it was so obvious that life has been created. His beef with Dembski et al. was that he (John) is proposing a method whereby the creating was done by front loading, and IDers were not taking up his idea.

I'm sure John will put you right on his blog, if I am in error. I bet he follows the threads, still. BTW, Sanctum, you wouldn't be Avocationist playing games, would you? I realise now you're not Davbe2lot as he couldn't have stayed civil through so many postings.

Date: 2006/03/21 04:14:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well it's someone we are already familiar with, I'm convinced. Couldn't we bet something simpler, or is yours already in a bottle? :D

Date: 2006/03/21 04:57:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'm sure John is the best source of what he professes to believe, and so long as he doesn't want to force those beliefs on me or anyone else, he is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wishes.

I also think there is zero mileage in his pseudo-scientific ideas, but he still interests me from a sociological point of view.

Date: 2006/03/21 06:29:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Golly, Wesley, you are psychic. I had to curtail my post as I had an appointment, or I would have added something about that. A pseudonym is fine if people stick to it, as the overwhelming majority do.

Interesting you mention Renard, Sanctum. It took Dave2lot many weeks and several hints to pick up on that. He certainly isn't as bright as he thinks he is. But content gets you booted at UD, no matter what name one uses. I must have gone through around six.

Anyway, give me some more to work with and let's see what we can come up with.

Date: 2006/03/21 07:10:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Jay Ray?

I'll settle for a photo of your appendix.

Date: 2006/03/21 08:36:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Curses... foiled again.

Date: 2006/03/21 08:46:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ooh,  Ooh, Ooh!

Quote
So, by your logic, if the supernatural is part of the truth, then science and scientists will have no chance at all of discovering the whole truth.  If science only seeks limited truth, by what rights do scientists have in claiming that the scientific way is the way to truth.  Why do they imply that other forms of knowledge, like religion and mysticism, have less truth?  Why do they teach the layman to trust science and scientists?  Science is about things that can be measured repeatedly.  But nature is a lot more than that.  My thought in writing this note will never be repeated again in the future.  So my thought or mind is not a subject of science.  When the most important phenomenon of nature, consciousness, is not a subject of science, scientists should stop fooling the laymen that they should only trust science as their only way to understand nature.


How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things? (Thanks Mark)

Date: 2006/03/21 10:05:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
(we have a perfect safety record in the U.S. and only a single catastrophic failure in the entire world to date)


Three Mile Island?

Date: 2006/03/21 10:22:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox


OK so it wasn't catastrophic...

It's a catastrophe for you,pal, your ass is globally warmed toast. -d2

Date: 2006/03/21 11:50:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I believe human and chimpanzee cytochrome c are identical, Henry.

Date: 2006/03/21 12:26:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You need to be a little more specific if you wish to be taken seriously.


Oh, the irony!

Quote
how could I possibly respond to what you have stated?


I'm sure no one will be too disappointed if you resist the urge.

Date: 2006/03/23 21:18:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Although, I am quite surprised that your posts haven't been met with condemnation.


We're generally a very tolerant bunch, here, Thordaddy, (We tolerate your vacuous, pointless, contentless posts, don't we?). If you would prefer tighter moderation I suggest you try Uncommon Descent or, well, any other blog really.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:34:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Anyone able to spot the link between A and B.

(A)

(B)

Quote
I think the internet plays a major role in this. Before, people were isolated to ideas within their own community but the internet has changed all that. I remember when, as a fundie, I discovered the talkorigins.org site. It changed my whole take on things.


I'm sure you are right, which is why the creationist leaders want to gain control of schools and the political system. The internet, with its ability to disseminate information anarchically is a big obstacle for them and long may it remain so.

(anarchically went through my spell-check so it must be OK)

Date: 2006/03/25 04:42:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I've been having similar problems. AtBC was unavailable for almost a day until just now. PT has been unavailable too from time to time. Last night I checked "The Austringer" and couldn't get that either. No other sites that I normally log on to were affected. It was the same if I used Mozilla or IE. Very odd.

Date: 2006/03/25 05:35:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sanctum

From the Centre Daily report:

Quote
The tone was threatening enough so that U.S. Marshals kept watch over Jones and his family in the week before Christmas, he said. He declined to comment further about the content or source of the threats.

Jones said he spoke out after hearing about threats against other judges, including an Internet death threat against Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The reason I chose to talk about it now is that attacks on judges have really gone beyond the pale," Jones said.

He noted that conservative pundit Ann Coulter was quoted as commenting, concerning Justice John Paul Stevens' votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, that "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

"We're going to get a judge hurt," Jones said.


It would appear the nature of the threats have been withheld, but that a police guard was thought necessary does imply that they were serious.

Date: 2006/03/25 21:18:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Why let truth stand in the way of a good-ol' religious/political polemic. The most frustrating thing is there is no place to post a comment there. (Or is there?)

Date: 2006/03/25 21:55:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Hmmm. On another thread, Twist wrote: “Anyway, while digging around the web trying to understand Professor Davison’s semi-meiosis theories, I found this little gem.
‘It is atheism versus theism pure and simple. I belong to the latter camp.’
Someone might want to drop him a note letting him know that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and has no connection to religion.”

Sooo…do ID detractors expect ID to conform to the parameters of religion? Or not? I’m confused. Is the problem that ID poses as a religion when it’s actually not? Or that ID disguises itself as not a religion when actually it is?

Anyone have any light to shed on this?

Comment by Lutepisc — March 25, 2006 @ 9:22 pm


Let's wait and see.

Date: 2006/03/25 22:13:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

Lutepisc said: “Sooo…do ID detractors expect ID to conform to the parameters of religion? Or not? I’m confused. Is the problem that ID poses as a religion when it’s actually not? Or that ID disguises itself as not a religion when actually it is?”

There is a third choice: That ID is a scientific theory and thus doesn’t “pose as a religion” or “disguise itself as not religion”. ID has no need to do either.

Comment by dougmoran — March 25, 2006 @ 10:49 pm


Thanks for clearing that up, Mr Moron, so ID is scientific?
THEN WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?

Date: 2006/03/26 00:42:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
On the bright side, with overwhelming support amongst youth for opening up evolution to be criticized, it’s only a matter of time before millions of high school students are introduced to the theory now sweeping the globe. I wonder how the Darwinists sleep at night.

Comment by jasonng — March 26, 2006 @ 4:57 am


Sweeping the globe?

Date: 2006/03/27 02:45:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
We'll get to the bottom of it some day, Stephen. Come on, Sanctum, own up. You know you want to. A left-handed lesbian can't be all bad, a few days in rehab will sort most things.

Date: 2006/03/28 20:45:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bloody he11 Keiths, you've blown my cover. I was supposed to be in rehab. That makes me a liar again, as I said there were no lurkers.

Did you notice the bit where Dave2lot takes his friends on his boat to spy on the nearby nudist beach? Somehow it all fits in with his character.

your cover's blown here too. you're gone. -dt (tp)

Date: 2006/03/28 20:49:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hey, what happened to Arden's 15 minutes of fame on UD?
Not deleted? I'm shocked.

Edit: not deleted indeed, mea culpa.

Unlike you sucker. Call me a pevert, would you. You're deleted. -dt.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:04:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Arden, you're famous. I'm so jealous.

BTW
you're not the only church burner round here.

Quote
davescot said...

    9:27 AM
.Darn it. It looks like the French gov't is going to be overthrown again. Cable TV here is non-stop coverage of the Paris riots.

The French gov't is like a carcass being fought over by two dogs - dog number one is middle class caucasian socialists youth upset they might have to actually work for a living and dog number two is lower class ethnic Muslim youths upset at being excluded from the French middle class socialist lifestyle. Between the two of them France is being torn up by violent protest.

Comments, Alan?

Alan Fox said...

   French riots are much more civilized than US riots. The timetable is agreed with the riot police, so that no one misses lunch.

DaveScot said...

   Alan

   So setting cars and shops on fire, lobbing Molotov cocktails at the police, are "civilized" riots in your world?

   Oh that's right. You're one of the church burners. Setting buildings on fire is just a joke. A harmless prank by headstrong youth.

   You're like the ne plus ultra of stooge. I couldn't ask for better setups than you give me.

   10:49 AM


From JAD's blog. Yes I know, but I couldn't resist having a pop at Dave2lot.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:10:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
No worries Keith. Now I know I'm not the only one who can't resist the temptation to slum, I don't feel so bad. :)

Date: 2006/03/29 06:44:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I reckon I've been banned a few times, Arden; the registrations I can remember offhand are: Alan, Alan Fox MrAlanFox, some obscure name I can't remember, Reynard, Renard. My latest, Xavier, is in the limbo of perpetual moderation.

I can't understand how PuckSR and KeithS could stay posting for so long, and I would get the chop after a few posts, before I had a chance to whip out that witty one liner that would leave pervyDavy speechless.(Have you heard about the peeping tom trips Dave organises).

No more trips for you retard (get it? Retard/Renard) you're overboard. -dt.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:14:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Now we have this thread thanks to you Steve, I don't need to any more. :D

Date: 2006/03/29 20:44:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
IIUIC

In all organisms known, DNA sequences are a one-dimensional code that produce amino acid polymer sequences. The three dimensional folding is an inherent property of only L-isomers being incorporated and the subsequent inevitable folding and functional activity inevitably follows from the one  dimensional code. Some polypeptides and proteins act as switches to produce the necessary mix of gene products required for that cell or organism to develop and function.

Roughly 2% of the human genome fulfills this role and the purpose(s) of the remainder , the non-coding DNA, are not yet understood.

The life of a single-celled green alga does not (appear to me to)involve complex strategies. Take in light energy, grow and divide as much as conditions permit. A human embryo is packed with the information that under the right conditions will produce a new-born infant, with the potential to develop into a highly intelligent individual with a huge capacity to learn and use new strategies. Between the two is a whole spectrum of multicellular organisms with a wide range of innate and learn-able strategies.

Whilst I don't normally expect to find scientific answers at UD, A question by DaveScot set me thinking about  how the socially organised behaviour of termites, for instance, be accounted for in the genome. Does current research indicate any possible function for non-coding DNA. One might expect redundant DNA to be lost over time, but not only is it retained but the sequences are highly conserved.

I would be most interested to hear any new developments.
I am also curious as to why "Junk DNA" could affect the vacuity or validity of ID

Date: 2006/03/29 20:55:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thordaddy:

Quote
Or, should we just leave it up in the air and let the abortions proceed unabated?


This is a science blog. Science cannot answer questions about social issues. Whilst many, especially women, may wish to discuss this important question, this thread is not the place. I suggest you start a new thread at least or, more appropriately take it to a forum specifically intended to discuss these social issues.

I won't make any further comment in this thread on the subject, and suggest others don't.

Date: 2006/03/29 21:22:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 29 2006,22:12)
Evolution does not predict the reduction of size for non-coding DNA, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. In fact, an important proportion of non-coding DNA is made of transposable elements, which replicate themselves in genomes, like parasites. Transposable elements represent 70% of the maize genome for instance. This is a case of selfish gene that can increase its fitness (replication rate) without (apparently) increasing the fitness of its owner. This clearly does not support Intelligent Design.

I can see that the replication property is an inevitable consequence of the structure of DNA; its "selfishness" if you like. So why is non-coding DNA stable in amount and conserved in sequence. If it were parasitic, might one expect the amount of parasitic DNA to expand, even exponentially.

Or is it a case of reaching a stable equilibrium, where host/parasite both survive optimally?

Date: 2006/03/30 00:01:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Chris

I can see Google is going to be my friend here. You've given me plenty to search.

Date: 2006/03/30 00:07:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sorry, Jeannot.

Thanks for your reply.

(Peut-être tu pensais est-ce que que c'est comme ça qu'on se tient?)

Date: 2006/03/30 00:14:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (UnMark @ Mar. 29 2006,17:13)
Bravo!  I haven't laughed this hard in ages!

hear, hear!

Date: 2006/03/30 02:34:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Creationism (as science) does not seem to be "taking-off" in the UK.

I hope it stays that way.


The fundie activists have a huge groundswell of support from the Bible Belt culture. The UK have nothing like it for the fundies to build on and I doubt they can ever achieve a real breakthrough in the UK or anywhere else there is not an existing foothold. Imperfect as it is, the UK education system will not lend itself to a religious takeover very easily, either.

It is even better where the Anglo-Saxon  colonial cultural influence  is lacking. I think you have every reason to be optimistic, Stephen.

Date: 2006/03/30 02:45:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Parasitic DNA.

I may need a few wet towels.

Date: 2006/03/30 02:50:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Kudos to anyone who can determine the primary flaw in the experimental design.
(hint: it's a one-word answer, and to get kudos you should be able to get it BEFORE you get to the discussion section.)


I can't spot the answer. Can anyone else or will Sir T. enlighten us? (Cute outfit by the way)

Date: 2006/03/30 03:23:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The fact there's no link to the original article is a clue.

Date: 2006/04/13 08:41:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
For anyone who might still harbour a little compassion for full-time psychopath and part-time pervert, David Springer, I offer the following:
Quote

DaveScot said...

   "When will "Uncommon Descent" issue a formal apology to Eric Pianka?"

   Right after I piss on his grave.

   1:11 AM

Date: 2006/04/21 22:27:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
[quote=Chris Hyland,April 16 2006,02:37]
Quote

Just noticed the JAD papers have been removed from the sidebar.

Chris

Re disappearance of JAD's papers from UD. I suspect John was banned from commenting for not singing from the same hymn sheet and subsequently made a few disparaging comments about Dave2lot on his blog. Pervydavey responded as only he can. The spat is quite enlightening, except Dave may have had second thoughts about his posts and deleted them. John reinstated some and I saved and reposted a copy of one particular choice example. If you are interested, go here.

Date: 2006/04/28 01:26:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Jeannot, Stephen, BWE

That's how it starts. You think you are the one in control; you think you are the one exercising free will. but it's all been predetermined. I look forward to meeting you in rehab soon!

Date: 2006/04/28 10:33:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr the Ghost of Paley,

Could this be connected with cannibalism? This would lead to gut to gamete transfer of genetic information, would it not?

Cards on the table. Do I have do go to my grave still wondering about your guts to gametes paper, or can I relax and enjoy my twilight years? Cut the equivocation and be honest with me and yourself. Admit you are going nowhere with this idea and move on. No one will think the less of you; quite the contrary.

Date: 2006/05/02 20:54:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Maybe Mr. Springer had a look at this thread I started at ARN last September, where I remarked :
Quote
From their site it looks as if they use standard genetic fingerprinting techniques to compare samples of DNA with possible GM contamination to wild-type. I think the only link with Intelligent Design is their name. Care to comment, Salvador.


Arguing with IDers is just like playing "Whack-a-Mole".

Date: 2006/05/03 04:21:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Not fair I was just about to go over there and point out how technically it is the explanatory filter in reverse, something occurs naturally if it has a low probability of being designed.


You could always post here at ARN, Chris. Salvador may show up there.

Date: 2006/05/03 07:42:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that Dave2lot has only started one thread on UD in the last 29?

Date: 2006/05/03 10:16:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Guts to gametes, Bill?

Date: 2006/05/03 20:53:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Guts to gametes. (At least it has some connection with evolutionary biology)

Date: 2006/05/04 07:20:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:55 am

He's back. Hooray!

Quote
Considering the time person of the year is "the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news" I really don't see what his point is.


Well, it must be hard to find subjects with any ID content. Give the guy a break! :D

Date: 2006/05/04 07:48:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Let's "give him enough rope" then and all vote for Geocentrism.

Bill, I hereby switch my vote to geocentrism.

Date: 2006/05/04 22:56:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
In transcription only one strand of DNA (the master strand, as Jeannot puts it) is copied to nRNA. The reverse complement does not produce the same sequence if read in the opposite direction. I.e. If you produced  a back-to-front mRNA from the complement strand it would not be the same.

Is the issue that individual codons can be in either DNA strand as once the strands are unwound the RNA polymerase attaches to whichever strand is the master at that point, so it would not matter which way chromosomes fused as it is individual codons that are transcribed, and which strand is the master can swap from codon to codon?

Date: 2006/05/05 02:51:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Jeannot

It was
Quote
In fact, not only do chromosomes not have polarity, but double-stranded DNA does not either. It's composed of two complementary antiparallel strands: one goes 5'->3', the other goes 3'->5'. Flip it around and you'll get the same thing.
that made me ask, as I read this as suggesting that if you transcribe the complement strand from stop to start you get the same mRNA as if reading the master strand from start to stop, which I don't think is right.

Then I wondered if the master strand has to be continuous just for each codon, or for the complete strand. You tell me yes. OK. So is it hypothetically possible for the master strand to alternate in a gene so long as codon is continuous.

Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:07:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Jeannot and Tom

(All at once, or all in one go, Jeannot, you seem to have had a recombination event :D )

Is the key the promoter, which after following your link, appears to specify start of transcription and which direction, ie which strand, to transcribe. Whilst I'm clear that for each codon for a particular protein, mRNA polymerase reads off in one direction off one strand (which is what I was calling the master strand), I still just wonder if for all codons in one chromosome, is it always the same strand of DNA that is read  when any codon is transcribed?

Date: 2006/05/05 05:48:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dave asks:

I am wondering about what Alan Fox meant by this ...
Quote
Oooh, I think I see a problem. the codons that alternate would have to be of the same number of nucleotides or master/complement will not work.


Let me anwer by saying it was a stupid remark. Codons will, of course have the same number of bases in both strands, so the remark is not even wrong.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:54:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
afdave

From here
Quote
Each strand has polarity, such that the 5'-hydroxyl (or 5'-phospho) group of the first nucleotide begins the strand and the 3'-hydroxyl group of the final nucleotide ends the strand; accordingly, we say that this strand runs 5' to 3' ("Five prime to three prime")

Date: 2006/05/06 22:49:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
In a (possibly vain) attempt to prove I am not quite as stupid as my few earlier posts might indicate:

My main error was to confuse codon (which I did know - but forgot when posting - refers to a triplet of nucleotides coding for a particular amino-acid) with gene (meaning that  to indicate a nucleotide sequence staring with a promoter, containing exons and introns, finishing with a stopcode, that is transcribed by mRNA polymerase to produce mRNA,, which, after any necessary snipping out of introns, becomes the template for the translation of the encoded sequence into a particular protein.)

Very simplistically, then, could one imagine genes as extension leads with a 5' plug and 3' socket. Imagine  two leads of identical length laid out so each plug is next to each socket and twist  together, and pairs of leads can then be joined to extend the line infinitely, plug connecting to socket, socket to plug. The process can be carried on infinitely. Take one pair of leads, unplug both pairs of  leads, reverse (flip over end to end) the pair of leads by swapping the ends over and reconnect, no problem. Imagine one lead of the pair is blue and the other red, blue represents the coding or master strand of DNA and red the complement. Flipping one pair of leads means instead of a continuum of red and blue leads there will be a section where red plug connects to blue socket etc and the two runs of connected leads will have one section of lead of the opposite colour. When the particular gene is unwound to be transcribed the mRNA polymerase will attach as indicated by the promoter so will automatically find the coding strand and read off in the right direction. So in a chromosome, is the coding strand continuous or can it alternate from one individual gene to individual gene?

Tom Ames' link  seems to indicate this is so for yeast at least.

(Ducks head under parapet hoping not to appear even more stupid!;)

Date: 2006/05/07 02:34:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Ok, I didn't get what you meant by the RNA poly using different strands between two codons.


My fault, mixing up "codon" with"gene".

Quote
But you're not reading. ;)


My wife's fault. She sometimes gets irritated about all the time I spend blogging, so I do tend to rush through threads, and thus miss the odd salient point. (More than the odd one, probably.)

Date: 2006/05/07 02:53:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
In case anyone is interested, Dembski has posted his latest paper at  ARN where the moderation policy is somewhat more conventional than under Mr. Springer's stewardship. I.e. if you don't respond to the insulting tone of posts by proIDers LifeEngineer, Ilion and mturner (who themselves have carte-blanche of course, but life is never fair), but stick to the issues, the posts seem to appear and stay on record.

So anyone with the math background could get a few hits in.

Date: 2006/05/07 05:48:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Actually, I think we're doing pretty well over at UD.


So I see.

Quote
We just await Dembski's response...


Best of luck with that. :D

Date: 2006/05/07 10:57:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I briefly forgot about that guy.


So you're not "anonymous" then?

Quote
P.S. for hockey fans:


?

Date: 2006/05/07 21:00:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The ends are marked by telemers.


Did you mean telomeres?

Telomeres are a region of repeat sequences at the end of a chromosome that act like a biological clock, limiting the number of cell divisions, as a sequence is lost on each division, until there are none left and the cell can no longer divide.

Promoters mark the beginning of a gene and the stop codon signals the end of the coding sequence.

Date: 2006/05/08 23:31:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Alan Fox:

Did you ever get a satisfactory answer to your questions about genes and DNA strands?


Yes, Quetzal, thanks.

I never considered discontinuity in individual genes. That would indeed be "hard to imagine how that would even be possible."

I wondered whether the master DNA strand could swap in a chromosome from one gene to the next, and as far as I understand now, it can.

Date: 2006/05/14 02:01:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
That's pretty good. Did either of them insult you? If so, that makes you a lifetime member here.


Does this count as a double ban with insult, Arden?



 
Quote
#

Renard a.k.a. Alan Fox

The jig is up buddy. Time to change your name again if you wish to continue chatting with the intelligent crowd. Sayonara sucker.

Comment by DaveScot — December 19, 2005 @ 7:56 am
#

I was debating when to lower the boom on Renard. It seems that this is an appropriate time. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — December 19, 2005 @ 8:12 am


(link)

Date: 2006/05/14 06:19:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But hey, you went out of your way to tell them that Renard is French for Fox.


That was Jim, k.e., not me. You're not suggesting I engineered my own "double ban with insult" just to get life-time membership here, are you? :)

Note to Dave2lot: Explain to me again how a man-made lake is not a reservoir.

Date: 2006/05/14 11:32:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,10:53)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,15:19)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?

In fact, he accepts biological evolution in its 'prescribed form'. A theory from his master John A. Davison.

Things may have changed..

Date: 2006/05/14 21:49:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (JPadilla @ May 14 2006,17:09)
As a Theistic Evolutionist, I'd like to thank the denizens of this board and their insights. After Seeing not merely the tactics, but also the intellectual ( and ethical) vacuity of William Dembski, I'll have nothing more to do with it. This was the final post I sent to "DaveScot," and the content owes a great deal to the archives here:

My Point is quite simple,DaveScot, and I know you read the posts here: You excoriate Kevin Padian (again, wrongly) for saying that religious fundamentalist fanatacism that leads to murder…is wrong.

You then take that simple idea and twist it to mean that Kevin Padian somehow hates all fundamentalists and lumps all killers together unfairly, according to your erroneous redefinitions of what a suicide bomber is. As I noted, SOME suicide bombings are considered legitimate military actions when directed against military targets. But you say :

“If Padian can’t tell the difference between a mass murdering suicide bomber indiscriminately blowing up crowds of people and a gunman carefully selecting a single target for murder then Padian simply isn’t playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn’t able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers and a single person against whom he holds a grudge.”

Let’s be quite honest, DaveScot: from what I have read at Uncommon Descent and other forums, your only interest in attacking Kevin Padian is not because he is a “racist” or that he “hates fundamentalism” because he said no such things. What you hate is that Kevin Padian testified in the Kitzmiller case, so you have embarked on what one writer at Panda’s Thumb has called a “SwiftBoat” campaign.

You rail at Padian for trumped-up claims that he NEVER said and then excuse your own murderous statements about killing Muslims. This is hypocrisy. You fail to allow others to point out your errors. This is called hubris. Here is what I really think, DaveScot — a person here, in the “After the Bar Closes” section analyzed you to what I think is a tee: You are at best a mediocre mind that was able to get in on the ground floor of a company which took off. But it was not due to your innate mental abilities—you don’t *really* know math, or stats or information theory, or genetics, or much of anything. It was simply luck. You have an overweening sense of your own self-importance however, and now seek the attention of others via your imagined mental abilities, but you fail in direct debate and exchange of ideas. So you used troll tactics at “Darwinist” sites until you got the attention of William Dembsky, who used what little computer skills you have to appoint you “gatekeeper” and you now feel all filled with self-importance, but still cannot manage a coherent supported debate.

So what is left for you but to pose and preen and attack people like Padian dishonestly and hypocritically while disallowing any disagreement…while others laugh at your inanity and point out your errors and fallacies and utter lies by the boatload at places like…here.

I will vote with my feet. In Mark 6:11 says that when one is not welcome or unheard, “shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.” I believe I’ll do just that.

Note: the above quote was also delivered here, under the  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/more_dembski_de.html#more   thread. Thanks for the good work here -- keep it up. No religion deserves the kind of "support" that William Dembski offers. Lies are not a good thing, last I heard. Sincerely, JP

Well said, Sir!

Date: 2006/05/15 00:05:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (keiths @ May 14 2006,23:34)
From a commenter on Dembski's apology thread:  
Quote
This is the diference between Evolution critics and Darwinists. While Darwinian skeptics at least try to keep it honest, such mentality is almost (or entirely) absent from the Darwinian camp (The example you gave about Jon Wells is telling).

For keeping the discussion honest and civil, thank you Bill for your public retraction.
God bless you, and keep up with the good work, and with the good science.

Comment by Mats — May 15, 2006 @ 3:41 am

The sad thing is that he seems to be sincere.  Mats must not be aware of Dembski's "street theater" and "Amazon review" escapades; otherwise he would not be able to say those things with a straight face.

Quote
This is the diference between Evolution critics and Darwinists.


Would it be fair to say that one difference is that no pro-evolution site has had to offer an apology and retraction for defamation. I certainly don't recall any such event, but it would be good to know for certain.

Date: 2006/05/15 01:12:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Latest from DaveScot on the Padian affair:
Quote
#

Calling Kevin Padian a bigot isn’t an ad hominem. It’s a simple observation of fact. Padian is bigotted against Christian fundamentalists. Perhaps he isn’t bigotted against Asians in particular but I wouldn’t bet on it. Bigots are as bigots do.

Here’s a classic example of Padian’s bigotry:

From the LA Times

   The nation’s top paleontologists find the creation theory preposterous and say children are being misled by dinosaur exhibits that take the Jurassic out of “Jurassic Park.”

   “Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah’s Ark? Give me a break,” said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. “For them, ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary.”

Here Padian clearly and flippantly states that
somewhere near half of the U.S. population who believe in the biblical account of creation think a popular cartoon show, The Flintstones, is based upon fact. This is bigotry. There’s no getting around it. Padian is a bigot who mocks anyone that takes the bible literally.

Comment by DaveScot — May 15, 2006 @ 6:03 am


This somewhat qualifies the apology. (Link)

Date: 2006/05/15 11:27:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm pretty sure the cytochrome c gene is exactly the same (all codons identical, not just the amino acids they code for) in humans and chimps.


No, as Jeannot pointed out in an earlier thread, the gene for cytochrome c (DNA sequence) varies slightly between Pan and Homo, but because of the redundancy in the DNA code, the same protein sequence is synthesized.

Date: 2006/05/16 19:55:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,14:24)
 
Quote
Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier?
...


Comment by mynym — May 16, 2006 @  5:31 pm
He11 does that mean?

The post was by mynym. Mynym's posts might just as well be written in Etruscan for all the meaning they contain. Those in doubt can check his blogsite. Also some of the comments give a new insight on content-free.

Edit: Sorry, this is a bit passé, now. Lost connectivity yesterday.

Date: 2006/05/16 22:23:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I should think so, too Sir T.

And after you've finished them, what about answering Dr. Elsberry's question? I'm sure he has given up on a response from you by now!

Date: 2006/05/16 22:51:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This from Dr. D. really made me laugh out loud!

 
Quote
I’m not sure I buy the entire argument here (see the post on this blog about the evolution of nylonase), but I would like to see the insights below vigorously discussed on this blog.*


Oh, the irony!

(*My emphasis)

Date: 2006/05/20 07:49:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 20 2006,07:02)
Ooh, that DaveScot makes me so mad...

But he still may not have banned me from this thread yet, so let's try again:
   
Quote
<blockquote>Where did I say anything about any fruiting bodies? These are mycelial cultures. I’m admitting nothing. Descent with modification took place.</blockquote>

If the cultures are mycelial, then they are <em>the same individual</em>.  Hence, no descent.

I was asking about whether they were produced from spores because I <em>do</em> know something about the life cycle of fungi:
I spent 5 and a half years doing research in mycology, and my PhD is in fungal plant pathology.  The point with mushrooms is that if they are only hyphal, then they are the same indidivual: two mushrooms produced by one hyphal culture are parts of the same individual in the same way that my left arm is a part of the same individual as my right arm is.  Would you claim that your liver cells (say) have "inherited" their function when they were produced?  That's not evolution: it's development.  

Epigenetic inheritance isn't an issue, because inheritance isn't an issue.

Bob
P.S. I was hoping to be banned with a bit more of a flourish than "Thanks for playing.".  I'm really disappointed. :-(


Yes, folks, deep in my heart I know this is all foolish, and I should just give up on DaveScot now.

I'm giving up on you now.  You're outta here -ds

Bob

#

Hark! What’s that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it’s the sound of crickets chirping! :cool:

You’re not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left.

Comment by DaveScot — May 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

So post his latest comment, then, Davey.

Date: 2006/05/20 08:00:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 19 2006,19:29)
Vicious fish...

leader so far.

I was also thinking about "embraceyourinnerfish"

but it's kinda long.

You could adopt a symbol, like the Chinese character for fish, and you could then be "The blogger formerly known as Sir T"

Date: 2006/05/20 08:31:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dr. Elsberry

Is there a possibility that recognised file extensions for images could include .JPG, as that's how my image files are stored on my web host?

(And the spellchecker still wants to call you Dr. Elderberry.)

Date: 2006/05/20 08:56:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2006,08:09)
Dave is challenging someone to respond, and then not allowing the response through? That's about what I expect from him.

Er, no. My mistake. (Unless something morphed between views!;)

Date: 2006/05/20 09:07:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You should ask for a refund on your PhD, Bob. Mycelia are colonies of discrete individual organisms. Any individual cell in the colony can and will produce a new colony. They are composed of individual cells that reproduce by budding, also known as vegetative growth. They may or may not all be clones. If they are all clones they are what’s called a pure strain or monospore culture. I’m working with a pure strain. All the individuals are descended from a single spore. Pure strains are used in commercial mushroom production because they exhibit consistent, predictable performance (senescence issues aside). But here’s what you seem to be missing, Bob. Descent with modification doesn’t stop just because I’m working with a pure strain that is reproducing asexually. Individual cells can and do continue to descend with modification in mycelial colonies. That’s how evolution works, Bob. Daughters aren’t always perfect copies of their mothers. Colonies can also be multi-spore or dikaryotic where the individuals in the colony are descended from more than one spore and this is typical in nature where reproduction from season to season is accomplished by the haphazard germination of multiple sexually produced spores. In multispore colonies it’s a crapshoot as to fruiting capacity, optimal substrates, etc. which is why in commercial production we use monospore cultures as long as we can maintain the the pure culture without it becoming senescent. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you stop making faces and spitting it out. -ds


This seems to be a variation on Davey's " A man-made lake is not a reservoir" argument.

Note the clever use of mycelia, which (being plural) are more than one organism, whereas the point at issue is that a mycelium is one organism. Watch out, Bob, he's street-wise and arguing to win, not to discover the truth.

Date: 2006/05/20 10:50:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You sneaked that in without me noticing.

Yeah, like that!

Date: 2006/05/20 10:58:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
More later.


No guts to gametes, though, I don't suppose, for one moment.

Mr The Ghost of Paley,

There must be a more appropriate forum than this one for, well whatever it is that you are going on about. Why not follow Larry Fafarman's lead and set up your own blog. You could call it "Really important stuff about all sorts of things except my hypothesis commonly referred to as "Guts to Gametes" for instance.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:08:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But first, geocentrism.


"First" as in its alternative meaning of "never in a million years?"

Date: 2006/05/20 21:35:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 20 2006,15:04)
Both "jpeg" and "jpg" are already listed as valid extensions.

.jpg yes but not.JPG (Capitals). I can load pics on to Blogger and elsewhere, but not here.

Date: 2006/05/20 23:35:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Congratulations, Finland.

England voted 12 points! France 8 points! Incroyable. Puts all those years of "nulls points" in the shade.

Date: 2006/05/21 08:23:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 21 2006,02:57)
Hmmm. Try it now.

Date: 2006/05/21 08:27:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 21 2006,02:57)
Hmmm. Try it now.

Cool!

(I'll reduce any future items)

Date: 2006/05/21 21:13:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ May 21 2006,10:21)
I wonder how many coconuts it can carry...

I don't think He(?)'s a swallow, I'm guessing some kind of eagle, perhaps with a feather-loss problem. I was wondering if Wesley thought he might be amenable to training, as he seems quite friendly. (he seems particularly interested in anyone sunbathing.) I thought I might call him Eric.

Date: 2006/05/21 21:19:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ May 21 2006,09:09)
Nice crow. :p

Where is this from?

Les Aigles de la Cité, Carcassonne.

Date: 2006/05/21 21:44:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2006,20:39)
Interesting.  I sent another post to UD (on the Lamarckian mshrooms thread), but didn't post it here.  And... it hasn't been posted.

I sent it mid-morning to mid-afternoon UD time, so it's not as if everyone was sleeping.

I think this goes a long way to demonstrating my hypothesis that the way to get a post up at UD is to post it here too.  Which is not good news, really.

Bob

Anyone considering a non-sycophantic  post should save and post here.

But, great links Bob. What constitutes an organism is an interesting question. One which Davey turns into a semantic argument, rather than following the evidence and its interpretation.

Sir_T makes a fair point:

Quote
Davetard's fungus research (rotten tho it was ;P ), is still more than any other IDiot can claim to have done in the last 2 years.


Dave should have no problem raising a grant from the DI to refine and extend his preliminary studies, since this is the only time any ID proponent has shown any inclination to investigate a real biological system. So, credit where credit is due.

Date: 2006/05/22 07:22:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Here is where I got the pic. They fly a gang of about a dozen Griffin Vultures, but they don't seem to lose many.

Date: 2006/05/22 20:54:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,05:55)
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:42)
And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

Correct. Spanish and Portuguese apparently started to diverge noticeably around the 12th century. The Portuguese didn't colonize Brazil til around 600 years after that, I think, by which time Portuguese was definitely a well defined language.

It's also a big mistake to think of Portuguese just diverging from Spanish and Spanish staying the same all that time. The whole time Portuguese was becoming Portuguese, Spanish was also undergoing its own important changes as well. From what I gather, Portuguese is actually MORE conservative than Spanish in terms of grammar and morphology. To say that Portuguese is descended from Spanish is exactly the same as saying humans are descended from chimpanzees. In fact, Portuguese and Spanish are both descended from Proto-Iberian Romance, which was not the same as any language spoken now.

All the lurkers (well, me, at least) are laughing. Dave's ability to call black white over the language issue highlights his complete lack of credibility.

The analogies between language spread and development as memic, as a metaphor for evolutionary processes, as hinted at here, could be developed, thus combining the issues of language and evolution, reducing the amount of verbiage required to address? (refute, demolish, bury?) AFDave's assertions.

Personally, I think the point that he has nothing of value to offer has been made, not least by his own posts, and I don't see any need to waste more time on him.

Date: 2006/05/22 21:19:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
BWE

You don't suppose AFDave's strategy all along was simply to cause as as many people as possible (who do not support YEC) to waste time arguing with him, thus reducing the time available for useful stuff like further scientific research, etc.? Or is it really just ego?

Date: 2006/05/23 20:29:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 23 2006,11:34)
BWE:
         
Quote
And these studies would seem to get to the heart of the matter. Can anyone point to them? My suspicions are strong but I see that so are GoP's and we appear to have conflicting suspicions. Also that could put the whole thing to rest as far as this particular thread goes. We could critique the studies' methods and conclusions and at least know what we are disagreeing about.

Unfortunately, the impact of father absence is confounded by poverty and the stresses inherent within single parenthood. I guess we could compare single-parent paternal homes to mother-only households, but the former tend to arise from unusual circumstances (mother is a total pusbag, etc., etc.), so I wouldn't necessarily trust the conclusions that flow from such research. But I'll see what I can find...

Mr The Ghost of Paley

Come on, you sometimes display integrity. Admit you can't back up your guts to gametes, geocentrism, scale-free thingy etc assertions, so I could regain some respect for you.

Date: 2006/05/23 20:57:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
It should be obvious to anyone that gay "marriage" will consist of tax burden shift from those gay couples getting married to those that are not married.


What is obvious is that the fiscal burden can be adjusted in any way that a government wishes (if democratic, within the limits of electability).In an ideal world, fairness might be an important criterion, also stability (family units -in the broadest sense, straight, gay or other- are likely to be more stable than single people). Slanting the burden could either encourage or discourage people to set up as couples, and to have no, less or more children, depending on what short or long term objectives are aimed at.

If you feel financially disadvantaged, blame the tax regime. It is separate from any moral consideration.

Date: 2006/05/23 22:56:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 23 2006,22:42)
In the UK we have had gay "marriage" legalised for about 6 months now. I am unable to notice any major change to society because of this. It's total impact on my life is a big fat zero without the ring.


EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

But not as often, Stephen. The lack of a fiscal advantage may have something to do with it. Ditto on having children.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:12:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
If financial benefits are the reason people are getting married and having children, I suspect that something's wrong with their idea of "marriage."


In the UK at least, couples who set up home together can choose to marry or not. Were there a strong financial incentive either way, then this would affect the percentage of those cohabiting as against marrying. Now fertility can be controlled means couples can decide on how many children to have. Raising a child is a huge economic burden, and that choice will be affected by matters such as what level of financial support is available.

I am certainly not implying people should be paid to marry or have children, but it is a fact of life that countries such as Italy who have a very low birthrate are offering cash incentives for women to have more children.

Date: 2006/05/25 03:43:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The ones you have given me before from Talk Origins were not convincing at all ...


Why does that not surprise me?

Date: 2006/05/25 21:22:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Reading Ed Brayton's blog, the IP evidence is pretty convincing, Steve. If Larry suffers from Asperger's syndrome, that would explain a lot.

There but for the grace of God...

Date: 2006/05/25 23:48:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 25 2006,23:40)
Good old Wikipedia to the rescue!

Although I am not an expert on neutral theory, my concern when reading the article is that a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness. I'm not sure how this affects the theory though.

 
Quote
...a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness.


Using the argument from personal incredulity, I fail to see how this could be possible.

Date: 2006/05/26 00:10:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 25 2006,23:57)
Because organisms tend to have a particular codon bias, this results in concentrations of tRNAs that reflect this. If certain proteins contain mutations from frequent codons to infrequent codons, then this effects the rate at which this protein can be translated. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems to be something that's only recently been apprecited. I spoke to a guy a couple of weeks ago at a conference who had lots of data on it, basically showing genes that coded for long proteins with high expression levels had a much higher level of the more frequent codons, and that mutations to less frequent codons could affect their expression.

So tRNA concentration low for the synonymous codon (because said organism genome has low content in that codon?) means lower output of the same protein, lack of which may result in lower fitness?

(Fog of incredulity begins to disperse)

Date: 2006/05/28 05:16:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 27 2006,10:23)
....and I've been eating my spinach.

Watch out, Mr the Ghost of Paley,

That spinach DNA could end up in your gametes!!! :D

Date: 2006/06/15 05:35:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Try "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. You can skip the ad hominem arguments if you find any. I didn't notice any, myself.

Date: 2006/06/20 22:00:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
GilDodgen apparently has made a devastating comment on PT, which was responded to by SteveS in his typically moronic  fashion. But Gil omitted the link.

Could anyone post one. Thanks in advance.

(Due to 30°C plus temperatures and the World Cup, TV, barbecuing and dipping in pool with large cold beer has taken precedence over blogging at the moment, so not up to speed.)

Date: 2006/06/22 01:35:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 21 2006,07:57)
Why deny ourselves the comedy?

I say let the man speak. :)

In the forlorn hope that there should be a place where consenting adults could meet and exchange views without the inconvenience of being banned at UD or AtBC, I set up this blogsite.

I hereby invite DaveScot and anyone else to post as they think appropriate.

Date: 2006/06/22 02:38:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
OK

Date: 2006/06/22 05:43:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr Springer has posted here.

Date: 2006/06/22 06:29:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, I have had posts from both John and Dave Springer.

Link.

Date: 2006/06/22 07:03:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
In fact (apart from someone posting as Huh?)I've only had posts from John and Dave Springer.  ???

Date: 2006/06/22 08:01:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2006,07:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 22 2006,12:03)
In fact (apart from someone posting as Huh?)I've only had posts from John and Dave Springer.  ???

Oh dear. I hope your blog doesn't turn into a lunatic asylum. I mean, I wouldn't want the JAD/DS fight to be the only thing on the blog...

I keep hearing a line from a movie:

"If you build it, they will come."

Nah, it's up to 8 posts at least now, with a little help from me. Do you think a thread about how Portuguese is mixed French and Spanish would fly?

Date: 2006/06/22 08:05:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ June 22 2006,07:58)
Alan,

An excess of JAD is not good for your health.  ;)

I think I'm beyond help.

Date: 2006/06/22 08:29:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, strictly speaking,  I didn't invite him. But Dave Springer posts on his blog so I posted an invite to Dave on John's blog. John may have noticed.

Or it could have been some kind of coincidence :)

Date: 2006/06/23 05:50:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (k.e @ June 23 2006,02:23)
Alan;  Huh? was me,  somehow the login wouldn't let me go thru as k.e. I'm getting old and impatient.

Well thanks for the support k. e.  :D

Date: 2006/06/23 10:16:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bill

Within the first few of your posts here I suggested you were parodying. Nothing you have posted since given me any reason to change my view, not the least your attempt to wear down Martin Brazeau.

What staggers me is that people here are still prepared to give you the time of day.

PS thanks for the prayers; they seem to have worked :)

Date: 2006/06/23 21:05:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Things are a little one-sided at Languedoc Diary. Anyone any suggestions to encourage ID proponents to come out from behind the barriers. I posted a thread at ARN, with no takers as yet. DaveScot, could you post a link at Uncommon Descent? Thanks in advance, Dave. And thanks for your input.

Date: 2006/06/24 00:10:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2006,22:16)
Quote
Anyone any suggestions to encourage ID proponents to come out from behind the barriers.


offer free beer?

seriously though, do us all a favor and don't drag that raggedy cat JAD back in here, m'kay?

You know I can't do that, even if I wanted to. Whilst I find it difficult to get worked up over the non-reality of ID, post-Dover, it seems a shame that consenting adults of opposing views cannot interact anywhere on the net without  risking bans and deletions. So I set up this blog partly as an experiment to see if such a thing were possible.

An experiment in cognitive dissonance if you will. we should test our hypotheses, after all :D

Date: 2006/06/24 03:13:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks, Faid.

Hat-tip to GCT for suggesting the topic. I am pleasantly surprised that it hasn't either flamed out or died from lack of interest.

Date: 2006/06/24 21:33:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Wonderpants @ June 24 2006,14:39)
Just to add my tuppence worth, I fail to see why DaveScot should be given a platform on this forum, Pandas Thumb, or Alan Fox's blog.

If he won't give others the courtesy of having their views heard without endless editorialising, censorship, or banning (see any thread on UncommonlyDense), what good reason is there for us to give him this courtesy?

The point is if you set up an open forum, then it can only be open to all.

The niggle I have harboured is that we cannot claim the moral high ground if it can be argued that we ban people in the same arbitrary way as happens at UD. The perception is that some posters are incapable of self-discipline, and will always wreck any open forum. I wonder whether this is inevitable, so I thought I would try the experiment.

My contention is that flames can be responded to or ignored, the stupid post left as a beacon to that posters inability to engage with others, and that the sky will not necessarily fall in.

I fully expected this blog to dry up from lack of interest very quickly, or degenerate into a morass of abuse. It's early days, but I neither prediction appears to be immediately fulfilled.

@Midnightvoice

"Rules? In a knife fight?"

I have promised no bans and no deletions (except for obscenity and spam). If I don't stick to it, you can call me on it

:)

Date: 2006/06/25 10:02:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 25 2006,09:35)
Quote
The niggle I have harboured is that we cannot claim the moral high ground if it can be argued that we ban people in the same arbitrary way as happens at UD.


I do hope you're not implying that PT or antievolution.org banned these idiots arbitrarily?

If you are, your memory must be horribly bad.

My problem has always been that I don't take life seriously enough, Tom.

I really am just curious to see how things pan out when you refuse to martyr people. I think they either look silly (See JAD on my blog) or they behave in a civilised manner (check out DaveScot) to confound you.

I can't really do moral outrage, life's too short. Also I live in the vain hope of rehabilitation and remorse. Banning is like capital punishment; a bit too final for my liking.

Notwithstanding, my memory is indeed horribly bad :)

Date: 2006/06/25 10:07:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bill,

With the proviso that I get to see your paper on "guts to gametes", you would be very welcome to host a thread on my* blog.

*It remains of course open to all and unmoderated.

Date: 2006/06/25 10:11:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ June 25 2006,08:59)
Quote
it's primarily a blog for ID supporters so they're all welcome no matter what boneheaded things they might say.

Like Josh Bozeman?

Are you stealing my best lines, Steve? :D

Date: 2006/06/25 10:30:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 25 2006,10:05)
 
Quote
But, if you are arguing planetary orbits (and larger) = electron orbits. Do you think they are all caused by the same force?


Yes, I plan to show how the forces come together Tuesday.....gotta run.

The forces come together Tuesday? Should we be building shelters, stockpiling food, abandoning all hope of ever seeing that "guts to gametes" paper?

Date: 2006/06/25 19:56:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 25 2006,16:01)
Well, it seems to have taken no more than a day for JAD to start insulting you. I guess that's an acheivement, of sorts.  ???

And while it's amusing, I'm not totally sure you've civilized DT if he can still pop up with this:
   
Quote

Open mouth and insert foot, boys. You can recover by admitting you were wrong and I was right and then KISSING MY BIG WHITE ASS!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, it is work in progress. :p

Edit: typo

Date: 2006/06/26 06:19:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 25 2006,09:21)
Sorry for not responding to your post - these library computers put you on a pretty strict time diet - Ha Ha  (sorry, been reading a book on Jack the Ripper - don't think Sickert's the one but it's a way cool theory too bad the author's not her characters or else she wouldn't have to ramble no tight plot construction but interesting for all that side gossip on Victorian society, mitochondrial DNA, watermarks, Whistler and all the rest).


Sorry Mr The ghost of Paley

Missed this earlier. No it's Francis Tumblety.

(No big deal about the health thing, had prostate cancer, but with two clear blood tests in a row, every reason to be optimistic. (Go and get those DREs and PSA tests, guys, if you're over 40))

Date: 2006/06/28 06:47:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
@Keiths.

A little confession. Xavier was me. I was amusing myself trying to fly under the radar at UD and goad John at the same time. Strangely, though not banned under that pseudonym, my Xavier posts no longer appear. And, though he liked Belgian chocolate, my father wasn't Belgian.

@ Lenny.

Welcome. I blame Dover. Now there's no-one left to fight 'cept each other :D

Date: 2006/06/30 03:27:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (bystander @ June 30 2006,01:51)
Going back a bit, Dave talks about his belief in front-loading. I assume that this means that everything was loaded in the original DNA. What does this mean exactly?

Does this mean that you could find in a jellyfish DNA the information to create a human? If it does then it's testable isn't it?

If it's just that God created the initial ancestor and started it all, how is that different from Evolution?

The only other thing I can think of is that the original critter had DNA that created everything and DNA gets thrown out as species develop. That is as the first amphibians left the water they threw out the fin making genes and the fish knowing that amphibians had evolved throw out the genes for making legs.

Or is it just me trying to get that pitiful level of detail stuff.

You could ask the world's current leading front-loading theorist who is hanging out at my blog. </plug>

P.S.I doubt you'll get a straight answer.

Date: 2006/07/01 08:05:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (dhogaza @ July 01 2006,05:27)
Quote
This is one of the professors that Salvador trots out to show that ID is taught in college.  Unfortunately for Salvador, it looks like this professor will teach the truth.

Oh, the good professor's been very clear about where he stands from the beginning.  He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.  Sal's attempts to exploit the fact that this course is being taught are about as honest as his claims that the scientific evidence supports ID.

Such as Genetic-ID using the Explanatory Filter.

Date: 2006/07/01 11:20:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2006,08:22)
   
Quote
       
Quote
contra Salvador, who is basically a young-earth creationist cheerleader for the ID movement and will prove a consistently unreliable guide on the science


This is ad hominem and as such is against the ground rules. Moderator, please do your duty.

Comment by David Springer — July 1, 2006 @ 8:11 am


Is a simple statement of inarguable fact an 'ad hominem'? :-)

       
Quote
       
Quote

Prof. MacNeill writes:

And while you’re at it, show us all how ID does this without being utterly (and egregiously) parasitic on the work of generations of evolutionary biologists, field ecologists, laboratory geneticists and developmental biologists, and an army of other researchers who, unlike every ID theorist of my acquantance, has actually done field and/or laboratory research supporting their hypotheses, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.

Citations of published papers and data are not restricted to only those who are in agreement with the author or investigator of the cited work. Denigrating those who interpret existing data in a different way is reprehensible.


[my boldfacing]

So never say anything bad about anyone's interpretation, if it's 'different'? ?

Goodness me, how does DT look himself in the mirror in the morning?

   
Quote
Nick Matzke directed some ad hominem remarks your way, Sal. I left a comment quoting Matzke and asking the moderator to enforce the rules. I also chastised MacNeill for saying that ID theorists do nothing but egregiously parasitize the work of others instead of doing their own research. I pointed out that published data is not owned by any particular theory. Everyone can use it. That’s why it is published.


[my boldfacing]

Um, DaveTard, that does NOT contradict the statement that "ID theorists do nothing but egregiously parasitize the work of others instead of doing their own research." Do try harder next time.


And Sal responds
 
Quote
Thanks for pulling for me, bro.

When the other side starts resorting to ad hominems, rather than engaging the arguments, it’s a sign they know we’re scoring points. I actually take this as a good sign!

Regarding motivations and affilliations, a classic example of hypocrisy that has been suggested by some is the case of Barbara Forest (abbreviated BarFo).


Besides confusing ad hominem arguments with insults, Sal demonstrates the mote and beam parable.

Date: 2006/07/02 00:36:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From a comment by Russ at UD (link)

 
Quote
This is standard operating procedure for Communist (totalitarian/athiest) governments. Religion—the opiate of the masses—is tolerated so long as it submits to the party’s will and serves the party’s political interests. And it relies on “useful idiots” who defend the party line even as the party cynically uses and secretly disprespects them.


Hmmm! (Tries a substitution)

This is standard operating procedure for right-wing US governments. Religion—the opiate of the masses—is tolerated so long as it submits to the party’s will and serves the party’s political interests. And it relies on “useful idiots” who defend the party line even as the party cynically uses and secretly disprespects them.

That's better.

Date: 2006/07/02 07:15:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, I think my blog experiment has more or less run into the sand. However the dire predictions of flame-out seem not to have been born out. My hypothesis that JAD and DaveScot would not cope in an unmoderated forum, without either being able to delete and ban or to provoke their own martyrdom so far holds true. They both seem to have taken their ball and gone home.

My conclusion, the only moderation necessary in a forum is deletion of obscenity.

Date: 2006/07/02 11:47:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2006,10:49)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 02 2006,12:15)
Well, I think my blog experiment has more or less run into the sand. However the dire predictions of flame-out seem not to have been born out. My hypothesis that JAD and DaveScot would not cope in an unmoderated forum, without either being able to delete and ban or to provoke their own martyrdom so far holds true. They both seem to have taken their ball and gone home.

My conclusion, the only moderation necessary in a forum is deletion of obscenity.

"Don't take it so hard, nine out of ten new blogs fold in the first year..."

I'm not beaten yet. When I say "run into the sand", I  have a lot of connections for beach appartments.  We have the mystery of the Visigoth treasure (quite topical now) links to the Da Vinci code, Rennes le Château and the Cathars, the Knights Templar, Montségur ( to say nothing of the hundred knights of Bram). I think I'll run the "holidays for gullible Americans" up the flagpole...

Date: 2006/07/02 13:23:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Who mentioned cheap?

Date: 2006/07/02 21:38:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 02 2006,13:54)
How about a petition to unban . .  well . . .ME.

;)

Seriously, Lenny, are you excluded permanently at PT? I thought it was just from PZ's threads.

Date: 2006/07/03 09:08:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 02 2006,19:35)
Bugger!  I turn my ironymeter off, and moved it into a different room, and this still made it explode:

       
Quote
Why do they have to be so rude?

If you’re not rude often enough you can have your membership in the card carrying atheist club revoked. :-) -ds

Did anyone have a peek at janiebell's blog?

Look who's posting. Isn't he sweet? Does Mrs Springer know he's chatting up the ladies?

Date: 2006/07/03 20:50:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have found it very difficult to be consistent at by blog, where to draw the line on foul language. I am now using the rule, "anything I would feel embarrassed about my mother reading has to go, everything else is OK."

Well, it works for me.

Seriously, heavy-handed moderation plays right into the hands of IDers and creationists, who, having nothing of substance to say, can claim martyrdom as a distraction from their lack of content. I know the clutter is annoying, but I still maintain ignoring is much more effective (I get ignored all the time and it really sucks) than allowing comments to stand.

Date: 2006/07/04 01:24:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Aardvark @ July 03 2006,19:18)
I found a video of Larry on YouTube:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X29D23C5D

That really was Larry Farfarman on the video?

Bloody he11 is he scary.

Date: 2006/07/04 08:25:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 04 2006,08:11)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 04 2006,01:50)
I have found it very difficult to be consistent at by blog, where to draw the line on foul language. I am now using the rule, "anything I would feel embarrassed about my mother reading has to go, everything else is OK."

Well, it works for me.

Yeah, but what does your mother think about it?

More seriously, it was an interesting experiment: thanks for trying it.  Sorry I didn't come to play, but I just found a nice solid brick wall to bang my head against, so the virtual DaveScot version had lost its appeal.

Bob

No worries, Bob.

Springer seems to have given up on commenting there, now, anyway.

PS My mother thinks anything I do or say is wonderful. but that's mothers for you. :D

Date: 2006/07/04 09:11:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 04 2006,09:02)
Incidentally, should we start calling you 'Falan Ox' from now on?  :p

I was less fond of another anagram of my first name, adopted by fellow undergraduates many years ago. ???

Date: 2006/07/04 09:21:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
PS

I just thought, what a good metaphor for why a random walk is not any kind of model for evolution. Possible ways of producing anagram 4!-1(11), but how many possible variations are viable, and will reproduce through one's undergraduate acquaintances. Prove for yourself the answer is 1. Dembski debunked.

Date: 2006/07/04 09:25:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 04 2006,09:19)
Nala?

:D

You just shot a hole in my hypothesis. But it's still 2 against 11.

Date: 2006/07/04 09:28:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You're just toying with me, now.

Date: 2006/07/04 10:54:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
A link in Salvador' latest post at Uncommonly Dense produces some real challenges to evolutionary biology.

Date: 2006/07/05 04:29:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bingo, Caledonian.

Date: 2006/07/05 12:06:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2006,11:24)
Has DaveScott given up in your toblerone loving neutral venue?

You must be psychic, Rich. My mother still buys me a huge toblerone every Christmas.

As for DaveScot, I think he has lost his nerve. He just can't hack it in an open forum. He is running scared. He is a cowardy custard. He can only bluster from behind the barricade at Dembski's blog. Prove me wrong, Dave you weasel. You powder puff. You ex-Dell employee, you. You can dish it out but you can't take it, you big girls blouse.

(Well, the subtle approach wasn't working.)

Date: 2006/07/06 07:14:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dawkins writes really well. You may disagree with the content, but his style is seemingly effortless. "Unweaving the Rainbow" is a little light on science for me and I preferred "The Extended Phenotype" (the revised edition, 1999). I think his latest work "The Ancestor's Tale" is arguably his best so far, with its overarching view of evolution, developed as a journey back in time, meeting up with common ancestors on the way "to the Dawn of Life".

You know you have arrived when you are not just writing books, but books are being written about you.

Date: 2006/07/08 20:35:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From Janie's blog  
Quote
It looks like the floor is left to Arden.
.

And from Mr Chatfield here:
 
Quote
Sorry, I was out of town for 3 days,

 
Quote
I think Janie should post here herself. She looks like a seriously wacky person who'd add to the atmosphere here. Counterbalance AFD's bad vibes, and all. (Plus, her coming here might clear up whether she's real or a fraud once and for all...)


I'm having a "Lobby Ludd" moment, Arden.

Date: 2006/07/08 21:43:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Some UD posters seem to be confused as to whose blog this is. Anyone else reminded of The Sorcerer's Apprentice  
Quote
#

Dave, I would also like to thank you for putting your thoughts out there. I’ve been reading this thread for some time and have picked up bits and pieces of your ideas, but have been frustrated by a lack of a book or at least a lengthy essay that explains your views. I remember the common descent flap, and have been intrigued by your ideas since. Sometimes I get the sense that the lack of specificity is a strategy to keep ID’s big tent intact (which is a worthy goal given the Darwinist juggernaut. Nevertheless, I look forward to your book or lengthy essay.

Comment by Barrett1 — July 9, 2006 @ 12:21 am

Date: 2006/07/09 12:40:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Faid @ July 09 2006,12:35)
Is this where the title of the book is from?

Quote
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine -
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.


http://www.artofeurope.com/keats/kea6.htm

Yes, Keats was apparently upset with Newton over his work with prisms "unweaving" the visible spectrum. Mysticism vs. science.

Date: 2006/07/09 12:46:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
However, I AM DaveScot, operating deep deep cover.


In that case, I don't think it is a smart move continuing to post here, it just makes you Davetard look like a vindictive psycopath. On the other hand...


Smart move!

PS, do you have a title for the book yet?

Date: 2006/07/13 03:22:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sal's new thread on convergent evolution has been repeated at ARN. The moderation policy seems somewhat more relaxed there, so anyone wishing to comment on Sal's essay should be able to. (They let me post there!;))

Date: 2006/07/16 01:03:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
As has been shown on the witness stand in Dover, the FINAL whistle has been blown on ID. Its ALL OVER.

McNeil is just playing with a dead mouse, hey why should we have all the fun?


k.e is beginning to make very good sense to me. Thank you for your persistence, Sir.

Date: 2006/07/16 01:45:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The first is much easier than the second.


Which is why I do not live in hope of seeing Ghost's neo-Lamarckist "guts to gametes" hypothesis.

Date: 2006/07/16 07:13:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
k.e:
 
Quote
Well, Sal is now crudely trundling his eye to someone more his own age. Although I think Sal's boat left long ago as far as she is concerned.



You think?

Date: 2006/07/17 21:53:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
No, please don't, Dave.

Date: 2006/07/18 11:08:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,10:43)
Just amazing. Davetard embarrasses Dembski for six months, and the straw that breaks the camel's back is a mild potshot at Denyse O'Leary.

You don't think his hanging out at Janiebelle's blog agreeing with her about O'Leary and his bizarre stalking of JAD at ISCID, EvC and elsewhere had anything to do with it?

PS I see you couldn't resist giving JAD the bad news.

(Edit: sorry remarks are a bit passé now, just having followed Blipey's link. Dave really doesn't like Denyse, does he?)

Date: 2006/07/20 20:33:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I now adopt the technique (thanks, Lennie, for suggesting it WRT another bombastic and content-free poster), on AFDave's thread and anywhere Paley is posting, of scrolling past Dave's and Paley's comments, and just reading the replies. I save time and learn good stuff about geology, linguistics etc.

Date: 2006/07/24 11:04:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just a simplistic point following on from Qwetzal's post.

Carbon atoms (i.e. carbon 12 isotopes) are identical. There is no way to identify or mark an individual carbon atom (c13s {any atom isotope in fact}are similarly indistinguishable), so there is no way to check how any carbon atom could be "more selfish" than another.

Date: 2006/07/28 21:49:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Re Lenny and Tiredofthesos:

I'm glad it's not just me, then.

Date: 2006/07/29 21:41:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Eh? I never get anything out of their content-free posts, so would you elaborate?


The image I retain from your posts and those that attempt to engage with you, is of two bald men fighting over a comb.

Date: 2006/08/03 00:29:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 02 2006,17:59)
It looks like DaveScot may finally have a new home.

Addict!!!

Date: 2006/08/18 20:23:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
There was also something relating to a family crisis at the time, IIRC, but the details escape me now.


JAD and DaveScot have both implied JAD has or had a drink problem. JAD recently mentioned he is now forbidden alcohol due to a diseased liver.

BTW, long post for someone who has lost interest in JAD  ;)

PS to Blipey, nice rant on UDOJ

Date: 2006/08/20 09:01:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Nice work, N. Wells.

I'll try posting a link at UD.

Date: 2006/08/29 08:50:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I know I don't get out much these days, but I missed the promotion of Steve to moderator. Congratulations. No moderation is the best moderation, but I suppose there have to be limits. I have made a few stupid posts in my short blogging career and the best rebuke that worked for me was a deafening silence.

(waits for deafening silence)

Date: 2006/08/31 09:01:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,07:09)
Another great Joel analogy:

 
Quote
as a slave would display his muscles in order to be purchased.


Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?

Don't worry, Steve, I see Joel's obsession with girls' hoohoos extending well into the next several decades.

Quote
Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?


The immortal Josh Bozeman explains.

PS, what's a hoohoo?

PPS, that was somebody else's link on UDOJ, but thanks for the publicity :D

Date: 2006/08/31 12:19:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,11:33)
 
Quote
Tardfight!


i tried to read that thread, and was quickly beginning to feel stupider by the second.

Is there some pill you guys take to keep you from losing brain cells when you read such tripe?

I simply get physically ill and have to look away; like trying to read in a moving car.

Well, post Dover, it's hard to take ID seriously as an issue.

Date: 2006/08/31 12:25:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Thanks to Falan Ox for pointing me to this


What about comment 42?

Date: 2006/09/01 20:36:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I thought it was just me. I just read through a thread at PT with Pim and Poppers Ghost, which illustrates Arden's and Steve's points. Not to harp on but I think it's post-Dover malaise. Some people need to realise ID is dead as a scientific argument and move on.

Date: 2006/09/01 21:03:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2006,20:43)
Forget the booze. You need a crapload of mescalin for this one:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1538#comment-58014

Quote
think states of matter have very little relevance to how chemistry works.

Maths is applied mind, physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry. We are biological beings who now posess mind. It seems to have gone the full circle.

Comment by idnet.com.au — September 1, 2006 @ 6:28 pm



Like, woooooooaaaaaah, toooooootaaaaaallly, Dude.

I was tempted to comment on the thread, but it best left to stand on its own "merits".

PS Rich,

I doubt I have time to write a thread topic at UDOJ. You seem to spend time there. Would you be interested?

Date: 2006/09/04 01:18:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
And me!

PS to Rich. You may be at cross-purposes. As I won the JAD office pool I get to have a guest thread at UDOJ. I don't have much time at the moment to blog so I offered it to you. The idea is to email it to Janie and she'll post it at UDOJ. I didn't intend to suggest you start a thread here.

Well, never mind. See how it goes.

Date: 2006/09/05 07:30:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
If Dave Scot wishes, I'd be happy to discuss it with him further over at ARN.


Dave doesn't do dialogue, N. Wells. BTW I admire your erudite and restrained posts at ARN. I think you have beaten all but the most boneheaded (LifeEngineer springs to mind) IDiots into submission.

Date: 2006/09/05 08:39:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sounds reasonable, Arden.

I had a run-in with him on JAD's blog (mkII prior to full ashtrays) over a photo of the Pyrenees I took. He argued over the time of day, time of year, the orientation of the Maginot line. It seemed totally bizarre. Why? I guess he hates to admit he can be wrong, and seems incapable of understanding the concept of a dialogue where both parties can learn something new.

I confess to feeling a little sorry for him, but, then I am just an old softie.

PS and over whether Lake Travis is a reservoir, but he did back down on this later, this being the only example of DT admitting a mistake that I am aware of.

Date: 2006/09/05 09:11:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Look who've made up.

(you need to scroll down a little)

Date: 2006/09/07 12:13:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 07 2006,11:41)
I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines.  I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins.  A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment.

Congratulations on the new arrival.

Date: 2006/09/07 20:51:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Steve,

Now you have your new role as moderator, with that additional responsibility, I wonder had you considered reviewing your listed interests in your profile?

Date: 2006/09/09 01:30:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Not much gets past you Arden.

I thought Steve's posts about having a contact at Camp Lejeune was a brilliant ruse, but is Steve saying now he wasn't in on it?

Date: 2006/09/09 20:28:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
#

Carlos is no longer with this forum. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — September 10, 2006 @ 1:19 am


Plus ça change...

Date: 2006/09/10 07:44:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Carlos was posting on-topic and politely. It must have been the off-hand comment about "notions of 'informational complexity and probability'”  Considering Dembski's bold proclamation to debate anyone anywhere anytime, this constant stifling of dissent on Uncommon Descent is quite ironic.


Carlos has responded to his banning here.

Date: 2006/09/15 13:37:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
More trouble at t'mill, DaveScot writes:
   
Quote
Barry
If one kills an animal in a humane way, one does not go to jail.

Oh yeah?

Go humanely kill a few spotted owls or bald eagles and see where it gets you.

Or go to the San Diego Zoo and humanly kill some of the animals there and see if you can avoid jail.

Oh how about this - go to the home of a judge you know and humanely kill his dog. See if that lands you in the hoosegow or not.

A quick google indicates you probably better not try these in Georgia as there’s no question as to the risk of incarceration. Your answers in this thread have been rather shallow. I suggest you exercise a modicum of due diligence or remain silent.*


*emphasis added.

Date: 2006/09/15 13:43:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2006,12:56)
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 15 2006,16:27)
By the way, I've been a long time lurker here.  Recently, however, I've been finding the level of disingenuity, stupidity and sheer wickedness at Uncommon Descent impossible to take without an opportunity to vent about it.  My wife has grown tired of hearing me, so I'm posting here now.  Putting it like that, it does make me wonder why I can't just stop visiting such a wretched intellectual train-wreck in the first place... ???

First, good to have you. Second, it's important to not let it get to you. I recommend reading the entire Kitzmiller opinion by Judge Jones. The spectacle of ID getting a 130-page beatdown from a conservative christian judge will help to impress upon you how doomed the Uncommonly Dense are.

Yes, Judge Jones has a lot to answer for, destroying ID as a political force so completely that it is impossible to take them seriously any more.

Date: 2006/09/20 07:29:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hi guys,

I know I've been a bit of a blogtart recently, but I was wondering if there was any church burnin' or ebola spreadin' needed, now I have a little more time on my hands.

PS to Zachriel. I did wonder about editing my email, then I thought "sod it, at least they won't be able to accuse me of dishonesty.".

Date: 2006/09/21 11:55:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 20 2006,06:55)
I think the entire post is worthy of a copy and paste here, Heddle is right on with his criticisms of the ID movement and Sal is nothing but a weasle.

 
Quote
Color Me ID Cynical


I am reading Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt's new ID book: A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, (Intervarsity Press, 2006) More on this when I give a complete review later. But I will say that in an overcrowded genre full of ponderous gobbledygook, this book is a breath of fresh air.

Which is just what I need, being so deeply soured on the ID "movement." (Though not on the idea that God has left evidence of His design.) The movement, as a political enterprise, has made so many mistakes you wonder its proponents don't just disband and go home. A quick review of a very unsuccessful campaign:
"Evolution is just a theory" stickers in the text books. The purpose of which was--I don't even know. I'll speculate on their effectiveness: as for changing anyone's opinion one way or another on evolution: infinitesimal. As for pissing off the opposition, giving them something to rally around, and making Christians look like fools: very. This is independent of whether or not there is merit in the "evolution is just a theory" criticism. The tactic, in any case, was boneheaded.


The "ID is science" mantra. Except that by ordinary standards of science it isn't. The Irreducible Complexity "experiments" are really challenges: We dare evolution to explain the flagellum. This is reminiscent of a "refutation" of the four-color theorem I once saw in (I think) Scientific American for one of their famous April Fool's spoofs. A hugely complicated map was printed, and readers were challenged to try filling in the myriad of tiny, twisted shapes using only four colors. Can't do it? Q.E.D. Even the falsification experiments in the The Privileged Planet, which in my opinion is the ID book on the most solid scientific ground, don't smell like real experiments: Search for intelligent life on a planet without a large moon. This is not to say that experiments cannot be ID inspired, I believe they can be and are--in fact all experiments are ID inspired in the sense that they presuppose two facts in evidence: i) nature is orderly, i.e., governed by laws and ii) although we have no reason to expect it, it would appear that humans are able to uncover and understand these laws.


"Design can be mathematically demonstrated" except that nobody has ever actually done it, although there are plenty of excuses as to why it hasn't happened "yet." The irony here is multifaceted. Dembski's mathematics, which is touted as putting ID on solid mathematical footing, actually does nothing of the sort. His work says some interesting things applicable to genetic algorithms, but genetic algorithms resemble actual evolution (the way it is supposed to work) in only a superficial way. However, in a move analogous to leaning into rather than away from a left hook, evolutionists often proclaim genetic algorithms as a sort of proof of evolution. This lunacy then plays into Dembski's hands by extending the shelf life of his arguments which should, by now, be dead. It's all kind of crazy, when you think about it.


"ID has nothing to do with God." Yeah, right. Perhaps one place where Dembski's filter might actually work is that, just maybe, it could detect design in the composition of the ID movement. This shouldn't be all that difficult, given that the overwhelming majority of IDers are theists. Oh, the argument has a milli-ounce of merit: it's just about the design, not about the designer (and in truth is not much different from evolution saying: we don't care about abiogenesis) but this clumsy posturing looses out to the "looks, walks, and quacks like a duck" test.


"Let's get school boards to put ID in the curriculum, then fight the battle in the courts, and argue that ID is not religious (nod, nod, wink, wink) but, even if it is, then atheism is a religion too." Brilliant! That's worked real well. Not only are many scientists antagonized, but now many nonscientists are too. Perhaps the only saving grace is that these efforts have pushed enough loudmouths to Dawkinsian extremism and fundamentalism that the opposition is wasting its time fighting internal skirmishes.
The whole state of ID is in such utter disrepair the leaders of the movement should fall on their swords. (But that would necessitate abandoning a cottage industry, so that's not going to happen.)

The only thing, in my opinion, that can save ID is to acknowledge that it is not science but a science-based apologetic. Its purpose is to demonstrate that science is not incompatible with the bible and that Christians have nothing to fear: science is not the enemy anymore than archeology. Neither physics experiments nor Holy Land excavations are going to disprove God or the bible. ID, like all apologetics, should have as its primary audience believers, not unbelievers.

I have said this many times, but here is the truth, and it's worth pondering. Before the ID movement, ID ideas were discussed in classrooms. I hardly remember a physics class in college where a rabbit trail discussion about how the beauty of nature might point to a creator did not come up. The typical attitude of the professor was such that even if he wasn't a believer, he could understand how science, given that what it revealed was so amazing, might cause someone to consider that God was behind it all. Since that time, only additional marvels (such as the ever-more-rapidly-expanding universe) have been discovered. But the failed ID political movement, with its built in hero worship of rather unaccomplished non-scientists, has totally poisoned the well. I may be a minority of one, but I have to say that, as an IDer, I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders.

Seconded. Dr. Heddle should be commended for his conversion "on the road to Damascus"

Date: 2006/09/21 22:26:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 21 2006,13:02)
John Davison says:

   
Quote
Get with the program. Or better yet, go back to “After the Bar Closes” and quote me. No one else has and you probably won’t either.


Three hours later...

   
Quote
Well come on Chris Hyland. Mention my name and quote me directly at “After the Pub Closes,” Esley Welsberry’s private little inner sanctum, flame pit and “groupthink,” head-nodding, auto-congratulating sewing circle. Just think, you could be the first. What an opportunity. Don’t pass it up. It is your chance to achieve lasting fame.


Never let it be said Im not a nice person.

And later
 
Quote
I am sure that by 1911 Ernst Haeckel knew that cells were not mere blobs. He was a fine zoologist and I am sure he was aware of all the great strides that had been made chiefly by German science which had already disclosed the basis of both mitosis and meiosis. The chromosome theory of heredity was already firmly established and the discovery of Mendel’s paper fit right in. That proved to be very misleading as to the causes of organic evolution as I have explained elsewhere as well as here at Uncommon Descent. Mendelism had no role in evolution, none, except to bring it to a halt. That is true today as it always has been. Trust me, but of course you won’t.

I love it so!

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison


John, how hypocritical. How often has it been pointed out that there has been 50 years of scientific research since any of your famed sources published anything, and here you are talking about great strides between 1906 and 1911. Sauce for the goose...

Date: 2006/09/23 02:03:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
God bless you Alan Fox.


OK?

 
Quote
You continue, in your sublime ignorance, as you always have, to be my strongest supporter.


And you John, remain an intellectual coward, unable to constructively defend your "PEH" in any open forum, merely posturing behind the barricade of UD moderation. You choose to either engineer a ban or walkout where the moderation is not to your liking as here, though, God knows, you were given enough leeway before finally being banned.

If you have the confidence to rebut criticisms of your "hypothesis" against the denizens of the knitting circle, and you are not just blowing smoke as usual, you can go here  and prove me wrong.

Regards, Falan

Link

Date: 2006/09/23 13:04:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2006,11:29)
 
Quote (Wonderpants @ Sep. 23 2006,16:23)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 23 2006,09:02)
Carlos: this is a warning: Either produce published, detailed papers to support your claims

What, like the published, detailed papers the IDers are producing?  ;)

No, I think that's a tacit admission on Dave's part that 'published, detailed papers' implies 'refutes ID'. Academic publications and research are not their friends.  :p

 
Quote
142. John A. Davison  // Sep 23rd 2006 at 3:19 pm

Is this the final version of Uncommon Descent’s new format? If it is ,what ever happened to the side bar where all my papers used to be? Getting my papers restored was the primary thing I was concerned about by returning here.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 23, 2006 @ 3:19 pm


It would appear even Dr. Davison's published papers are not their friends.

Date: 2006/09/24 09:47:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
161. bFast  // Sep 24th 2006 at 1:42 pm

Pav:

   I’ve pointed out, time and again, where you’re going wrong in your thinking, and it doesn’t slow you down one bit. I’m simply tired trying to point it out to you. You’re either unable, or unwilling, to see it.

Pav, the process of working out truth is a much slower process than you seem to realize. People dont, nor should they, recognize you as a divine authority. You present a case that is totally convincing to you, but that doesn’t mean that it is very convincing at all to someone else.

If you developed a lot more respect for other people’s views, allowing others to be wrong and dense (at least in your eyes), you would find getting along with others to be much easier. I highly recommend that you read Barrett1’s post #159, and understand what he is saying. If you can stand allowing another person to continue to have a view that is different from yours, your blood pressure will be much lower.

Comment by bFast — September 24, 2006 @ 1:42 pm


I have to say, well said Bruce. I am still unable to comprehend how testosterone seems to deaden the cognitive abilities of the average red-blooded American male.

(ducks under parapet)

PS well said too, Barrett1

Date: 2006/09/26 21:21:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2006,13:37)
OverwhelmingEvidence.com is no longer simply parked.

I followed Wesley's link after laughing at Steve's parody.

Bloody héll! It's not a parody!

Date: 2006/09/28 09:52:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have absolutely no argument with moderation policy, just a thought that any snipping should be annotated. This would be a guide for future conduct, as well as a way of avoiding the charge (unjustified, probably) of censorship (in the sense of blue-pencilling bits of a comment).

Alternatively, posts with unacceptable comments should be deleted with an invitation to re-post minus the unacceptable bit..

Les deux sous à moi :D

Date: 2006/10/01 05:50:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Zachriel:

Quote
And for DaveScot to suppress comments because of ad hominem attacks is absolutely hilarious in light of his own past behavior.


Dave's standard response to losing out to his intellectual superiors. I predict Karl Pfluger's days are numbered. Not you tho, Bob, I think Dave likes you.

Date: 2006/10/01 06:37:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From the inimitable John Davison, after  great_ape politely demolishes his collected papers here

   
Quote
great_ape

You are nothing but another gutless coward, afraid to even divulge his name. I have no respect for you or any of your cronies over at Esley Welsberry’s Alamo. All you do is sit around and snipe at Dembski, O’Leary and DaveScot. I notice that none of you clowns hardly ever mention my name. I know why. I am a published scientist who has exposed the Darwinian myth as a monumental joke. That is why. Welsberry has instructed you gossip mongers not to mention me. Falan Ox has freely admitted as much. He is another big time loser.

The only rreason my work is being ignored by the Darwimps is the same reason that they ignored Grasse, Bateson, Broom, Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Mivart, Osborn and Bateson. It is summarized in one word- FEAR.


John,

You are only posting at UD because, as their only qualified biologist, they appear to think you lend some scientific credibility to the site. Unfortunately, to most people, you come over as an obnoxious crank.

Date: 2006/10/01 06:55:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
As ID has all but given up on research


All but given up? The implication is there was something to give up, and a little bit not yet given up. What was that, pray?

OT Senator McCain was interviewed on UK TV today. Compared to Bush, he seems an intellectual giant. Not my place to say, but I reckon he would be an improvement as a potential president.

Date: 2006/10/01 10:04:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr the Ghost of Paley,

OT I would consider it a personal favour if you would kindly confirm that you no longer have any intention of producing any argument in support of your "guts to gametes" hypothesis. I have attempted to find the original reference to your hypothesis, but it seems to have slipped beyond my reach, presumably being so long ago.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/10/03 02:42:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
*** THIS IS FOR A CERTAIN FOX WHO KEEPS BITING MY ANKLE! ***


It is mildly irritating that I can't locate your original assertion about DNA being combined into the germ line via ingestion in multicellular animals.

Anyway, from the abstract:

   
Quote
Xenoturbella bocki, first described in 1949 (ref. 1), is a delicate, ciliated, marine worm with a simple body plan: it lacks a through gut, organized gonads, excretory structures and coelomic cavities. Its nervous system is a diffuse nerve net with no brain. Xenoturbella's affinities have long been obscure and it was initially linked to turbellarian flatworms1.


I seem to recall, that the issue was how on earth DNA could be transferred from ingested material in a gut to an organism's gonads, and, more specifically, into its gametes. As the organism in the paper you cite appears to have neither proper gut nor differentiated gonads, it does not seem relevant to the original claim.

Unfortunately (or maybe not), I no longer have the enthusiasm to debate you, mainly because I perceive it as a monumental waste of time, and as your ideas are so, well, singularly, your own individual musings, unlikely to cause any ripples in the real world, I am happy to withdraw from the field.

Farewell, folks.

Date: 2006/10/03 03:10:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Snap, Zachriel.

I am banned from viewing at ISCID too. They must have got some new software, I don't have a fixed IP address and it still prevents viewing if I try via IE as well as Firefox. I bet there are a few more on the list. Dembski et al must be getting desperate. I had decided to retire but I may lurk awhile to check developments.

Date: 2006/10/03 03:26:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I just tried disconnecting my modem (this usually gets me a new IP address) and deleting all cookies, and yes, Chris, I can get ISCID but I still can't access UD. Clever, eh!

Date: 2006/10/03 04:28:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Didn't notice this before. Guess it might be a case of Joel overlooking posting the cheque.

Date: 2006/10/03 04:50:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Fixed

Date: 2006/10/14 04:37:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I always thought Ghost of Paley was parodying.

I can't think of anything positive that has emerged from the whole episode. It still seems a monumental waste of time, and I'm really glad I didn't respond any more than I did.

Date: 2006/10/14 11:08:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 14 2006,08:16)
I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.  :O
John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont.
:D

I think he should have stuck with his composting toilet.

Date: 2006/10/14 11:17:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
This was particularly relevant to the Brazeau debate.


I wonder how Martin Brazeau will feel about it?

Date: 2006/10/25 05:59:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hi

I have slipped back into a little lurking as my wife is away for a few days visiting her folks. In the short time since starting my "cold turkey" things seem to have gone even further downhill for ID in the blogosphere. The only activity on ISCID seems to be JAD lamenting his ban from the Richard Dawkins site (classic performance from John, matched by how quickly and comprehensively he was shown to be a crank by posters unaware of his history). ARN has the ridiculous life engineer being repeatedly torn to shreds by rational posters who seem to outnumber (in bodies and IQ) the rump of IDers still posting. As for Ovewhelming Evidence, well, what can I say? It is beyond parody.

But Uncommon Descent has degenerated to the point it that I don't find it exasperating or funny any more. One reason for this (apart from the hammer blow of the Kitzmiller decision) is the absence of dissent. Dembski's inability to respond to polite and reasoned sceptics such as Tom English, Carl Sachs (Carlos) and Allen MacNeill has resulted in an echo chamber of unremitting idiocy, with the undercurrent of a creationist agenda becoming ever more apparent. Dave Springer's ploy of engineering excuses to ban perceived unsympathetic posters has backfired.

As one reformed blogger who has been banned a few times there, may I say that I now think attempting to post comments at UD which attempt to put an alternative view may now be counterproductive. (Mind you, apart from Chris Hyland, who has had a shot or two fired over his bow, I am not sure who is left to take or ignore my suggestion.)

So, what about a boycott of Uncommon Descent. No further attempts at posting there unless a fairer moderation policy is implemented.

Date: 2006/10/25 06:28:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I guess that's why I could only think of Chris Hyland as a sceptic still posting there.

Date: 2006/11/05 23:35:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.


What is your alternative explanation, apart from personal incredulity?

Quote
Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed.


Punnet (and all John's sources) were working many years ago. Biology is a continually developing body of knowledge. Also John's beliefs are not evidence. What he needs is a convincing hypothesis backed up by suggestions for testing it.

Quote
Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this.


Can you support this assertion?

Quote
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".


Single point mutations can have large phenotypic effects. How do you interpret this statement as a problem for evolutionary theory?

Quote
And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?


Fantasy? You seem to be having a problem with personal incredulity again. Remember, if evidence for a theory is weak, it does not strengthen the evidence for a particular alternative theory. John' saltationist-front-loading "hypothesis" needs to have some foothold in evidence if it is ever to rise above crank status.

Quote
One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!


If  species of migratory birds were observed to eat models and mimics in different locations in their migratory cycle, it seems a plausible idea. Does John's "hypothesis" have a better, testable alternative?

I noticed your post at ISCID.

Quote
They are sometimes like unleshead beasts.


If you are referring to AtBC posters, I have to agree with you. :D

 
Quote
I am by now way expert on genetics


Fine. Neither am I. But that does not seem to affect your ability to dismiss the work of many hard-working and dedicated scientists, for the alternative of a "hypothesis" that has no evidential basis.

Date: 2006/11/06 12:04:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
...I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  


One of the best? Then modern evolutionary theory is safe for a while, yet.

 
Quote
...Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.


A scientific theory stands or falls by the evidence that supports or disproves it. Subsequent developments, from Mendel to whole genome sequencing, have generally reinforced the original concept of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is not static; observations, experiments and modifications continue to advance and improve on the original theory. "Origin of Species" was a seminal work but is not a very useful reference for anyone wishing to learn about modern evolutionary theory.

 
Quote
Heikertinger


Ah! Googling Heikertinger led me here. Posters at AvC seem already to have dealt quite adequately with your concerns. I doubt you will get any further here without some new material. I wouldn't rely on John to come up with anything original.

Date: 2006/11/10 12:14:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just looked in again to see what the mid-term results hold for ID. Lenny seems to have been spot-on.

@Altabin

The answers to most of your questions can be found on this ISCID thread.

I thought this claim by John:
   
Quote
I have hurled invective at no one, not here, not at Uncommon Descent, not at any other place where I have posted.
was a little too sweeping. ;)

PS. Well done US voters. (The suggestion on French TV was  voters have rejected a poor performance rather than a political ideology.)

Date: 2006/11/12 02:50:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Arden:

   
Quote
Doesn't fit with their "we CAN'T do any research 'cuz those big atheist meanies won't LET us!" meme.


This  research project may be going through the peer review process as we speak, and be published to great acclaim. Then you'll be laughing on the other side of your face, my lad.

*Edit:UD thread referred to in above link

Date: 2006/11/13 12:35:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I already suggested that anyone still posting at UD in an attempt to rebut the nonsense spouted by the usual suspects should consider boycotting the place.

I thought Allen MacNeill was ill-advised to bother reasoning with the remaining rump of hard-line IDiots. I doubt there are  many lurkers left at UD, now, in any case, post Kitzmiller and the mid-term results. As k. e. says:  
Quote
The dictators have no clothes.


@Zachriel

Take it as a compliment. Even your unfailing patience and civility can't disguise an unpalatable truth. Honest content that questions the party line gets you banned at UD.

Date: 2006/11/14 13:37:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Mr The Ghost of Paley

I have just wasted rather a lot of time skimming through the latter part of this thread. Other than pandering to your ego, what purpose do you think your comments serve? As Louis, Lenny and others have already pointed out, your comments are neither informative or amusing, and appear devoid of any other redeeming feature. It may be possible for you to produce an interesting comment, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. Do you really have nothing better to do?

Date: 2006/11/20 03:51:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Wonderful stuff. How d'ya like them apples Davey-boy.

Keep up the good work Rich and gang!

Date: 2006/11/20 04:24:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Can't believe you mothballed your blog, Alan... Boo!


I am tempted to re-open. Do you think Mr Springer might be persuaded to come out and play, no holds barred, to mix my metaphors?

Date: 2006/11/20 04:36:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I suspect you are right. He does seem to have a cowardly tendency to post and run where he can't have the last word. Well, he can always prove me wrong. Blog re-opened. If you like, I can start a thread for Davey and you to go head-to-head :p

Date: 2006/11/20 11:56:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2006,23:43)
"Comments on this blog are restricted to team members."


Phhh! I see how it is. What kinda ship you running here, Alan? USS uncommonly dense2? ;)

Mea culpa

I enabled comments after posting the thread. It is OK now. Thanks, Zachriel, for the headsup.

So, come on, Mr Springer, the gauntlet is thrown.

Date: 2006/11/24 12:06:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Au contraire, Rich.

Date: 2006/11/26 04:37:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2006,20:50)
Oh man!

JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID

ISCID

They just chase each other around cyberspace, trying to get in the most insults!

It just doesn't get any better that this  :D  :D  :D  :D


And see the last comment on this thread.
Quote
Oh hi, John. I wonder where you'd slunk off to after mailing that letter to O'Leary. She forwarded it to all the admins at UD. A couple of them, even Dembski, rose up in your defense.

They rose up, that is, until I emailed them a couple dozen choice quotes from your blog "newprescribedevolution" where you'd called Dembski all kinds of unflattering names. They then went from defending you to pitying you but agreeing that me banning you was the right thing to do. I didn't want to expose you in that way but you left me no choice.

Date: 2006/11/27 03:10:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
My 2 cents worth.

(posted 2 hours before Louis started this thread)

Date: 2006/11/27 03:54:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Since no one has ever seen a verified picture of DaveScot


Scott Page mentioned having seen one once.

Professor Page? Any chance of a peek?

Date: 2006/11/27 04:01:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
@Chris Hyland and associates,

Andy MacIntosh, a leading expert in flame technology, creationist and layman WRT evolutionary biology, seems someone to keep an eye on.

Date: 2006/11/27 14:56:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Is it me, or has it become pretty quiet over there at UD?


It's not just you. They badly need a new idea, or even just a new strategy. New blood, perhaps. They could bring back Josh Bozeman, for instance.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:04:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55)
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)
 
Quote

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.

So how's Vermont this time of year, John?

I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:44:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I too want to know what the true is.


You unleshead beast, you! :D

Date: 2006/11/29 02:10:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah, Rich, you, as always can be relied on to make the salient point.
Quote
AND they have a battleship, and wine and cheese. FRENCH cheese, as well.


Do you actually get real French cheese in the US?

Date: 2006/11/29 16:16:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
He's back!

Date: 2006/11/29 16:37:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Jeannot:GOP=AF:JAD?

Date: 2006/12/01 01:12:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
After glancing at Essence of irony over on UD, I wondered if Wikipedia had committed other grievous errors against leading lights of the "ID is Science" community.

I found this!

Dave, I'm shocked. A conspiracy of silence, indeed.

Date: 2006/12/01 01:30:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
PS

In case Dave Springer would like to justify his claims about Wikipedia, and if anyone wants to add a comment, I opened a thread here.

Date: 2006/12/01 01:40:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Come on Steve. Spill the beans on the ISP source.

BTW Martin,

I glanced through your linked article. I did not see anything that undermines the theory of evolution there. As you are making the claim, perhaps you could indicate the relevant passages that I must have missed

Date: 2006/12/01 15:00:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
John

I will open a thread for you here if you like, on the understanding that profanity and obscenity is not acceptable.

Date: 2006/12/01 15:26:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I checked the IP and it's somewhere it Europe, which means little.


It might mean little to you colonials, but some people live here!

Date: 2006/12/01 16:43:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm not planning on leaving ATBC.


Well, that's a relief! You are sort of an institution. I'm still grateful for your support in a spat with ts many moons ago.

Date: 2006/12/03 05:21:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Hey "VMartin":

Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.


Occam's Aftershave,

Professor Davison is currently visiting here, so you could ask him yourself.

(Tumbleweed, crows, my foot, Arden & Rich)

Date: 2006/12/03 05:45:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 02 2006,22:03)
Wes, are you listening?

Curiously, it's listed under "off-topic".  I guess this means that posts about global warming, theology and other such matters are on-topic on an ID blog.

Bob

Quote
I recently spoke in chapel there, and, for the good of your soul, you do well to look at the text of my message


Will I learn anything there about ID, and how it is science and not religion?

Date: 2006/12/03 05:57:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 02 2006,08:35)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 02 2006,13:27)
Good news for Richard Hughes! :p

LOL.

BTW. Love your new siggy.

Ah! John still manages to stir a little interest. He complains here about David Springer's treatment of him. I wonder if Dave would like to justify himself there? Have you got the cojones, Dave?

Date: 2006/12/03 06:04:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,00:41)
Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
 
Quote

allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...


instructed yesterday John Davison that:

 
Quote

I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same...


Would you beleive it?

You're welcome to add your 2 cents, Martin. The context of that remark was the draconian moderation policy at ISCID, which incidentally, John has not been too flattering about recently.

I am an optimist, I think I can restrain myself, and hope others do, because...

I love it so!

So, Sock it to me!

Date: 2006/12/03 09:21:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The European dollar


Where can I get my hands on some?

Date: 2006/12/03 10:41:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Beat you, Stephen! :p

Date: 2006/12/03 10:53:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This is fun.

Not so good.

Date: 2006/12/03 14:05:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You guys,

Just having a medicinal glass of Merlot, checked in to catch up on the news. Now I'm mopping up all over.

Date: 2006/12/03 15:57:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The bitter truth, of course, is quite different.  In most of the world, the US is viewed, quite rightly, as predatory, selfish and hypocritical -- a supporter of unelected dictators who kill their own people, and the opponent of every social movement that attempts to make things better for people in other countries.


I think you are being too hard on the US, Lenny. People can distinguish between individuals and Government policy. It's MacDonald's that give the US a bad name in my part of the world. Learn to laugh at yourselves as a nation and the world will laugh with you.

Date: 2006/12/04 11:57:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Stephen:

Quote
These comments display their ugly side.


At least B Fast manages to keep on the moral high ground.

Date: 2006/12/05 10:47:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I never realised Vladimir Nabokov was also a distinguished lepidopterist. Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.

Date: 2006/12/05 16:06:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Martin,

What about the connection between Lysenko and Berg. Does Leo Berg bear some responsibility for the deaths of approximately 30 million Ukrainians?

Date: 2006/12/06 15:03:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
why is that, I wonder?


Cognitive dissonance?

Date: 2006/12/07 11:13:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
It's a shame Professor Shapiro was so roundly insulted when he made an appearance on PT a while back. i thought he was a real nice guy. BTW I'd link to the thread but the PT arguments thingie doesn't work like it used to. What's with that?

Date: 2006/12/08 12:16:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2006,06:08)
Some comments from DaveScot's The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding
       
Quote
Ah, but you underestimate the truly magical powers of Natural Selection.

Thus it’s called supernatural-selection.

Funny thing is that article raises another failed Darwnian prediction.

It is my view that this finding should be as significant to evolutionary biology as the Michelson-Morley experiment was to the theory of “ether”. The evolutionary biology community should be in an absolute quandry in response to these findings. This should be front page news in my local paper. But we can’t just bring down a religious icon, just because it wears the cloke of science, can we?

It is damning to the neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis.

Followed by:

darth314          
Quote
That piece of “junk” removed might have a function that was just not tested under the described conditions.
To immediatley conclude that this is prove for genetic planning for the future is premature. that does not help convicing people of the idea of ID.

Jehu          
Quote
It is possible. But the conclusion of the paper was that they did not have function.

(Actually not. They stated, "It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.")

DaveScot          
Quote
darth ... I’m going to review the productivity of your previous comments here and if they haven’t been productive you’re going to be demoted to lurker status.

He says dead-pan, as if the very title of the thread, and the intervening comments don't justify darth314's cautionary comment.

Just to add a bit of irony.

bFast          
Quote
BTW, where have the evolutionist loud-mouths gone?

Davey's threads do seem to be the ones that get the most posts, though. Must be his natural wit and charm.

Date: 2006/12/10 04:30:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2006,09:51)
Okay, how many of you guys went rushing right over there?  :D

 
Quote
Kristine - Got a 404, might want to check the link.


"Easy, tiger!"

I meant to send you to a 404, toots. I looked up that page especially. Of all the posts at UD, that's my absolute fav!

Punt!  :p

Caught me too!

How come you still get to post at UD anyhow?

BTW, everyone, Dave called by to say "Hi" and sends his warm regards, as ever.

Date: 2006/12/10 04:42:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
How come you still get to post at UD anyhow?


Never mind :)

Date: 2006/12/10 10:10:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
What do you say now, scoffers?


Prescience, indeed!

Date: 2006/12/12 07:56:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Here is a thread for anyone who would like to debate the UD thread and is prevented or inhibited by the moderation policy there. If anyone would like to give the Uders a headsup that would be great. (Chris Hyland, Bob O'H, Kristine?)

Date: 2006/12/12 11:24:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The AE server is still very slow to respond. I am currently being rationed on my blogging by my wife and an egg-timer. It is very frustrating to watch the minutes tick by waiting for a page to update.

Date: 2006/12/12 15:35:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks, Bob.

Date: 2006/12/16 05:12:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Occam's Aftershave,
Re:  
Quote
All I can see is a big mouthed fool tap dancing and evading simple questions about his PEH.


[irony]It is a bit unfair castigating John on a thread where he cannot respond directly.[/irony]. I am sure John is ready and willing to tackle your doubts regarding his PEH here.

Date: 2006/12/16 05:20:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Late congrats to Keiths on the Demsbki chipmnuk voice thing. Makes the SteveB look even more suspicious. And congrats on the Sal Cordova selective quoting too.

Date: 2006/12/16 09:19:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Problem is, he has absolutely nothing worth saying.


I can see that is a bit of a snag. :D

Date: 2006/12/17 09:06:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, Keiths, you guys are really famous, now. :D

You have insight into the mind of David Springer. Is this a subtle attempt to suggest David Heddle tone down his denunctiation of Dembski's new bit of street theatre?

Date: 2006/12/17 09:18:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 16 2006,09:13)
alan, for some bizarre reason, you seem to think that hearing JAD say, "I'm batshit insane" over and over and over again has some value.

It doesn't

@Tom

The conclusion may have been obvious, but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH. Besides since ID was effectively finished at Harrisburg, things have been a little slow here until chipmunkgate.

Date: 2006/12/17 09:42:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
For the less technical among us (me for instance) can I recommend "Planetary Dreams" (Wiley, 1999) by Robert Shapiro.

Simplistically, life was impossible on Earth prior to the condensation of water vapour and the first evidence of algal mats appears later, around 3.5 billion years ago. Common descent allows that all earthly life could have radiated out from those first simple life-forms. If you consider panspermia as a possibility it only regresses the problem and gives no answer. Personal incredulity then cuts in. Behe's mousetrap argument applied to abiogenesis seems a real obstacle. Unless some one can repeat the event in the lab, or life is found elsewhere in the universe, I don't expect any convincing hypotheses soon, if ever.

Date: 2006/12/18 04:08:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 17 2006,12:16)
Alan,

Colour me extremely confused and/or shocked.

Are you saying that the witterings of the IDCists are valid when applied to abiogenesis due to your/their personal incredulity?

If you're not, please forgive me for even beginning to insinuate that you were! I shall say 10 "Hail Dawkins" and beat myself with a copy of "The Origin of Species" for a month.

If you are.......wuh wuh wuh wuh....gibber. Please explain.

Cheers

Louis

No, just observing that if the mousetrap argument had been applied to abiogenesis, it would have been less easy to refute. I was just remarking that there is quite a narrow window for abiogenesis to occur between a cool and wet enough earth and the first evidence of stromatolites. I can see that it did happen. I can believe that it was a natural process, but I doubt we will ever know how it happened. So room for "Goddidit" for those that need that hypothesis.

I am far from up-to-speed on the latest theories and developments, anyway. Robert Shapiro sold me the idea that abiogenesis is a much tougher nut to crack than evolution; he is also doubtful that "RNA world" will turn out to be a succesful hypothesis.

Date: 2006/12/18 04:20:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Tom,

just a few points:

I did not instigate this thread

I stopped responding to VMartin after pointing out his trolling behaviour in another forum

I set up my own blog partly to demonstrate beyond doubt that John's censorship complaints were unfounded

I seriously believe we should take the moral high ground over freedom of expression

ID is finished, John never really got started, and if you feel the same, then why not ignore this thread in future as John or his ideas are no threat to anyone, unless Springer gets within shotgun range. :)

Date: 2006/12/21 04:59:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm curious as to why you seem to need to single out abiogenesis as more friendly to the Beheian mousetrap ideas. More friendly in your personal estimation perhaps, but very far from being actually more friendly.


Hi Louis

Been too busy to respond, lately. In case the thread is not yet moribund:

Friendly is not what I feel towards Behe or his mousetrap. Russell puts it neatly.

Say a Mars probe was able to recover and bring back soil samples.

Resulting analysis may show:

1) No evidence of life (I know the "one white crow" argument, it was a big sample :) )

2) Evidence of lifeforms, carbon-based, DNA, proteins, same chirality.

3) Evidence of lifeforms, like nothing on Earth.

Would I be right in concluding from 1, Life is a rare, maybe unique event. We may never explain its origin. From 2, panspermia looks a strong possibility and abiogenesis could still be a unique event that occurred elsewhere than on Earth. From 3, we are not alone and the Universe is teeming with life.

I also find the thermal vent hypothesis more compelling than a warm pond. You have the high temperatures, minerals and nutrients close to cold therefore stabilising water with convection currents quickly moving chemicals away from the "manufacturing" hot-spots, preventing them from quickly breaking down again.

Date: 2006/12/21 14:01:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Great stuff Dr Elsberry, myself, my wife and the egg timer thank you.

Date: 2006/12/22 05:32:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Us Americans being very America-centric, I tend to think of everyone here as being American,


When you come out with remarks like:    
Quote
somewhere it Europe, which means little.

that does not surprise me! :D  :D  :D

Warwickshire, UK originally, near Stratford-upon-Avon, (actually nearer Redditch, which older fans of Rick Mayall will, of course remember), Now just on the edge of the Pyrenees in Southern France.

Date: 2006/12/24 05:02:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 23 2006,20:06)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Dec. 23 2006,15:46)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1889#comment-

This whole thread is hilarious.  DaveTard is arguing with someone who obviously has superior knowledge regarding matters of law, but now he is resorting to character assassination since he knows he's been smacked down.  What an a##.  DaveTard never fails to disappoint, that's for sure!

Thanks for that link. As far as I can recal, this is the first time I have seen somebody competent in a subject posting in defense of ID over at UD. So what happens? Mr. Springer tries to stomp all over them. So bleedin funny.

That thread is bound to be heavilly "revised" soon.

I feel Dopderbeck needs a little moral support.

Date: 2006/12/24 07:18:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
12) Duck out from any argument where you are losing in a venue where you can't control the moderation, because the atheists find that really annoying.

Date: 2006/12/24 14:56:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
DaveScot said...

   Speaking of bannings at ATBC...

   I just got a weird comment in the moderation queue at uncommondescent from someone saying their very first comment at ATBC was quickly removed and they were no better than UD. The comment was odd and not related to the thread so I disapproved it. The email address used was a freebie from hotmail or yahoo (I forget which) but I checked the IP address of the sender before deleting and it was from berkeley.edu.

   Is this correct? Is ATBC arbitrarily deleting comments and keeping it on the QT? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

   10:39 AM, December 24, 2006


Link (comment 250 or so)

Maybe Davey has come out to play for a while.

Date: 2006/12/25 03:20:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Troutmac
dynamic@bendcable.com

Date: 2006/12/28 19:23:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov

Date: 2006/12/30 05:10:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
"John is molested to be decent" - VMartin

(chuckles)

Date: 2006/12/30 05:18:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dr Hurd

You appear to agree with Robert Shapiro on the intractability of the OOL problem. Would you agree with him that "RNA world" is not a convincing hypothesis?

Does the "thermal vent" idea appeal?

Date: 2006/12/30 05:39:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You present yourself as one who has thought deeply, but you also are apparently some sort of Christian?


I don't know why, but this remark from avocationist made me smile. So, Christians that she is acquainted with generally don't think deeply. That might explain something...

Date: 2006/12/30 06:42:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 29 2006,16:05)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 29 2006,20:45)
       
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:57)
If you really want to see a tard-fest,

John Davison has discovered and is now posting on Joe G's blog.    :D :D :D

(grabs popcorn and a beer, settles in for what should be a laugh riot! )   :p

I couldn't find any Javison posts on that blog -- did Joe remove them?

Joe G calls me a "liar, loser and momma's boy".

John A Davison responds that I'm a "darwimp". (I'm somewhat taken aback by this as I did him a minor favor once — at his own request.)

Joe G then tries to make nice to Dr. Davison.

(And, of course, my own comments never appear.)

Maybe you and Joseph need a neutral venue to continue your debate.

Edit: typo

Date: 2006/12/31 10:17:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From the article:

Quote
Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.”


Quote
McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.”


This Andy McIntosh character really annoys me. His field of research is flame technology, He has zero academic qualifications or experience in biology, yet he waves his professorship around as if this gives weight to his hard-line creationist views.

Date: 2007/01/01 04:54:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,06:52)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 31 2006,12:24)
The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship.

There's no confusion between us and the vicious censors at UD. AFDave's original thread got over 6,000 posts. This one's around 4700 so far. To close down AFDave now, after over 10,000 posts, wouldn't be any more censorious than PZ's banning of Charlie Wagner after three years of idiotic comments.

Announcement:


I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.

Quote
After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog


I'm not so sure. I am also not sure if this is my first post on this thread, I am sure it is my last. I have enjoyed reading many of the informative comments and learning new stuff in the process. Happy New Year, everyone.

Date: 2007/01/04 04:40:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Has anyone read Hubert Yockey's book, Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life 2005 Cambridge University Press ISBN 13 978-0-521-80293-2?

His web-site seems to be down but I came across this comment by him in an email published by a critic
Quote
If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Date: 2007/01/05 06:05:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
What I want to do is add this functionality to my own page without having to be part of the Blogger site group or Wordpress hosting thingy.


So, as I have a website for business with loads of spare bandwidth, could I move my blog to my business domain, and is there any advantage in doing so? I use FrontPage.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Date: 2007/01/05 07:48:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
That's odd. I posted "thanks Lou, that was quick..." but on checking back no trace!!! It must be that evilutionist SteveStory blocking me again.

BTW Lou, semi-seriously, are you available for the odd bit of consultancy? There are some great spa therapy centres round here, hot seaweed wraps, that sort of thing, if you ever get over this side of the pond.

Date: 2007/01/07 05:20:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 06 2007,16:13)
This thread is starting to make me physically ill and is causing problems in my marriage.  Does anyone else have similar problems since starting to read this stuff?

Well, my wife is pretty fed up with me over all the time I waste, but I tell her, at least it's not porn (apart from Paley's pics)

So, now, she agrees to let me "play with my imaginary friends*" on a strict time ration.

(*not you, obviously, Tom)

Date: 2007/01/12 16:54:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
His misconception of natural selection is interesting. It could be fun to engage him in a debate on the topic, maybe on Alan's blog. The problem is that the Old Crank (JAD) will probably show up.


Either sorry to disappoint you, or pleased to bring you the good news, I've managed to crash my blog. So no more JAD till I can sort my ftp from my http and my sql from my php.

Lou, Help! (It's your fault, anyway, saying blogger was crap and promoting wordpress. :O)

Date: 2007/01/18 13:38:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You may doubt my sincerity


Well, Mr The Ghost of Paley, that puts it in a nutshell for me. Just out of curiosity, since your original claim that DNA from ingested food could enter the germ-line of a multicellular animal, what have been the point of your subsequent posts, other than personal vanity.

Mind you, the banning policy here is somewhat inconsistent, with VMartin being banned for being a sock puppet, despite clear evidence to the contrary. But life is never fair.

Date: 2007/01/27 07:12:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote


6

amadan

01/26/2007

4:14 am

I wouldn’t worry about whoopee-cushion type propaganda like that.

Thought Always Rebuts Darwinism.


Link

Date: 2007/02/02 02:34:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I doubt very much that my country of birth, or my country of residence care much at all about the result of Dover, k.e.


That is certainly true for (y)our country of residence.

 
Quote
However, you are right that because of the history of education in the UK, virtual non-existance of creationist culture comparable to the US*, it is very likely that there will be far more resistance to the spread of this claptrap than here in the US.


*correction added

Date: 2007/02/02 03:21:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I imagine we only differ about where that tipping point occurs.


Exactly. I try never to write anything that I wouldn't let my mother read.

Date: 2007/02/02 03:42:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I assume your mother is too.


Well, she's 86 and I'm still scared of her :D

Quote
Ah but I'm not as tolerant and wonderful a human being as you are Alan.


Not true, even if you are being ironic, my irritation manifests as polite sarcasm; I envy people who can stamp their foot in anger, I'm sure they have lower stress levels.

Date: 2007/02/02 03:58:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Steve

Have you checked your inbox, lately?

Date: 2007/02/03 02:29:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
It seems to me that if posters are off-topic, spamming, using bad language, then the mods should be alerted. A response in kind leads to escalation of the sort recently witnessed. Children behave best in an environment where the ground rules are clear, fair and enforced.

I too think it was a shame Avocationist was given a rough ride without having much of an opportunity to show whether her world view was capable of changing. Giving people enough rope... works well.

But what makes my opinions any more  authoritative than anyone else's?

Date: 2007/02/03 18:17:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
One time he lifted that beagle by the ears, and nobody lets him forget it...

Date: 2007/02/05 12:51:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Error, sorry :(

Date: 2007/02/05 13:02:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
<shameless plug>Anyone temporarily bored can check out JoeG/Joseph/Joe Gallien claiming Bill Dembski used the explanatory filter to show the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, no less.
</shameless plug>

link

Date: 2007/02/07 06:40:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
what should be done about it.


Is promoting algal blooms by seeding the sea with iron still a serious suggestion?

Date: 2007/02/07 12:43:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (guthrie @ Feb. 07 2007,04:32)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 07 2007,06:40)
 
Quote
what should be done about it.


Is promoting algal blooms by seeding the sea with iron still a serious suggestion?

Not that I am aware of.  It would lead to disruptions in the ecosystem with the sudden fertilisation, as it would all get used up quickly then they would die off.  Not to mention the energy to produce the iron filings in the first place, and the energy to get them into the ocean.  It was never a good idea in the first place, except amongst the kind of idiots that think we can solve any problem.

There still seems some support for it according toWikipaedia.I guess it's a bit off-topic, though

Date: 2007/02/08 01:22:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 07 2007,12:31)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 07 2007,07:40)
Quote
what should be done about it.


Is promoting algal blooms by seeding the sea with iron still a serious suggestion?

It's a neat idea, but the problem is the same as trying to fight global warming by planting more trees. You temporarily soak up a little carbon, but then when the leaves fall, and later when the tree rots, it's virtually all released back into the atmosphere.

Sequestering carbon cheaply on a large scale does not have a clear solution.

Ah but...

Algal mats fall to the sea bed and stay there, that carbon is removed from the cycle. (at least until continental drift brings it back up  :D )

Date: 2007/02/08 05:50:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 07 2007,23:20)
I don't remember enough of that BioGeoChem class from several years ago to dispute this.

An article from 2003. There's quite a bit more on the web. I first came across the idea in "Mapping the Deep" by Robert Kunzig (see chapter 11). It's a great read for the layman, as well.

Date: 2007/02/09 01:38:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 08 2007,15:09)
 
Quote
Algal mats fall to the sea bed and stay there, that carbon is removed from the cycle. (at least until continental drift brings it back up  :D )


well, yes and no.

just because carbon goes to the seafloor, does not remove it from the system.  Bacteria feeding on algal mats immediately return the carbon back into cycle.

the carbon has to be fixed into a relatively non-reactive compound.

this is why I mentioned cocolithophores.  they fix the carbon into calcium carbonate, which in the slightly basic ocean, essentially becomes a real carbon sink.  certain species of diatoms and forams also will fix carbon into calcium carbonate.

but unless the carbon is fixed in some fashion, it just gets returned.

when a tree dies, everything but the lignin (the "woody" part) is fairly quickly returned to the cycle.  Eventually, even the lignin is broken down (for example, by termites) unless the tree is quickly buried by some process.

Apologies for my careless language, Tom, of course you are right. The idea is to lock the carbon into the chalk of coccolithophore shells (whose ancestors fossilised into, e.g., oolithic limestone). (I think I got algal mats from stromatolites).

Apologies to John Martin for mangling his brainchild.

Date: 2007/02/09 05:50:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I could be wrong, but to me it just seems damned near impossible.


Argument from personal incredulity?

 
Quote
humans are having difficulty making an Airbus plane
. however they are managing to fly it over my house almost daily with gay abandon.

Date: 2007/02/09 05:57:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Actually Stephen, I doubt zero has either.

(In my own defence, let me add I only looked in on this thread to see what two otherwise very sensible people were doing here, and I don't mean you zero)

Date: 2007/02/09 07:05:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
That's why I got my defence in first, Lenny.

Date: 2007/02/15 09:32:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From this comment, I followed the link to CO² Science,

They list their staff:

Chairman, Craig D. Idso
President, Sherwood B. Idso
Vice president, Keith E. Idso
Operations manager, Julene M. Idso

Just seemed an odd coincidence that so many people called Idso work on CO²

Date: 2007/02/15 09:36:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah!

Date: 2007/02/16 05:29:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Additions to UD banned list:

Josh Bozeman homo, ID is not about religion, momma's boy.

Keiths Homo, asked one too many awkward questions.

Date: 2007/02/18 05:07:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Mark Frank @ Feb. 17 2007,23:57)
Ah well - I think I am back on the banned list. Maybe I pushed Dave a bit too far on global warming. Is there a special section for being banned for off-topic discussion?

Bugger. That was not very thoughtful, Mark. Getting yourself banned when I was just about to ask you if you would post a link at Uncommon Descent in case anyone there felt like justifying their views in an open forum..

The fact that Dave banned you just for pointing out inconvenient facts does not bode well, I guess.

Date: 2007/02/18 05:17:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Talking of banned commenters, is there anyone still able to post at Uncommon Descent (Chris or Bob, perhaps) who might post a link there to see if Dave is interested in genuinely discussing his views on climate change in an open forum.

Date: 2007/02/18 06:39:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I hope so, Deadman. This comment by Dave shows he is aware of the momentous nature of his research.

Date: 2007/02/18 16:13:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Is your forum truly open, Alan?


Er, yes. Why do you ask? Do you have a view on climate change?

Date: 2007/02/19 06:46:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2007,18:19)
Congratulations Kristine:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._mo.php

Shimmytastic!

Mes félicitations, aussi.

Date: 2007/02/19 06:56:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2007,20:34)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2007,18:25)
DaveTard has deleted the post inviting him to Alan's blog to discuss climate change that was previously here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....t-92204

He also deleted the enthusiatic egging on of an undertard who wanted "front row seats".

BAD BAD REVISIONIST TARD.

update!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....t-92246

     
Quote
Dave, did I do something wrong in passing on Alan Fox’s invite to debate global warming at his blog? Is he persona non grata for some reason?

Or did my post get zapped through some weird quirk instead?

http://alanfox.blogspot.com/20.....hange.html

Best regards,
apollo230


Bwahahaha.

..and like the wind, it was gone...!

Do you think this means Dave is not coming? Come on, Dave, everyone promises to be gentle, and you might save the world.

Date: 2007/02/19 07:19:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 18 2007,11:25)
Dave, you need this:Internet Addiction


Did anyone else try the test? I cheated and it still said I'm addicted. Time for a break, I think.

Date: 2007/02/19 09:40:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I suggest Alan Fox's blog.


What have i ever done to deserve that, Steve? :O

Date: 2007/02/20 01:52:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction.
Retired lawyer, Phillip Johnson

But no-one is objecting to Intelligent Design as philosophy. Science is restricted by not being equipped to detect or measure the supernatural.

Date: 2007/02/20 10:52:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Intelligent Design makes a claim to scientific validity. As such, it is false. (Perhaps you mean Deism or Pantheism.)


No, Zachriel, though thanks for suggesting an escape.I meant philosophy. But, not being a philosopher, I should rephrase and say I was unaware that philosophers had declared that Intelligent Design is not philosophy, and as I tend to agree with Lenny's oft repeated remark of Marx and Engels that "philosophy is to real life as masturbation is to sexual intercourse" I am not sure it matters. Keeping an eye on those who were using ID as a vehicle for political objectives (unsuccessfully as it turned out) and being ready to counter them would be more productive.

Date: 2007/02/20 16:44:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
DaveScot's latest thread seems to conflict with some of his earlier comments, for instance  here and here.

Date: 2007/02/22 02:44:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

Date: 2007/02/24 08:45:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I don't think it's just a coincidence.
Quote
It is only since reading at PT etc that I found religion/religious people that are disturbing.
 
Quote
Oddly, it was only since reading at PT that I found ANTI-religious people thare disturbing.


It is the people, not the ideas, that need watching. When "Communism fell" many apparatchiks moved seamlessly into the emerging "democratic" parties. Now ID is fatally damaged, opportunists will attempt to exploit another vehicle for their ambitions. Hopefully, the global warming issue will not turn out to be such a vehicle.

Plus ça change...

Date: 2007/02/25 14:40:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Stephen asks:
Quote
Can you expand on that Alan?

TBH, I haven't got a clue as to what you mean.


I was just saying that whilst you and I might try to convince others with logic, reason and evidence, some with political ambitions or aspiring cult leaders adopt and discard ideas as expediency dictates. Their motive is not to expand the boundaries of human knowledge but to gain power and control for its own sake.

I doubt that, for example, Pol Pot, could have been dissuaded from his takeover of Cambodia by a lively debate of the issues. ID was important for what it was thought might be delivered politically, those who were using it have not gone away, and will still need watching.

Date: 2007/03/09 09:20:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (snoeman @ Mar. 07 2007,16:11)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 07 2007,19:32)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 07 2007,16:17)
     
Quote
I would like to go someplace warm, and I don't mean the Christian HE11... but do you really think right-wing knuckleheads are going to fund my vacations a couple times a year?


ah, but that's the problem.
I'm sure they would want their money to have a more *permanent* effect.

hence: translocation, rather than vacation.

...want to donate to translocate willing atheists?

just fill out the form and register with paypal.

then willing atheists could apply for translocation fees much like a grant application.

$5.o million?

Throw another Koala on the barbie mate, I'm on my way!

And if I remember the quote, but not who said it,
"Now  we have established exactly what I am... now we are just haggling over price"!

#### good thing I am a godless athiest, so I don't get insulted!

J-Dog:

   
Quote
And if I remember the quote, but not who said it,
"Now  we have established exactly what I am... now we are just haggling over price"!


Commonly attributed to Winston Churchill.

<nitpick>More commonly attributed to George Bernard Shaw</nitpick>

You may be thinking of this Churchill put-down.

Date: 2007/03/10 11:08:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,23:47)
There's a reply on Partick's "post" now
 
Quote

error
Alan Fox | Sat, 2007-03-10 08:39

error
login or register to post comments | 0 points


Alan, did you write just "error"? or did somebody "edit" it for you?

I originally posted on OE but, remembering Patrick had asked me not to post there again, I decided to delete it and email instead. I couldn't delete my post, so I just substituted "error". I guess Patrick should be complimented for graciously conceding his mistake.

Also congratulations to Secondclass for pointing it out originally. (And for service above and beyond the call of duty at ISCID :) )

I have made the point before that we can be more selective in who to engage. ID is defunct, and there are those, up until now ID proponents, who may be beginning to realise it. I don't think they are true opponents, just misguided. David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.

Date: 2007/03/10 11:20:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !


Email exchange:

From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiarism
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:02

Yep. I failed to doublecheck the Bibliography as throughly as I should have. Oh well.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Seems the allegation is quite specific. See here


From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiariem
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:01

huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Thought you should know that it is being suggested that you have plagiarised your story "Big Science" from Michael Crighton's "Next".
>
> Regards
> Alan Fox

Date: 2007/03/10 11:33:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.


This is not a dig at you Zachriel. I greatly admire your persistence. There is value in demonstrating Joe's bone-headed intransigence to as wide an audience as possible.

Date: 2007/03/10 11:43:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Au contrraire, those are precisely the ones we NEED to confront, since the theocrat-wanna-be's are by far the most dangerous parts of the ID movement.


Lenny, you possibly misunderstand me. I certainly agree with you that those with political agendas are the dangerous ones and need to be opposed on a political level.

I am trying to distinguish those who are honestly misguided or who genuinely have been indoctrinated by their culture from the dangerous ones who will exploit any convenient vehicle for political power. Stephen Elliot springs to mind as an example of someone who was originally persuaded by the idea of ID but who saw the emperor had no clothes. There are certainly others who may be open to reason.

This is complementary to political considerations.

Date: 2007/03/10 12:12:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
BTW Arden, if you are still interested, I heard a report on French Radio a few days ago that there are still around 300,000 Breton speakers.

Date: 2007/03/10 12:35:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 10 2007,07:18)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,12:12)
BTW Arden, if you are still interested, I heard a report on French Radio a few days ago that there are still around 300,000 Breton speakers.

Funny you should mention that. Jeannot lives in Brittany and a few months ago I asked him how much Breton was still spoken there, and he said 'it's almost gone'. Tho maybe he just doesn't live in one of the parts of Brittany where there are still speakers.

For 20 years now, the reports I've heard about Breton have been pretty pessimistic. 300,000 sounds like a nice number (as endangered Celtic languages go), but the real question is, how old are most of those speakers? If 95% of those are people in their sixties and over, and almost none children, the language is in big trouble indeed.

So to really make sense of that number, you'd need to hear a breakdown by age. I don't happen to know what the facts are, tho I'm not too optimistic. Minority languages are dying like flies all over the world, and Europe is no exception.

I suspect not too many (or any) are monolingual in Breton. I wonder if the situation is similar to Welsh, where there is a positive effort to retain and revive the language through education and the media. Amongst the Welsh, it is a point of pride to be able to speak the language, but almost everyone is bilingual these days. I recall the last woman who could speak Cornish died in the eighteenth century. But, with no one to speak to, how would they know :) ?

It is claimed there are over a million Occitan speakers, but everyone speaks French too, so I don't hear it spoken unless overhearing locals talking amongst themselves. The problem is the older ones who grew up speaking Occitan as a first language were never taught how to write it, and the attempt to revive the language revolves around teaching it as a written language. We do get the local TV news in Occitan though.

Date: 2007/03/10 13:05:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2007,07:53)
Aw, cheers, but you found that it was from a Sci-Fi Novel, which is the cherry on the cake here :)

Patrick copying from somebody else's report, as I first thought, is par for the course for ID! Quote mining taken to the next level you might say in this case.

To find them copying from Sci-Fi? It's priceless.

Kudos to you too, Old man.

Date: 2007/03/10 13:10:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I guess it's just evolution in action, and only the fit survive :)

Date: 2007/03/10 13:32:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 10 2007,08:23)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,13:10)
I guess it's just evolution in action, and only the fit survive :)

It's not so much evolution as the same kind of factors that killed off the Ivory-billed woodpecker and the Tasmanian Wolf. :(

So, you made me google
You never get this stuff with ID.

Date: 2007/03/10 14:07:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
My goal has always been instead to destroy the IDers, utterly, as an effective political movement.


And you pursue it with vigour.

 
Quote
No political movement has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another point of view.


No, but often political activists, having lost with a particular ideology, can move seamlessly into a new guise. I previously referred to ex communist apparatchiks adopting a nationalist or "democratic" cloak to retain power in liberated Eastern bloc countries. This also happened in France with ex-Vichy politicians having long, comfortable post-war careers in government. Only one was eventually convicted (after he retired) of authorising deportations to concentration camps.

There is no effective political movement without unscrupulous activists. They do not merit consideration, but the rank-and-file sometimes should get the benefit of the doubt. (Luke 15:7)

Date: 2007/03/11 04:06:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I have not seen any people with any aparent (sic) qualifications arguing any position regarding science education in this thread.


I was not aware there was a minimum requirement of academic qualifications before people were allowed to comment in this forum.

 
Quote
This is the problem with science education in America- idiots feel qualified to hold opinions and even public office!


The alternative is intelligence tests for prospective political candidates, or even for anyone wishing to express an opinion. I can see the idea has merit, but maybe it would be difficult to implement. Perhaps there should be a bar to posting while intoxicated, too?

Date: 2007/03/11 09:47:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Is there a reason why PT arguments (http://antievolution.org/features/mtexp.php?form_author={author name}) links no longer connect with the actual comment, but just take you to the current PT homepage?

Date: 2007/03/12 14:20:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The sun is setting   on intelligent design
(judging by the level of new thinking coming from UD, ARN and ISCID) and so we say farewell to the ambitions of Dembski et al.

Date: 2007/03/12 14:24:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Actually, I was feeling left out as I hadn't got a good beer piccie to post. And why did it look all neatly centred in preview and now looks all amateur in the thread ???

Date: 2007/03/12 14:58:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2007,08:32)
If the sun's setting on ID then get ready for Intelligent Geology over at OW!
   
Quote
I was wondering if perhaps mountains and coastlines, sand dunes, and other interesting natural shapes might better be explained by the sculpting hands of an intelligent creator than by erosional forces.

Id in geology
Patrick says no      
Quote
No, for these mountain ranges the Explanatory Filter would return a negative since natural law can explain the object. Now I said "most" in the subject header since there are underwater "cities/temples" where there is a controversy over whether they came about by geological processes. The reason there is any controversy at all is because accepting them as being designed would upset historical narratives (they're older than they "should be"). But ID hasn't been used at all in that case as far as I know. I've always thought it'd make an interesting test case.

My bold.
Patrick, there's the boat. Get out there and apply the Explanatory Filter to every odd looking lump of rock under the sea. When you find Atlantis, let me know!
Honestly, if Patrick thinks the EF can help determine if these "ruins" really are designed or not, well, Email the people looking into it and tell them how! Do you need us to find some links?

It appears there's plenty of material for Patrick's research  :) Come on Patrick, make a name for yourself.

Date: 2007/03/13 02:58:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
My Spanish/French dictionary distinguishes between two translations of "to be": ser for  qualité essentielle, permanente from estar for état temporaire. position. I. e. Where you are is different from who or what you are. So, I guess Seneca's complaint has echoes in Spanish to English translation.

(Also you have se trouver/hallarse)

Of course Portuguese, being a mixture of Spanish and French... (AFDave, please complete this for me)

Date: 2007/03/13 03:34:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox

From this UD thread originally linked by Kristine. Link

Maybe Bill, with that Templeton book grant, can help the good cardinal out.

Date: 2007/03/13 06:32:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (UnMark @ Mar. 12 2007,17:30)
I remember having a brief discussion about E-Prime some 3 1/2 years ago with some geeky friends of mine.  I recall thinking it a moderately intesting exercise for HS or college level comp classes.  Another acquaintance likened it to Orwellian Doublspeak.  Either way, it does tend to force one to use active tense.


Let's see.

 
Quote
The alternative is intelligence tests for prospective political candidates, or even for anyone wishing to express an opinion. I can see the idea has merit, but maybe it would be difficult to implement. Perhaps there should be a bar to posting while intoxicated, too?


Translated into E-prime:

"Make prospective political candidates and even people wishing to express an opinion take an intelligence test. I can see the the merit but also the difficulty in implementing it. Don't post when drunk."

I think I'll give it a go.

Date: 2007/03/13 10:52:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just read that thread for the first time. I too bow to your eloquence, Kristine.

Date: 2007/03/13 11:29:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2007,04:55)
UD expands in anti-science base:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....swindle

when bashing NDE just isn't enough.

This whole global warming thing.. what's the motivation for making it up? I just can't see it. If, however you politics was funded by big oil....


Alan Fox - one day we'll share a nice bottle of Chateau D' Yquem, my freind.

One participant is claiming misrepresentation, I see. Martin Durkin is no stranger to controversy. I recommend Pascal's wager. What harm is done if we curb CO2 emissions unnecessarily?

Richard, bring the wine (2001 will be OK if you can't get 1990). I'll supply the fois grâs and trumpets. :D

Edit: you beat me to it.

Date: 2007/03/13 11:49:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I think the standard dismissal of Stalin—that he (or Soviet communism) was really a religion is just sleight of hand. Don't like certain inconvenient examples of societies based on atheism? Then simply redefine them as actually being based on religion. Cheap trick. Why not just admit—at least the possibility—that Stalinism is an example of an atheistic experiment gone bad?


Indeed, we object when Darwinism/atheism is touted as a religion. After all there are none of the trappings of a religion, such as churches of Darwin, monuments such as Darwin's mausoleum, no rallies or parades with grand displays of Darwin's likeness, no Darwin's face on billboards, no looming concrete statues in the parks....

Date: 2007/03/13 12:04:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Oops.

Forgot about E-prime. "What harm is done if we curb CO2 emissions unnecessarily?" becomes "who loses if we curb CO2 emissions?" Answers on the back of a postcard.

Richard, they only force feed the ducks for 15 days before slaughter (not sure about geese) and they tell me the ducks quite like it. They don't even nail their feet to the floor these days. But tarte Tatin sounds great, though Roquefort cheese is said to be a great combination with Ch d'Yquem.

Date: 2007/03/13 12:12:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I've listened to and read so much Dembski and I still have no idea who he really is or what the #### he really believes


Do you ever wonder whether Dembski has any idea what he really believes. He has the moral certainty of a chameleon, in my view.

Date: 2007/03/13 12:34:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Seriously, are we getting hysterical? How can one sort truth from propaganda? Check the source and read the original research (and who funded it), I guess.

“Climate Denial” — What’s Next, “Evolution Denial”?

Hasn't Bill got that the wrong way round?

Date: 2007/03/13 12:50:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'd love to put away a few more good Bordeauxs away


Do you mean this in the sense I would use it in "putting away" a good steak? If you are laying down wine, the older and dearer it is, the more careful you need to be about how it has been previously stored, and that the cork has remained intact. Careless storage has ruined many a good bottle of wine. If you can get Languedoc wines in the States, you should definitely try them. Good quality at a fraction of the price of Claret and mainly made to be drunk young [/plug]

Date: 2007/03/13 13:25:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I suspect that isn't what you had in mind.


I choose wine like hifi. Can I hear that 50Khz note? Then why pay more. With Bordeaux, so much of the price is added by shortage of supply and speculation that I begrudge paying for an undetectably better taste. (Note to Rich: I don't begrudge someone else paying :D)

Also wine is best appreciated where it is produced. I was very impressed with Niagara wines when last there, but I wouldn't buy them here (if they were to be found, which they aren't).

I suspect we may be imposing on Steve's good nature. Happy to respond to a PM.

Date: 2007/03/13 14:33:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Is it just me, or is Heddle a total pain in the rear?

No, it's not just you.
Quote
Isn't he over the edge in his attacks on other posters?

I've seen a lot worse from others.
Quote
Shouldn't he be warned, cautioned or advised on how to play nice with others?

He doesn't appear to have broken any of Wesley's rules.

Date: 2007/03/13 14:56:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 13 2007,08:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2007,11:14)
alrighty we'll get a full bottle. Can't bring myself to do the fois grâs, epicurious as I am.

foie gras.
;)

That was my mistake, Jean, Rich was only copying. (Oh, the shame of it)

Date: 2007/03/13 15:16:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
All I'll add is I don't envy Steve's job as moderator.

Date: 2007/03/13 16:33:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 13 2007,10:19)
False.

J-dog,

Skip Heddle's posts. There isn't usually any thing in them anyway.

THat's what I do.

I can't wait to see what GoP does next.

I don't find Heddle particularly annoying, though I am not attracted to his brand of Christianity. It's Paley's posts that irritate me. I find skipping them is best for my digestion.

Date: 2007/03/13 17:13:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I only know that we are supposed to judge,


What happened to "Judge not, that ye be not judged."?

Date: 2007/03/13 17:46:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'm sorry if I caused you to write a long post, David, I was being flippant. I honestly have no interest at all in your interpretation of the Bible. When and if I have my "road to Damascus" moment, I'll look you up. Until then, my best wishes.

Date: 2007/03/15 12:57:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I'm not sure RBH (Richard B. Hoppe, a PT contributor) will thank you for calling him an IDer ???

Date: 2007/03/15 13:13:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Lou and y'all, check out
this.
Golly, Kristine, I thought you were immune to JAD addiction. I am completely cured now which is why I was only mildly interested in this snippet:

 
Quote
Jason Rennie, the host of Sciphishow where I was recently interviewed, provided me with the following history of his requests for interviews.

William Dembski was too busy. The following failed even to respond - Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, William Provine, Wesley Elsberry and Jonathan Wells. I have no idea who else he may have invited. Michael Behe, to his credit, responded and has indicated his willingness to return. Isn't it interesting that some of the most prominent figures in the present scene are either unable or unwilling to participate in a thoroughly neutral venue such as the Sciphishow? Imagine, if you can, being too busy for a thirty minute interview. I have difficulty accepting such a posture. Perhaps my interview, when it appears, will serve to stimulate some sort of response from any or all of my several adversaries some of whom are listed above. Then again, perhaps it won't. I am betting on the latter. Time of course will tell. It always has and always will.
link

I doubt I shall even check out the interview :D

Date: 2007/03/16 14:48:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 16 2007,08:34)
I have internet cooties?  Actually, I'm the only guy with enough balls to directly stand up to DaveTard around here.  I confront the guy directly while all of you cower away into AtBC and take your potshots from afar.

Do you have a link for this? Generally the problem is just about everyone is banned from the forum that Dave controls, and Dave is usually just a drive-by troll in forums that he neither controls nor is banned in. I doubt anyone here quakes in fear over an exchange with the tardmeister.

Edit: I guess I missed the irony. So is the fake web page still up and is there a link?

Date: 2007/03/18 08:32:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
She doesn't have much personality.
Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???

Date: 2007/03/18 08:36:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?

Date: 2007/03/18 13:08:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,06:34)
 
Quote
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?


They found out about my body lice infestation.

Mmm'kay???

Date: 2007/03/18 13:16:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 17 2007,19:33)
It is obvious that Dembski is just another shill for Jesus.  He is about as upright and honorable as the squished silverfish on the sole of my shoe.

What have you got against silverfish? :O

Date: 2007/03/20 11:42:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
only known to occur in an ancient lizardlike animal that lived during the Late Triassic era and certain living dragon lizards in Southeast Asia.


So before this discovery, there was only one gap, and now there are two!!!

Date: 2007/03/20 12:32:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Not enough of a Google rating for Dave, I believe. None-the-less, If David Springer wants to "get down in the mud" here and prove he is not just a big cheesy poof who runs away when he can't censor, he will be most welcome, especially if he wants to discuss climate change and what Bill spent his $100,000 book advance on.

Date: 2007/03/21 14:02:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 21 2007,07:16)
UD jumps Fonzie who's jumping the shark:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....urrency

Reda the whole thing.. but I like this bit:

   
Quote
Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”


GrrRrrrr! MUST FIGHT STRAW MAN!! So we've given up pretending to do science.


ID: NEW GOALS.

1 YEAR) BADMOUTH DARWIN, LINK HIM TO EVIL

5 YEAR) HOPE THAT JAD WRITES ANOTHER PAPER

10 YEARS) BLUSTER AND PREEN AND AVOID COURT CASES.

AND PRETEND ID IS A WORLD-WIDE MOVEMENT, NOT JUST SOME PAROCHIAL PLOY TO CIRCUMVENT CHURCH/STATE LEGISLATION IN US.

Date: 2007/03/23 16:18:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
No activity of any kind on the ISCID site, except some guy named LifeEngineer babbling away to himself on the discussion board


Aka Warren Bergerson, apparently a retired actuary, who also spouts nonsense on ARN so obtuse even most other IDers are too embarrassed to respond. Scott Page is none too impressed with him either.

Date: 2007/03/24 05:30:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
He was babbling this on the website of an ID 'scientific society' which once promised webchats, and cancelled them, and conferences, and cancelled them, and student workshops, and cancelled them, and has a quarterly journal which is entering it's sixth quarter without an issue, and email addresses nobody replies to, and a telephone I can't get anyone to pick up.


ISCID's "day-to-day" operations are handled by Micah Sparacio who, judging from this photo:  does it from his parent's basement.

Date: 2007/03/28 09:49:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (2ndclass @ Mar. 27 2007,14:51)
The recent Miller-Luskin affair is a tempest in a teapot, but it underscores the fact that Luskin is a hack spin doctor whose crapola can be believed only by those who are determined to believe crapola.

Brief recap:  Miller was interviewed by BBC, Luskin accused him of mischaracterizing Dembski's argument, Miller said that he wasn't even talking about Dembski's argument.

Which brings us to Luskin's latest statement:
             
Quote
Miller writes, "I do not remember the exact question that prompted my response."
He claims he doesn't remember the question he was asked, but he claims he does remember he wasn't talking about Dembski. Miller's admission of a fading memory on this matter does not inspire confidence for the things he claims he does remember. After all, in the documentary Miller clearly states he is critiquing the "mathematical tricks employed by intelligent design," and Dembski is widely recognized as the leading mathematical theorist in the ID movement. Dembski seems a likely target for Miller's comments.

Since Miller can't remember everything from a year ago, what he does remember is probably wrong.  And since Miller used the word "mathematical" and "intelligent design" together, he must have been talking about Dembski.  After all, nobody else has ever tried to make a case for a creator based on probability.
             
Quote
(2) Miller has a history of misrepresenting intelligent design arguments:
Miller attempts to pass the blame to Discovery Institute, saying we "should know better," implying we should not think he would misrepresent Dembski. This reminds us how, in 2003, Dembski told Miller that Miller "should know better" than to claim that ID necessarily requires “the direct and active involvement of an outside designer.” Yet in this very BBC documentary, Miller repeats the same false claim, saying, "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally..." (time index 39:25) Shouldn’t Miller “know better” than to make such claims? Based upon this example and many others, we “know” that Miller at times misrepresents the arguments of ID-theorists.

This one really irks me.  If you look at the incident that Luskin is referring to, it is Dembski who flails at a strawman as he addresses a criticism that Miller never made.  Luskin, in turn, misconstrues Dembski's point.  I would chock this up to abysmal reading skills on the part of Luskin and Dembski, but since they both have degrees, I think good old-fashioned dishonesty is the only explanation for their word-twisting.
             
Quote
(3) Miller admits that the documentary makes it look like he's talking about Dembski:
....If we assume Miller's explanation of the situation is true, then according to Miller's admission that the documentary "does mislead the viewer," then I did nothing wrong. I simply watched the video and took away the message any reasonable viewer would take: the context strongly indicates that Miller was talking about Dembski.

No, a reasonable viewer would notice that Miller didn't say anything at all about Dembski.  Both Jeremy and I saw this, which prompted Jeremy's email to Miller, which resulted in Miller confirming that he wasn't talking about Dembski.  If any reasonable viewer would make the same mistake as Luskin, then how did several "Darwinists" manage to avoid that mistake?
             
Quote
(4) If Miller wasn't talking about Dembski, he's still promoting a straw man view:
...no ID-proponent argues that mere improbability is enough to infer design nor do they argue that some inconsequential but unlikely event (like a hand dealt in a game of cards) is enough to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution. Design theorists acknowledge that improbable events happen all the time. When inferring design, they always couple improbability with some specification. One commenter on Dembski's blog, "gpuccio," explained this point clearly:

   "As far as I know, nobody in the ID field has ever made the silly argument that Miller criticizes. Everybody, instead, in the ID field, constantly mentions the CSI argument due to Dembski, and so clearly and beautifully explained in many of his writing."

Well, if such an authority as gpuccio from UD says so, then it must be true.

What a crock.  I'll bet most people who have the notion that evolution is simply too improbable have never even heard of, much less read, Dembski.  The improbability argument was around long before Dembski, and it's still around.  To say that nobody uses it by itself and that everybody always pairs improbability with specification is simply ridiculous.  I can think of two IDers just in the past week who have trotted out the improbability argument without mentioning specification.

Heaven help the DI if Luskin is the best spokesman they can find.  But then again, it really doesn't matter what he says.  IDers will faithfully imbibe his swill no matter how putrid it is.

An excellent post , secondclass, but are you sure you have time for this when you need to be continuing to make mincemeat of that supercilious slimebucket, David Hagen at ISCID :D

Date: 2007/03/28 14:18:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Kudos to Alan Fox...


Very kind of you to say so but my debating skills and patience  are insignificant compared to those I try to emulate: Zachriel. Secondclass, NWells, Quetzal,  and Pixie, escherischia and aiguy at ARN spring immediately to mind but also those real scientists who have a life beyond blogging who pop in occasionally to brighten our world. I am sure others could add to a list. Mark Perakh, Robert Shapiro, Lizzie Liddell are some whose politeness under fire is worthy of note.

Edit: not forgetting Dr. Elsberry, of course!

Date: 2007/03/28 14:24:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Sock it to him, Secondclass :p

Date: 2007/03/29 07:28:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Bible-based criticism of evolution, once limited to Protestant fundamentalists in the United States, has become an issue in France now that Pope Benedict and some leading Catholic theologians have criticized the neo-Darwinist view of creation.


"...has become an issue" is vastly overstating the case. ID/Creationism has not impinged at all on mainstream French media and virtually nobody I ask has ever shown any awareness or interest in the topic.

Date: 2007/03/29 11:28:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Yes, by David Hagen as a matter of fact :D

Date: 2007/03/31 01:58:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, I guess, to be consistent, a state has to allow all religious displays or none.

The French  authorities had the same issue come up a couple of years ago:

 
Quote
It forbids state school students from wearing "conspicuous" religious apparel. Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses are also banned.


Me. I'd have sent the kid to get a haircut, too.

Date: 2007/03/31 05:10:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 30 2007,13:54)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,16:11)

Indeed.  Other than in America and in American-funded groups overseas, ID/creationism is a non-issue.
But are we talking about the industrialized world?

I daresay that most of the Middle East does not teach evolution in schools and that most of what is rather condescendingly called the Third World teaches its creation myths unfettered.

Here's an excellent article that I read right before the Dover decision came down.

From the article:

Quote
But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems. They are part of human nature.


It is this seemingly inborn gullibility that is exploited by shamans, confidence tricksters, politicians. Maybe it is a heritable trait that, whilst beneficial as a driver for social cohesion at the dawn of civilisation, is now losing out against the "rational" allele, allowing more of us to be sceptics. (Apart from skeptic, of course :) )

Date: 2007/03/31 10:08:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Blipey's appointment with the Tardmeister approaches.

Date: 2007/04/02 13:24:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.


Whilst in no way wishing to cramp FTK's style, I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.

Unfortunately for FTK, ID is defunct as a political movement (and then limited to the US) and never was science, so I wonder if FTK has any thoughts on what strategy they might try next and why?

Date: 2007/04/02 13:31:18, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
...people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.


How on earth can you debate issues "respectfully". If I am wrong, I expect people to tell me I am wrong, and I wouldn't respect someone who patronised me by equivocating on their opinion to avoid hurting my feelings.

Date: 2007/04/02 13:46:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Actually, Stephen, I thought after posting my comment that I sometimes do refrain from unadorned honesty, especially when talking to my mother :)

Date: 2007/04/02 14:02:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,08:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

FTK

You certainly don't need my permission for whatever you wish to do. I have no ambition to convince you of anything. You have the opportunity to broaden your outlook or not,as you choose.

I doubt you will find any comment of mine that contains vulgarity or nastiness, but I will certainly apologise if you prove me mistaken.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:10:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I plan to do a new calculation to see if anything meaningful arises.


That would make a refreshing change, Mr the Ghost of Paley.

(Aside to Lenny, I only came in here because I noticed Arden had posted, so blame Arden, not me.)

Date: 2007/04/03 03:52:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I remarked earlier:

Quote
I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.


Sorry to see those expectations fully confirmed. The good thing is that she has such a small sphere of influence that it hardly matters.

Date: 2007/04/05 12:02:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well (and lengthily) said, Louis. With regard to honest debate, what value is there in any other sort? It both amuses and saddens me to witness the rank dishonesty continually demonstrated at, for example, Uncommon Descent, where truth takes a back seat to expediency. I wonder what they think they can achieve by it, especially post Dover. The free exchange of ideas will always expose the charlatan in the end.

(I still like my "would I let my mother read this post" rule for blogging.)

Date: 2007/04/05 12:21:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2007,07:14)
Quote (Louis @ April 05 2007,12:05)
... I probably could and should have been briefer, but when I thought about it, this was the short version! D'Oh!

Is that like Winston Churchil's "sorry for the long speach, I didn't have time to write a shorter one" comment?

Stephen, I suspect you refer to:

"I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." -- Blaise Pascal, "Lettres provincials," letter 16, 1657

Date: 2007/04/05 15:20:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 05 2007,10:16)
Ack!

I started to see myself in Arden's "amateur" linguists comment.

Hope I don't really come across as quite that clueless/deluded when I venture into an area that interests me but about which I know much too little...

Don't put yourself down, just wing it, like I do :)

Date: 2007/04/06 16:49:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
demallien wrote:

Quote
Time is a scarce resource, and no-one appreciates having their time being wasted by another...


Exactly.

Claiming having a theory on "guts to gametes" for months before "confessing" to being a troll was a monumental waste of time and incredibly pointless. Yet he behaves as if it was nothing. It is not as if there was any humour in any of it. And I have wasted more time writing this...

Date: 2007/04/10 11:22:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
PS: Regardless of your post, "ad-hominem" is still an adjective, both in latin and when used in english, particularly if used in a phrase such as "ad-hominem fallacy", "ad-hominem argument" or indeed "ad-hominem insult".  The fact that we sometimes abuse this when debating and use it as a noun in no way invalidates its (correct) use as an adjective...


I am sure Louis is correct about agumentum ad hominem meaning a logical fallacy that can be stated as  "Person X says Y, person X does nasty thing/is nasty thing Z, therefore Y is false" and I am sure you are correct that ad-hominem is an adjective in English when including the dash. I don't think you are correct to describe it as an adjective in Latin. Would it not be a prepositional phrase?

Date: 2007/04/10 11:35:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Link

Well, that is a shame. I guess we can forget any appearance at the Climate change corral, too.

Date: 2007/04/10 12:26:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Excellent! well spotted, N. Wells!

Date: 2007/04/10 16:28:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Oops, sorry, Reciprocating Bill.

Well spotted, Sir.

Date: 2007/04/11 11:58:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (demallien @ April 10 2007,22:16)
Of course, if we then trip over to Wikipedia to see what an adjective is, to wit:
"In grammar, an adjective is a part of speech that modifies a noun or a pronoun, usually by describing it or making its meaning more specific. Adjectives exist in most languages.", we note that an adjective is not constrained to be a single word.  The existence of a hyphen or not between the words "ad" and "hominem" is simply irrelevant when trying to judge whether something is an adjective or not.  The only important question is "Does this modify the noun or not?".  As I think we are all in agreement that the "ad hominem" in "ad hominem argument" certainly does modify the noun "argument", the logical conclusion (indeed the only conclusion if we accept the Wikipedia definition of an adjective), is that "ad hominem" is an adjective.

Demallien,

The point of my post was to agree with Louis and his definition of argumentum ad hominem. I just slipped in the remark about adjectives to be even-handed. However, as you seem to be a lover of pedantry, my "Oxford Guide to the English Language" says on page 15:    
Quote
3. Various collocations which are not hyphenated when they play their normal part in the sentence are given hyphens when they are transferred to attributive position before a noun, e.g...

(b) preposition + noun: an out-of-date aircraft (but This is out of date), an in-depth interview (but interviewing him in depth)...

6. a group of words that has been turned into a syntactic unit, often behaving as a different part of speech from the words of which it is composed, normally has hyphens, e.g.court-martial (verb), happy-go-lucky (adjective)...


Furthermore such constructions do not exist in Latin. Ad hominem is a phrase of preposition plus noun.

Date: 2007/04/15 17:47:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Eventually every single ATBC poster will have their turn to explain to FTK in great detail why her claims make no sense, and to then be ignored by her.

I remarked
 
Quote
Whilst in no way wishing to cramp FTK's style, I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.
a while ago. I rest my case.

Date: 2007/04/16 09:00:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 16 2007,02:34)
What country is VMartin supposed to be from?

Bratislava, Slovakia

Edit: this comes from information posted by MartinV at EvC forum when he registered there 8/28/06
see his first post

Date: 2007/04/24 11:41:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I recently read Shapiro's "Planetary Dreams". He seems to be advocating more space exploration as a way of developing OOL research, and confirming or eliminating "panspermia" possibilities as per the Drake equation.

Date: 2007/04/25 13:34:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You swine, Elliot, I was just typing the answer, and got distracted. :angry:

Date: 2007/04/30 01:23:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Gary Hurd wrote:
Quote
It should be remembered by all here at least, that Panda's Thumb contributers Ed Brayton, and Timothy Sandefur are rabid opponents of environmental protection or any form of government regualtion of mining, logging etc...


But Ed Brayton at least does not seem to be a rabid global warming denier judging by his recent comments.

Date: 2007/04/30 11:37:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
JAD is ranting about you.


I guess you mean over at One blog a day. wÒÓ†and David Marjanovic both seem to have picked up a bad case of JAD addiction. I also note a certain Mr. Elliott having a poke at JAD too.

Date: 2007/04/30 11:49:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Maybe he agrees GW is real, just that it's horribly wicked for the government to do anything about it.

Guess that's the subtle difference between a Republican and a Libertarian.


I haven't read much of Ed Brayton's blog, but the thread I linked to suggests Ed is taking the "Pascal's wager" approach. Sorry, but the Republican/Libertarian thing is lost on me. (Another example of two nations divided by a common language?)

Date: 2007/04/30 12:06:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ghost of Paley

In case you are in any doubt, I strongly concur with Louis' and Faid's opinion of you. Why you continue to post here is a mystery to me. You have nothing new, interesting or meaningful to say, and lack the saving grace of wit or humour.

Date: 2007/04/30 12:17:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
In fact IIRC (and this might be wrong) if a plane gets mercury spilt in it and anyone find out the plane is grounded/junked. Although like I said that last bit might be crap.


I am sure you are right. I recall a friend who is a commercial pilot mentioning this a while ago. (He had an old empty mercury barometer, and we were talking about where he could get some mercury as replacement)

Date: 2007/05/02 05:26:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2007,14:32)
A few people this year have complained about my terrible moderation, either in threads or in PMs. While nothing bores me more than discussion of how oppressive and demented my decisions are, I heard a great line on Colbert that, if you have to criticise me, at least use humorous lines like this one Colbert made about Brian Williams:

"I wouldn't let him moderate a hobo fight."

I think you do a thankless job well.

I just wonder if it might be fairer to have some lesser sanction than a lifetime ban for errant posters, such as suspension for a period. Maybe even banned posters could be reinstated on appeal with an undertaking as to future behaviour.

I appreciate the number of bans here is minuscule, but it does allow offenders to play the martyr. One reason for raising this is I have been having a chat with Larry Fafarman here.

*dons helmet, ducks under parapet*

Date: 2007/05/03 08:22:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (djmullen @ May 03 2007,01:44)
About a year ago, there was a mild kerfluffle because a new piece of software was offered that allowed you to "leave notes" on any web site.  I didn't pay too much attention at the time, but apparently you would log onto one web site and give it a URL for a target site.  You would then browse that target site more or less normally, but the first web site would past notes, messages or whatever on top of the content.  

A lot of web site owners complained about the "defacement" of their web sites, but so far as I could see it didn't do anything at all to their web sites, probably didn't violate copyright and seemed to be 100% legal.

I ignored it at the time, but that was before I discovered Uncommon Descent.  Now that I have a use for it, I can't find the software.  Can anybody help me?

Imagine browsing UD and finding hundreds of comments from the saner part of the internet pasted on top of Dave Scot, Slimador and Dr. Dr. Dr.!  Let's find that software and start using it!

Can anybody help me with the name of the software or a URL pointing to it?

This any good?

Date: 2007/05/03 12:31:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Actually early on in Paley's descent, I thought there was some kind is dysfunction between some posts, and am willing to accept there were two posters. This issue is hardly as important as why anyone would want to waste time posting such drivel about geocentricism etc. for a year.

That there were two at it makes it twice as reprehensible.

Paley(s). is there any kind of excuse for your behaviour you'd like to put forward?

Date: 2007/05/03 13:42:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Everyone's a comedian.


Not true, Paley. If your posts had some humour, I could have forgiven you.

Any answer?

Date: 2007/05/03 13:54:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
And what makes my parody so dreadful compared to the rest?


That it wasn't funny,convincing, thought provoking, or in any other way a positive contribution to anything, and WHAT REST?

Date: 2007/05/03 14:22:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
So why did my parody irritate so many?


Because it was utterly pointless. If you are alluding to UDOJ, the main object was to make Dave Springer look an idiot, which it did in spades, and Lou absented himself voluntarily from this board, and asked for permission to rejoin.

You appear to have no sense of shame.

Date: 2007/05/03 14:41:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
blackowl
Member
Member # 5176

Icon 1 posted 02. May 2007 19:43      Profile for blackowl   Email blackowl   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  Danpech,
-if you want to be BIGGEST_ONE you must know all strategies and tactics to create your own tactcics. I am sooo sory with this method (aiming to have other people strategies) never impruve your knowledge to make you the best!!!
-Still we did not solve THE sixth sense. but when we say that someone good at specific matter we know he/she using sixth sense very well at that matter/job.
-?
-Newton did not want to be a talented/genius person, he was working for science... (wait)
But Jesus or Muhammed wanted to be
-Newton's action is to find
-Jesus and Muhammed's action is to create
-ask yourself: are these people same place in our brain
-?
-as long as if some one purposed to find something that not known before for to become a person like Newton is impossible. This kind of people can only create, can not find new rules.
-In every discussion we are showing that we are living in capitalist system
-Kasparov's sixth sense good enough to hit every computer created or will be created
-I understand and feld that education at all subject of sicience impruving sixth sense.
-to produce better human is up to how fast we creating intangible words for our languaes.
-why deffinately to divide, maybe that numbers saying something different. I mean no rule for think.
-I prefer everyone to check themself looking from 100 or 200 mt from high. so learn budha

(time is late. forgive me for shortness)


Posted at ISCID Brainstorms responding to a post from 2003. Could be ID is working towards a comeback with guys like blackowl on the case.

(Edit: to correct URL)

Date: 2007/05/04 11:14:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
If people don't believe what they see, I'll have to accept it and move on to more fruitful discussion.


Now. Paley, that sounds like a better strategy, please follow through. Post something that you honestly believe, and maybe people will start to see the real you. Maybe they will even begin to appreciate you.

One small point: Lou only made a couple of sockpuppet posts in this forum. The real UDOJ saga played out elsewhere. So any comparisons are irrelevant.

Date: 2007/05/04 11:56:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Second, which of my beliefs do you think are insincere?


Well, that is the crux of my problem with you. I really have no idea. I just am unable to fathom when, if ever, you are being sincere.

Date: 2007/05/06 03:54:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'll pat a Galapagos tortoise for you when I'm down there.


Can you stop gloating, now, Kristine. :D

Date: 2007/05/09 15:24:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Richard,

I was blissfully unaware of the acronym, MILF, until your abundant use of it caused me to google it. Well, young man, I hope you are ashamed of yourself. I had to take a cold shower.

Date: 2007/05/26 02:01:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (J-Dog @ May 25 2007,10:29)
FTK - Getting Shrill, (Comment #101) and still getting it wrong...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....um=link

Whilst not supporting her POV, I think FTK has a point about the "shrill" accusation. Now ID is dead and buried, I think rationalists can afford to be "magnanimous in victory".

There is a distinction to be made between those cynically leading the failed political strategy and those followers taken in by the strategy. Blipey remarked elsewhere that treating remaining ID proponents as genuinely misled is a reasonable first approach.

Date: 2007/05/26 12:22:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
THIS FROM THE "MAN" THAT DOESN'T NO MILF.


That's "DIDN'T", Thanks to you and google.  :(

Date: 2007/05/27 14:32:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
LOL alot. Thanks, guys and gals. Keep em coming.

Date: 2007/05/28 08:59:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (dhogaza @ May 27 2007,10:15)
Quote of the day ...
   
Quote
Anthropogenic warming through CO2 is a fallacy. It can’t stand up against the evidence even now and all it’s going to take to make a laughingstock of the consensus science and agenda driven politics behind it is finding the real cause of climate heating and cooling. When the anthropogenic global warming hoax falls it’s going to give consensus science a black eye that will IMO take down other consensus science just-so stories along with it. NeoDarwinian macro-evolution is one of those other stories.

I won't bother identifying the author of this gem.  Y'all have already figured it out :)

I had a feeling of "déja vu" looking at Dave Springer's latest thread on climate change. I get "New Scientist" by mail and sure enough, page 40 of the 19 May edition:

 
Quote
Myth: It's all down to cosmic rays


covers Svensmark's claim that cosmic rays are the culprit, pointing out that he used "unjustified" corrections to his data to achieve correlation between cloud cover and cosmic ray activity. Their website is , apparently, unavailable at the moment, so, no link, sorry.

Edit: there is this though, in case anyone hasn't already seen it.

Edit:New Scientist link found!

Date: 2007/05/28 09:26:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 27 2007,14:06)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 27 2007,18:28)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 27 2007,15:52)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 27 2007,15:42)
gees, I'm begininning to think the folks from the UK have as much a distorted view that underestimates US contributions to the war, even from the supply side, as many americans seem to have from overestimating their contributions to the same.

Gosh, they are still sore that our soldiers were stealin' their wimminfolk.  What was it they said?  We were "overpaid, oversexed, and over there." ;)

I don't understand your POV here.

I haven't expressed a point of view.  WWII history isn't an area I have studied in any depth and I couldn't make an contribution to the serious subject. I was just making a joke.

carlsonjok,

I think Stephen has been irritated by another poster.

@Stephen,

I would agree with everything you have posted here, and you have certainly not decried the US contribution to the Second World War.

Date: 2007/06/01 14:03:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Apparently they were both invented in England


I heard the Portuguese (who also had a hand in inventing the French language, along with the Spanish) came up with vindaloo as a way of preserving meat. Incidentally, the marinade of chillies, garlic, ginger and onion, pounded to a paste with vinegar, is very similar to the basic ingredients for jerk chicken.

BTW Hi Lou, glad to see you back.

Date: 2007/06/01 14:22:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Plus la change, plus la meme chose.


[nitpick]Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[/nitpick]

Date: 2007/06/01 14:32:50, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'll probably regret asking, but what's the link for it?


I can't believe you haven't seen this. Well, you did ask!

Date: 2007/06/12 02:18:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I have an idea. Let's let FTK, Larry Fafarman, and VMartin battle to the death on their own thread here. Whichever one comes out alive in a month wins, and gets to moderate their own thread here.

I've noticed for years now that the crackpots never talk to each other on these blogs, and that's just not right.


Well, Larry has been posting on my blog recently (achieving some level of coherence) and AtBC cropped up, and he claimed never to have posted here, (I guess there may be one or two referred posts on the bathroom wall) and said he was not interested as you guys wind him up.

I could try a thread for Larry, Martin, Ftk, JAD and DaveScot if he's interested.  JAD has been tearing into Dave over his global warming threads recently.

Well, one can dream...

Date: 2007/06/14 07:30:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Ne c'est pas? (Heh, Alan. I got that right, right?)


Nearly! N'est-ce pas? (I'm rubbish at Arabic, though :D )

Date: 2007/06/14 15:31:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,16:15)
I sitll think Alan isn't doing JAD any favors, frankly.

Hi Tom,

I'm not sure that was ever my intention, rather I hoped to debunk John's claim that everyone was trying to silence him because his hypothesis would otherwise bring about the downfall of Darwinism. I contend this has been amply (and, yes, tiresomely) demonstrated.

John can be quite rational on other issues, however, as his comments about climate change demonstrate. I have tried to draw him out on the issue to develop a little common ground, but he seems to bear me a grudge, for some reason.

On ignoring, it can be difficult to make it clear to the person you are ignoring that you are in fact ignoring them. I have ignored ts/Morbius/Popper's Ghost for nearly two years, and it does not seem to have had the slightest effect. (Though as I have been ignoring him, I obviously am unaware whether he has noticed or even whether he still posts at PT.  ;) )

Date: 2007/06/14 15:43:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
All I can figure is that he just can't forgive you for being the only person on the internet who refuses to ban him.  ???


Truth is, I don't know how to implement the facility on Blogger. (Not that I ever considered it for a moment, oh no).

Anyway, he's moved on to greener pastures at Ms Harley's. Not that I care. ???

Date: 2007/06/14 16:32:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
that's why I said I didn't think that in the end, you were doing him any favors.


Actually, I think he realised it himself, eventually.

 
Quote
nobody really cares about John's claims of victimhood.


Well, I guess nobody cares for very long at least, as he is his own worst enemy  ;)

Date: 2007/06/14 16:38:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
BTW Louis and SpaghettiSawUs, would it be any trouble to post a link to the threads you were discussing?

Date: 2007/06/14 16:56:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
My own experience has been that it is of great benefit to allow people who oppose my views to post at my blog (if they are civil).   I also enjoy discussions with those who reject my views because I believe it's more productive to engage in dialogue with the opposition rather than merely preaching to the choir.  I've also found that there is a lot of confusion from both sides as to what those they oppose actually believe.


Dialogue with the opposition is excellent, though it does involve listening as well as preaching. I do honestly admire how you keep popping in here, apparently uncrushed by the general disdain.

Date: 2007/06/15 11:38:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Alan, I told JAD that he should be nice to you and even thank you for all you've done for him (and all the nasty things he said to you without provocation), and it's been silent ever since.

I do care what happens to him. And he actually wished me luck on finals once. There is a human in there somewhere.


I read the thread, and I certainly appreciate your kind words. I hope you are right, but at nearly eighty he does not have all that much time to change.

Date: 2007/06/16 05:46:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common.


What about both being based on carbon, identical genetic code, chirality, etc.?

 
Quote
Hi VMartin,
As a matter of fact I asked you a couple of questions in response to your earlier posts. Therefore it's disingenuous to claim that you had "no answer" when "no answer" is exactly what you have given me.


Exactly, VMartin. You could try extending to others the same courtesy you expect from them.

PS Humour works well too :)

Date: 2007/06/17 02:04:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Professor Andrew McIntosh, a director of Truth in Science


...Ph D in chemical engineering and expert in flame technology, yet feels qualified to dismiss the evidence for an old earth and evolution, and substitute rationality with creationism. His agenda deserves to be more widely known in the UK.

Date: 2007/06/17 02:10:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks for links, esp. Sandwalk and comments, Nuytsia

Date: 2007/06/18 15:11:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Louis @ June 17 2007,23:51)
{Just waiting for July and those Dorset Nagas}

I will post before and after photos!

Louis

Looking forward to seeing this, you mad, impetuous fool!

Date: 2007/06/18 15:27:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,18:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"

So what you're sayin' is.... whadda you sayin'?

Date: 2007/06/18 15:32:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 18 2007,10:16)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,15:11)
   
Quote (Louis @ June 17 2007,23:51)
{Just waiting for July and those Dorset Nagas}

I will post before and after photos!

Louis

Looking forward to seeing this, you mad, impetuous fool!

HOT PEPPERS YES, HOT MILFS NO.

ALAN, WHAT A WORLD YOU LIVE IN.


Yeah, I'm so damn lucky! :D  BTW may I interject Balti?

Date: 2007/06/18 15:50:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Sparkhill Baltis.


The Paradise, Stoney Lane, for example. My favourite was a place in Moseley where the proprietor explained the correct use of kulfi ice cream (to be applied the next morning as a poultice).

Date: 2007/06/18 15:55:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
You weren't at University of Birmingham, by any chance?

Date: 2007/06/18 16:02:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
VMartin,

You may not realise this, but the idea of a forum is to exchange ideas, for example by posing and answering questions. It can be quite enlightening if you let yourself get into the spirit of things...

Budem cakat na tvoj navrat

Date: 2007/06/18 16:12:04, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 18 2007,10:59)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,15:55)
You weren't at University of Birmingham, by any chance?

UCE formerly Birmingham Poly back in the day.

Bloody hell, you got out of Perry Barr alive?

Edit: alcohol induced spelling errors, Ah'm awah tae ma beid!

Date: 2007/06/19 01:21:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (jeannot @ June 18 2007,11:37)
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,16:02)
Budem cakat na tvoj navrat

You need to improve your French, Alan.  ;)
Seriously, was does that mean?

"I will wait for you to return"  (I hope! I am sure VMartin will correct me if I got it wrong.)

Date: 2007/06/19 01:52:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Kristine @ June 18 2007,19:57)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,23:25)
yeah, I noticed Lenny was around again.

c'mon, Lenny, let bygones be bygones and just jump right on in again.

everyone misses you.

Yeah.

I missed this. Has Lenny left definitively? That would be a shame. Mind you, as ID (and UD as its main proponent) are utterly and irrevocably finished as a marketable strategy, flogging a dead horse can pall after a while, hence the occasional random flagellation.

Date: 2007/06/20 15:58:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Human genome contains more than 90% junk DNA and the Carp as far as I know has 10 more times DNA as homo sapiens. Function of this unused DNA making majority of DNA is still unknown - maybe it is remnants of some past evolutionary prescriptions.


This story may interest you VMartin. There is a considerable  amount of research being directed to establishing the role of non-coding DNA, which may be a more fruitful approach than mere speculation. A review of the paper in New Scientist ends with a quote by ENCODE researcher John Greally:

"It would now take a very brave person to call non-coding DNA junk."

Date: 2007/06/21 16:48:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
VMartin:

Thank you for your response.

     
Quote
I suppose that this is the same article


Indeed, your link is to the New Scientist review that discusses the article I referred to. Unfortunately, it is only available via subscription.

     
Quote
But it is interesting that darwinian scientists having not enough knowledge of the problem in previous years claimed that DNA is junk.


It is not my recollection of events. "Junk DNA" was just a snappy title that stuck. I don't recall any scientist "claiming" DNA to be junk, just that the function of non-coding DNA was unknown, thus allowing speculation about its significance.

     
Quote
If "junk" RNA is not produced by accident then
"junk" DNA is consequently also not produced by accident, don't you think?


Not 100% sure what you are driving at here, but if you are suggesting some spirit force was directing events, you would need to support that idea with some evidence if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I understand you were once a Marxist, and are now disenchanted. Given how events have unfolded in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, I am not surprised, but consider, do you not conflate Marxism, atheism and "Darwinism" as tools of state control, and the revival of Catholicism in the wake of the retreat of Soviet control has induced this somewhat  hysterical reaction to current evolutionary biology?

Date: 2007/06/22 15:58:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
OK I give up, VMartin, you bore me, write that down.

Date: 2007/07/06 04:58:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,08:58)
 
Quote

Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.


I know. But dead cells do not repair DNA as well. Aren't you surprised that DNA of dino endured intact more than 70. million years? Some scientists didn't believe it is possible. If your point is that deleterious mutation are due copying or processes in nucleus of living cells I have no argument. Yet DNA macromulecule as such is very stable, isn't it?

(My humble apologies for my part in this débâcle)

@VMartin

I can't find any primary source in the literature, where anyone has been successful in extracting DNA from dinosaur fossils.

Some peptide fragments appear to have been  found in a T. rex fossil bone. I don't know whether that helps or hinders your argument, whatever that might be.

Date: 2007/07/08 04:09:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2007,10:12)
 
Quote
I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It


You've never answered our questions, V. Never since Day One. You've always been too cowardly to answer our questions. And now that you're calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists' it confirms that you are indeed as much of a dimwit as everyone here thinks.  But that explains your thing for Davison.

Go back and hide under Davison's coat, V. It's less scary there. The scary Darwinists can't hurt you there. Before you lose your countenace completely.

Oh and if I might point out:  
Quote
A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress.
John A. Davison, professor (associate, retired)

Date: 2007/07/08 05:14:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,06:32)
     
Quote (GCT @ July 07 2007,11:17)
       
Quote (djmullen @ July 07 2007,12:06)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2007,11:39)
The next case involving IDC or other labels for DI-labeled and packaged bogus antievolution arguments, I think the pro-science side (the real ones, not the cybersquatters) would miss a trick if they don't call Bill Dembski as a hostile witness.

And give him some ball bearings to hold while he's testifying!

Or maybe a little Darwin doll and a vise?  Then, he could not only put the vise strategy to use, but he could demonstrate it as well.

Quick question. Does your posting name have any particular relevance, if so could it be to do with this:
http://www.gct.org/object.html

EDIT: Having looked at that site, I think I will donate. At first glance it seems a worthwhile cause.

From Stephen's link I find this reference to seeding the ocean with iron which makes me wonder whether inducing plankton blooms is a panacea for global warming by locking up carbon in coccolithophores and not a scam to exploit the emissions trading scheme. On the other hand, is a relatively small-scale experiment not worth trying, not least to be able to assess the real risks?

(Is there mileage in this for a separate thread?)

Edit: more on Planktos. WWF view

Date: 2007/07/11 06:10:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
VMartin:

Quote
I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?


I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.

Quote
I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.
-John A. Davison. Link

Date: 2007/07/15 08:51:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.


Joe Gallien engage in honest debate? That would be something! ;) I see he still hides behind his moderation wall.

Date: 2007/07/15 16:07:08, Link
Author: Alan Fox
N Wells

I agree with your post, but...

I notice your unfailing politeness in the face of unyielding idiocy at ARN, perhaps you are not quite in the realm of pots and kettles but still...

Date: 2007/07/18 12:42:55, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (JohnW @ July 18 2007,07:14)
Quote (argystokes @ July 18 2007,11:23)
Sam Chen is making stuff up...
 
Quote
Others have said that if a president or presidential candidate lends an ear to ID, he or she should be impeached. What is everyone's opinion on this? Should political candidates be ousted for lending an ear to ID?

PLEASE DISCUSS!!!

http://overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/324

I suppose he's trying to beef up his resume with some good ole lying-for-jesus, so that he too may one day become a Discovery Institute Fellow. Good luck Sam.

Given the posting rate, and the average OE poster's degree of connection to reality, how long do you suppose it will take for someone to point out that you can't impeach a candidate?

I just followed that OE link, clicked on the link to the latest comment page which took me to this thread. I didn't spot it started in January and skimmed through it. Arden made some reference to Kazmer Ujvarosy and his "cure for cancer" and it didn't register before. Well, it made me laugh. Worth a look for those, like me who missed it before. Apologies if this has already been done to death already.

Date: 2007/07/22 16:27:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I've now had my fill of JoeG


We'll see, Blipey, we'll see. Take it from one who knows, addictions aren't that easy to break. ;)

Date: 2007/07/23 08:25:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Oh, and VMartin,

Have you now abandoned your claim that 70 million year old DNA has been found? Just to remind you:

 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2007,01:10)
VMartin:

   
Quote
I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?


I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.

   
Quote
I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.
-John A. Davison. Link

Date: 2007/07/30 01:49:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Now, are you there to add some substance to this thread or just the usual?


Just the usual, apparently.

Date: 2007/08/03 03:56:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I am afraid the discussion is over.


For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.

Quote
...about Eimer's idea.


1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?

Date: 2007/08/03 04:02:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.


Yes, I am sure both of you are!

Date: 2007/08/03 07:00:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Yes, well done Bill. Your posts read like a piece of history. (I guess that means UD is history.) :)

Date: 2007/08/03 13:00:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,03:47)
Alan Fox
     
Quote

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.


It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.
Folks here denigrated me.

     
Quote

1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?


I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem. Because they do not support mainstream neodarwinistic views they are ignored. Nijhout who studied problem of mimicry of butterflies (internet is full of his works on-line) didn't quoted Eimer once. But the problem of mimicry had been studied much more before WW2 as it is now. Nijhout quoted only very briefly Suffert, Svancic and Henke in 1991.

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays? Did you or somebody else refute them?  

Or is it not - like othear unpleasant theories - only ignored  to become dismissed now as "outdated"?

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer  was a scientist.

 
Quote
I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem.


Link?

 
Quote
Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays?


No, but I would distinguish between his observations and his conclusions.  Evo-devo was not a even a twinkle in anyone's eye in 1903.



Quote
You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer  was a scientist.


I am not sure you are right about Goethe's ideas on colour being correct, at least in a scientific context. If Eimer's work  is significant, why is it not cited in later research, as is Darwin and Mendel, for example?

Date: 2007/08/07 04:47:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 05 2007,21:49)
 
Quote (Grayman @ Aug. 06 2007,01:53)
I tried following the good Dr. Dembski’s links to the vaunted Evolutionary Informatics lab at Baylor and Baylor would appear to have removed them all.  Does anyone know the story?

Not quite sure, but they've been down too long for it to be a random glitch.

Dr Dr Dr Dembski has said nothing in public, AFAIK.

What a humiliating climbdown if it's down on purpose! After all, this was one of Dembski's "2007 predictions".

Still down!

Date: 2007/08/17 11:54:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2007,10:32)
If anybody wants a guess from an amateur, I'd guess that slugs rely more on shelter (i.e., being under things), whereas snails carry a partial shelter around with them. But that's at a cost; building that shell, and putting out the energy needed to carry it while moving around - slugs aren't paying that cost; their way works for them (yucky as it is), else they'd be extinct by now.

Just my two cents.

Henry

Me, miss! Me, miss!

Where I live, during hot, dry conditions, in daytime, you find many snails with opercula tightly closed in vegetation such as vines about 1 metre from the ground. The strategy seems to help avoid dessication, as the ground surface can become much hotter than the air above. The shell is an essential element in this strategy, and may enable snails to thrive in drier climates. I have not seen a slug here, and our lettuces do very well.

PS among all the other questions that I am sure you will be soon getting around to answer, when you have time, please don't forget:
VMartin:

   
Quote

I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?



I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.

   
Quote

I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.

-John A. Davison. link

PPS

Date: 2007/08/20 02:51:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
"r?le"  :angry:
&#947;&#957;&#959;&#952;&#953; &#963;&#949;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#957; ???

No French or Greek characters

:(

Date: 2007/09/02 04:49:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males.


You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here.

Saying
Quote
I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.
is not adequate as an argument.

Date: 2007/09/07 04:05:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
It looks to me as if DLH is just a random poster.


That's Dr. DLH to you. David Hagen has a Ph D in...












...Engineering!!!!
(and used to be a frequent and pompous poster at ISCID. He got kicked off that site run by Allen MacNiell with Hannah Maxon for being particularly pompous and OT)
He's quite pompous, did I mention?

Date: 2007/09/07 04:22:23, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.


Disturb your discussions?
What discussions?
Surely you jest!

Date: 2007/09/07 12:17:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*


Well, as I had to google "wide stance" to find out about alternative uses of shopping bags, I guess I don't need to protest.

Date: 2007/09/08 06:46:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Chris Hyland would, I suspect, be blogging about this more if the UK still had anything to fear from Andy MacIntosh et al.

OT: you must be as bored as I am, Oldman...

Date: 2007/09/08 11:08:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

Date: 2007/09/08 12:51:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
28-10 to England. The USA played really well, considering it is not a well-established game over there.

@Carlsonjock

Rugby is a grown-up version of your football, played without body armour, and with more gore.

Date: 2007/09/09 02:41:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
That is worrying, Peter.

Your link to that blog had some interesting comments. Well done, Guthrie.

Date: 2007/09/09 11:02:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just watched South Africa vs Samoa. Great running game.

On current form England don't stand a chance against the Springboks, (or the All Blacks or NZ either).

Date: 2007/09/09 11:13:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
but the reader seems somewhat naive of YECism


This may be a good thing. Maybe creationism in NI is still flying below the political radar. If it is to gain a political foothold, it will have to be more visible, and I (naively?) can't believe that there are not enough politically-aware people to see this movement for what it is.

At least there is the US example to point them to. Lenny Flank might be your man for practical advice.

Date: 2007/09/10 03:56:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 09 2007,17:34)
DLH = Slimey Sal.

What do I win?

Evidence?

David L. Hagen can match Sal for sliminess, and he is also rather pompous. (I may have already mentioned this.)

Date: 2007/09/11 12:14:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have got to know a couple recently moved here from Belfast. ( The husband remembers Prof. Nevin from his days at Queens). I had naively assumed my English experience of a gently fading religious aspect would be the same in NI. They have corrected my misapprehension. It appears NI is quite a hotbed of religious fundamentalism, and perhaps there is a real possibility of US-style creationism getting a foothold.

At least there is the US experience to learn from. Have any schools started to use the "Truth in Science" packs? Maybe there is mileage in a legal challenge, if so.

Date: 2007/09/12 12:21:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
DaveScot pops in to offer Glen reinstatement at UD "if you can be civil". Then I thought maybe he means JAD, so I posted:

#  DAVESCOT Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am

Davidson, I will lift your ban at Uncommon Descent if you can be civil.


Great to see you out and about again, Dave. I thought you had retreated to the UD laager permanently. Just to clarify, are you re-inviting Glen (who apart from the odd hissy fit, usually manages to remain civil if somewhat verbose) or was Davidson a typo and you meant to address John (who possibly has overstepped the bounds of propriety on occasion). I am sure UD can restore its rightful place in the blogosphere with some insightful input from JAD.

Shame about the informatics thingie. Bill could do with a  bit of good publicity to boost those book sales which must be flagging a bit since Dover.

Date: 2007/09/13 08:33:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox

Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...

Happy days!

I must be suffering from false memory syndrome.

Date: 2007/09/13 10:00:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
David McConaghie, who often appears on Sunday Sequence along with McIntosh, is aggresivly anti-science.


What is "Sunday Sequence"?

Never mind.

Date: 2007/09/13 11:00:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 13 2007,05:16)
Apparently Fuller is appearing on the Crawley radio show next week some time.  It will be mildly amusing to see what he says.

Well, I reckon Fuller is a great asset for the evolutionary side. Long may he keep pontificating

Date: 2007/09/13 13:18:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.


Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place. I suspect people were badgering you because the major opponents to evolution are Young Earth creationists who claim the Earth is 6.000 years old (sometimes 10,000). This eliminates you from that group.

I just wonder if your objection to TOE is religious. I did hear that there has been a revival of "fundamentalist" Catholicism in the wake of the emergence of Eastern Europe from the dominance of the former USSR. Your abhorrence of communism seems to tally here.

Date: 2007/09/15 02:37:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

Date: 2007/09/15 11:03:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
It's not my business, but do you think the Baylor regents are aware of Dr Dembski having advertised their contact details in this way?

Do you think someone should email them, just in case?

Date: 2007/09/15 11:21:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry


Make a case for what you think is a better explanation for the observations and there may be something to discuss. So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.

You have to produce something  for discussion if you really want a discussion to take place.

(Hint: You could start with "this is a problem because (insert reason) and a better explanation is (insert hypothesis) because (cite evidence).)

Date: 2007/09/15 11:39:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 15 2007,06:18)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,11:03)
It's not my business, but do you think the Baylor regents are aware of Dr Dembski having advertised their contact details in this way?

Do you think someone should email them, just in case?

Perhaps you should call them. You have their numbers after all.

Are you serious? I am in France, My calls will get rerouted through Homeland Security.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:27:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have been posting at ISCID and my old friend, Professor Davison, suggested, in his usual forthright style, a fellow poster, Daniel Smith, should try posting here :  
Quote
Daniel Smith

Better yet, go over to Panda's Thumb and present your views there and see just how far you will get. Look at what is happening to Martin at After The Bar Closes. It is disgusting. I tried to deal with those animals and was banned for life. Like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb is a closed union shop. Trust me or learn for yourself.


So I extended an invitation to Daniel, confident he will receive a warm welcome.

Daniel has stated ( please correct me if I mis-state your view)that Leo Berg in "Nomogenesis" and Otto Schindewolf in "Basic Questions in Paleontology" both produce good arguments against RM and NS using the evolution of the horse as an example.

Hope to hear from you, Daniel.

Date: 2007/09/20 09:17:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hi Daniel,

So you decided to brave the lion's den.

 
Quote
I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.


There are many posters here who are professional scientists and can answer queries or point you to references.

 
Quote
I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.


Again, I am sure people can supply information and explanation on the scientific evidence. Science does not address anything other than observable, measurable phenomena, however, so the nature and rôle of a supreme being or creator is not available for scientific scrutiny. If you want to claim there is scientific evidence for a designer (intelligent or not) or that "Intelligent Design" can currently claim to be a scientific endeavour, then I expect you may find some disagreement.



 
Quote
Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me.


I too have to ration my time here. I sometimes wonder if academics have too much free time judging by some people's output.  :D

Date: 2007/09/20 10:20:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.

Supersport is starting to really remind me of Ghost of Paley.

I can see the resemblance, but where are the sweaty wrestlers?

Date: 2007/09/20 14:41:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
VMartin:

Thread subject: Horse evolution and whether works by Berg and Schindewolf contain evidence that undermines current evolutionary theory.

Not thread subject: Ladybirds etc.

Date: 2007/09/21 12:59:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
the Oudemanse effect


Well, it had to happen. VMartin plays his trump card.

What can you say to the Oudemanse effect?

Date: 2007/09/21 13:07:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I think I can counter with the Fibonacci phenomenon. Have you ever looked, I mean really looked, at the arrangement of leaves in a globe artichoke?

Date: 2007/09/22 09:23:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence..,


This is not a problem, Daniel, this is a good thing. It is always worth trying to look at the primary evidence to see if there is error or bias in interpretation.

 
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.


But should you not then look at the evidence on which they base their hypotheses rather than accepting their interpretations without question? This must be especially so in the case of Berg and Schindewolf as Berg wrote "Nomogenesis" in 1922 and Schindewolf was proposing saltation as a hypothesis in the '30s. A lot of evidence, the elucidation of the genetic code, for instance, was unavailable to them.

I think Berg was quite a polymath, producing works in geography and ichthyology, although there is a question mark as to whether he had some influence on the later disastrous ideas of Trofim Lysenko.

Michael Denton seems to have distanced himself from the Discovery Institute lately, and his current research project seems very laudable.

Date: 2007/09/22 09:38:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
From AFDave's link:
Quote
Thanks! And happy commenting!
Published in:

   * Creation/Evolution

on January 6, 2007 at 8:00 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comments are closed.

Date: 2007/09/23 03:33:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The ex-UD commenter Bilbo appears capable of independent thought.

Edit: ps Here too

Date: 2007/09/23 06:28:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2007,00:27)
JAM wrote:
 
Quote
And Joy is insane.

Thought Provoker responded:
 
Quote
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 
Quote
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.

Joy on the conspiracy:
 
Quote
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!;), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?

And that's just one example.

Well, nobody's perfect, Keith. :D

I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.

Date: 2007/09/23 06:40:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
We are very lucky to have fossils at all. After an animal dies many conditions have to be met if it is to become a fossil, and one or other of those conditions usually is not met. Personally, I would consider it an honor to be fossilized but I don't have much hope of it. If all the creatures which had ever lived had in fact been fossilized we would be wading knee deep in fossils. The world would be filled with fossils. Perhaps it is just as well that it hasn't happened that way.

Because it is particularly difficult for an animal without a hard skeleton to be fossilized, most of the fossils we find are of animals with hard skeletons - vertebrates with bones, mollusks with their shells, arthropods with their external skeleton. If the ancestors of these were all soft and then same offspring evolved a hard skeleton, the only fossilized animals would be those more recent varieties. Therefore, we expect fossils to appear suddenly in the geologic record and that's one reason groups of animals suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.

There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian.

As I said, we're actually lucky to have fossils at all. In any case, it is misleading to think that fossils are the most important evidence for evolution. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* We would be in the position of a detective who comes upon a crime after the fact. You can't see the crime being committed because it has already happened. But there is evidence lying all around. To pursue any case, most detectives and most courts of law are happy with 2-3 clues that point in the right direction.
(*my emphasis)

Richard Dawkins

Date: 2007/09/23 09:51:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm sorry, that wasn't clear. PM Wesley all you want about my terrible decisions.


I only suggest there might be scope for more than just one sanction. Whether a decision is "terrible" or not is less important if it results in suspension rather than an unappealable ban. I guess the new "pariah" status is along these lines.

Date: 2007/09/23 12:10:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I see steve's been moonlighting.

Date: 2007/09/24 10:11:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Welcome back, Louis, pleased to hear you had a good time.
Can we look forward to the chillie report, now?

Date: 2007/09/27 04:08:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
If I were to tell you that I can do a chemical reaction involving some zinc and a few achiral organic molecules with which I could generate completely chiral product. If I were careful I could get completely homochiral product. I can do this in the complete absence of chiral reagents, reactants or catalysts. If I were also to tell you that this reaction demonstrates a principle of chemical systems that has a definite role in abiogenesis (even if this specific set of reaction conditions are not directly applicable) would you think I was BSing you?


But this is unsupported assertion. Show us the evidence. (Or did you forget this thread where some of us have been waiting for answers?) ;)

Date: 2007/09/27 04:44:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hi Daniel

First, my apologies for being off-topic with my Dawkins quote. I originally only wanted to post the bit in bold:    
Quote
Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.

as the (for instance) biochemical arguments for common descent are so convincing (to me, at least) and complementary to the fossil evidence, but the surrounding passage seemed quite apt.

You once asked me (of Berg's "Nomogenesis"): "Have you even read the book?" The answer is no. Neither have I read "Origin of Species". But I'll strike a bargain with you. I will get and read a copy of "Nomogenesis" if you will get and read a copy of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

You wrote:    
Quote
A possible reason that the nested hierarchy in nature is more perfect than that of other designed objects is for the simple reason that nature might just be the result of a single designer.


Ignoring for the moment the implication in your remark that a nested hierarchy is an example of a designed object, you appear to suggest that evidence for common descent is also evidence for common design.

The most convincing evidence of common descent for me is at the sub-cellular level: all life-forms based on carbon chemistry, chirality, universal* genetic code, common metabolic pathways, etc,. etc., but I guess you will say this is evidence for a common designer. So finding and presenting evidence will be fruitless if you see design where others see common descent.

(*with a few significant exceptions)

Date: 2007/09/27 05:10:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
A bit off-topic but knowing how Steve is interested in recent developments at PCID,

Have you seen this at ISCID:  
Quote
PCID Volume 2.3, Philosophy of Mind Issue
A forum for discussion of the papers in Volume 2.3 of PCID.

Date: 2007/09/27 05:41:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
So, shall I cancel my order to Amazon, Daniel?

Date: 2007/09/27 11:25:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
[quote=Daniel Smith,Sep. 27 2007,01:38][/quote]
Quote
What has Dawkins done?


I think it can be demonstrated that Dawkins had a respectable career as a research scientist (ethologist) before embarking on his current work as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. (Brief bio). However this is beside the point. It is irrelevant whether a particular person is a paragon of virtue or an utter rotter, it is the idea and whether that idea is based on correct observation, measurement and interpretation that is important. In "The Ancestor's Tale", Dawkins cites authors and evidence, and there is a comprehensive bibliography.

As far as I can tell, Leo Berg was a perfectly respectable and diligent scientist, but it makes no difference to the strength or weakness of his ideas. If you recall, this thread was originally intended for you to show how the evolution of the horse is a problem for the current theory of evolution. I have not seen a great deal of evidence from you, yet.

Date: 2007/09/27 15:22:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...


And your alternative explanation to random mutation and natural selection is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

(*please fill in blank)

Date: 2007/09/29 04:17:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel wrote:
Quote
In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.


OK. (Although it is not a hanging offence to move off topic by gradual steps. Saltational leaps of logic are a different matter.  :) )  
Quote
Berg doesn't say a lot about horses...


So, is there another example that better illustrates Berg's alternative to RM + NS?  
Quote
As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms...:


OK. The RM + NS theory claims that organisms are shaped by their environments. Where a population exists and is subject to change in that environment, selection will result in adaptive change or extinction. Adaptation is not predictive.

From your quote, Schindewolf is claiming that horses began adapting to life on the plains before arriving in that environment. If true, this would indeed be a grave problem for evolution.

How does Schindewolf establish the prevailing climate and vegetation associated with a particular fossil?

Date: 2007/09/29 04:30:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2007,20:41)
OK, which one of you is lotf?
   
Quote


18

lotf

09/28/2007

3:09 am

Tard Alert!

I have to admit as a non christian (though a believer in a higher power) but supporter of ID I am seeeing more and more references to christianity here and it’s beginning to put me off. I assumed my religion would not be an issue in the science of ID but I am worried it might be.

(and it gets better further down)

Bob
EDIT: Oh, yeah.  that's what lotf stands for.

 
Quote
This may be one of the few blogs a Luciferian like myself can converse with Christians without rancour.


I dunno. I suspect that may be the last comment we see from  lotf.

Date: 2007/09/29 04:37:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
One small anecdote.

My friends from Belfast have organised for their son to attend Southampton University, as they are unhappy with the current state of higher education in Northern Ireland. Maybe more people voting with their feet will have an effect.

Date: 2007/09/29 04:46:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Good quote, Jeannot.

Well, Martin, it would appear that dragonflies hunt mainly by sight, and are a very ancient group. Does your theory, which, by the way, you have so far omitted to discuss, provide a better explanation of these observations and experiments?

Date: 2007/09/29 05:57:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
One would have to exclude the possibility of exaptation, though.


Using my argument from personal incredulity, what other advantage of loss of digits has been suggested? ???

Date: 2007/09/30 06:30:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I voted "off the face of the earth".

Jeannot expressed it neatly.

ID as an idea was always a fraud and will whither away since it was judged as such at Harrisburg.

Date: 2007/09/30 08:54:06, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just made my first comment on PT in a long time and was surprised to note comments are moderated. Is this now standard procedure?

Date: 2007/09/30 14:44:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks, Wesley, it must have been the ISCID link.

BTW, Congratulations to the USA rugby team. Beaten but far from disgraced!!!

Date: 2007/10/01 07:29:49, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel wrote earlier:  
Quote
If you go back to Brainstorms, you'll see that the horse was just one example I used in a discussion with Alan Fox while discussing the theory of evolution in general.  I don't know why he decided to start this thread making that the sole subject.


My recollection is that you first raised the example here:

 
Quote
   (AF wrote) Would you like to cite your best example?

(DS wrote) There are so many. You really should read the books. Berg and Schindewolf cite hundreds of examples - Berg mostly from modern biology and Schindewolf mostly from the fossil record. It's really does them a disservice to try to pick a "best" example, but I'll give you one that Schindewolf describes:

   quote:To this extent, the one toed horse must be regarded as the ideal running animal of the plains. It's early Tertiary ancestors had four digits on the front feet and three on the hind feet, and low crowned cheek teeth. Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
   However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
   If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...

   Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, emphasis his.

posted 17. September 2007 12:35

Date: 2007/10/01 07:31:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel wrote:  
Quote
Some predictions (these are my own and in no way represent predictions of the ID movement in general):

Because evolution is proactive, not reactive:

Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.
When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing features (already coded for in the genome) or will become extinct - no new features will develop slowly over time.
Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works.

From the fossil record:
Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.
Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth’s cycle.
Organisms will be found to have begun the adaptive process before adaptation was necessary.
Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages.

Genetically:
Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms.
The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought.
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.
Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes “waiting in the wings” ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes- many just a frame shift away.
Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.
Every part of the entire genome of any organism will be found to either be used at some time in the organisms life, or be of future use.  There are no unusable “Leftovers”.
No adequate explanation other than design will ever be found for the origin of life’s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.

Universally:
Because the earth, and the solar system were specifically designed for life, no life or signs of previous life will be found on any other planets within our field of exploration.


I congratulate you, Daniel, for being so forthright and producing testable predictions.

Re the search for evidence of life on Mars, there are three possible outcomes that I can foresee.

1:Evidence is found for a life-form totally different from anything seen on Earth, say, not even based on carbon, but, for instance, built on silicon.

2: Evidence is found for a life-form bearing distinct similarities to terrestrial lifeforms.

3; No evidence found.

If 1, abiogenesis is almost inevitable on any suitable planet, given enough time.

If 2, lifeforms such as bacterial spores may travel across space as passengers in meteorites. (Panspermia)

If 3, we still don't know.

Date: 2007/10/01 07:58:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Seems both Dragonfly papers require a subscription for full access.

Date: 2007/10/03 05:42:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel wrote:
Quote
Every living thing dies.  Everything.

It would sure seem that natural selection would have overcome that little hiccup by now doesn't it?


How does that follow? If (ignoring for the moment the other problems with this scenario) organisms live for ever, and are not replaced by variants, there is nothing for natural selection to work on.

Date: 2007/10/03 06:32:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
OK, so let me get this straight.  Even though all the "tools" necessary to achieve longer life and even immortality are already in every genome - being in use during the developmental and adolescent cycles of every organism...  And even though these tools are able to "cheat" the 2nd law of thermodynamics throughout those periods...


Well, the genome does achieve a sort of immortality by being carried by multiple generations of descendant organisms. The original manuscripts of many ancient texts have long since disappeared, but the words remain by virtue of having been copied and copied again. Far from "all the "tools" necessary to achieve longer life", cell are programmed to commit suicide after a fixed number of divisions, a process referred to as apoptosis.
   
Quote
If an organism gets a mutation that somehow disables the aging process..


Breakdown of apoptosis results in uncontrolled cell growth, i.e. cancer.    
Quote
...and keeps these processes working - thereby increasing it's progeny considerably - natural selection will look ahead, decide that one species living too long is not good for the planet, and then cause that organism to die early anyway?


Natural selection cannot and does not look ahead.

   
Quote
You're going to have to explain to me how this unthinking, uncaring, unintelligent force can suddenly show this kind of forethought!


There is no forethought. Perhaps you could explain why you think there needs to be.

Date: 2007/10/03 07:13:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
OH ......TOO CLEVER BY HALF YOU FRANCOPHONE.
Well, peut-être vous avez deviné que je suis anglais still gets a laugh, :)

YOUR WHOLE COUNTRY IS PROOF THAT HELL EXISTS.
[/QUOTE]

We'll see at Cardiff on Saturday.

Date: 2007/10/04 02:05:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Daniel,

You may be interested in this article. It seems there has been parallel (convergent?) interest on horse evolution at PT

Date: 2007/10/05 04:09:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
First, Schindewolf's stand on horse evolution is not well spelled out - and he only devotes a couple pages to it, so it doesn't really do his theory justice to use that example.  What I should have done was brought out his position on the evolution of cephalopods or stony corals - since these are his main areas of expertise and the subject to which he devotes probably a good third of his book.  So maybe we can shift gears as regards Schindewolf?


It does seem to boil down to how clear the evidence is that selective pressure to single toe was occurring before or after horse ancestors were in a savannah or plains environment. If you now concede this evidence is problematic and wish to look at molecular issues, why not start a new thread on the subject when you have marshaled your argument.

     
Quote
That this was saltational is pretty straightforward since an entirely new enzyme was created in one step.


Whilst mutation events are random, in that they are not predictable, some non-lethal mutations occur relatively frequently. Take the mutation that causes achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is a single-point mutation that produces dramatic and extensive changes in the phenotype of the individual with the mutation. This is the result of a single nucleic acid substitution in the genome, the smallest possible change that can happen. The mutation that occured in bacteria enabling them to digest nylon is thought to be a frame shift, caused by the addition or deletion of one* nucleotide. Again the change is as small as can happen, but the consequences are huge, and often catastrophic.

If you define this as saltation then all mutations are saltations.

(* or a larger no. not divisible by three)

(Added in edit)

PS: If I were to play Devil's advocate, I might suggest you have a look at transfer-RNA, and how each specific t-RNA could have evolved to carry its own particular amino acid. :)

Date: 2007/10/05 04:41:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 04 2007,17:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2007,22:35)
Ugh. Having discovered that regardless of supposed rules, the nurses won't kick you out immediately at 9 pm, I've been spending even more time at the hospital. I feel like you guys are having all the fun without me. Please continue. I'm glad we're not in the early days of the thread when I felt like I needed to give it the occasional boost to keep it going. My friend's being transferred to Ohio on Monday and my free time will be back to normal, but I think I might run out of gas before then.

Good luck, chief. Regards to friend.

Yes, Steve, best wishes for a speedy as possible return to health for your friend.

Date: 2007/10/05 06:08:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Lysenkoism was another attempt to run science by philosophical notions. It set back the science of genetics in the USSR by about 4 decades; they haven't recovered yet.


Not to speak of the 1935 famine, partly precipitated by Lysenko's "vernalisation" nonsense, that resulted in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians.

Date: 2007/10/08 02:06:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I still can't help succumbing to JAD addiction, and have been posting at ISCID, much to his annoyance.

I noticed a few odd things:

1) I was able to re-register under a pseudonym despite having been banned

2) I could post without restraint

3) The option to start new threads was disabled for all posters (on an admittedly small sample size: JAD and Martin)

4) Loads of spam in the last place one could start new topics. (The whole section has now disappeared)

5) A post from JAD complaining that Martin could no longer post there

6) I can't post there, now.

7) "We are not accepting new registrations at this time."

8) Absolutely no meaningful contribution from any ID proponent for a considerable time.

I first heard of ID about two and a half years ago from a proponent in a forum unrelated to ID or evo, and predicted that ID would become history within 5 years. This apparent mothballing of ISCID seems consistent with the general downward slide into obscurity.

Date: 2007/10/08 02:59:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Why did not they think of hosting the Informatics Lab site there? It would have save a little hassle.

Date: 2007/10/10 09:09:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just thought I'd post a link at ARN

Date: 2007/10/10 09:46:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Deleted

Date: 2007/10/12 14:55:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Is this the incident?

Date: 2007/10/13 03:52:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Hmmm. The crickets seem to have come out.


Daniel tells me that he finds this site "too combative", so I am not sure if he will be continuing here.

I do wonder whether posts can sometimes be a little too waspish, but maybe that's just me.



Date: 2007/10/13 05:43:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I think the degree of waspishness in my follow-up...


No, Wesley, I certainly didn't mean you, here. I quoted you thinking you were alluding to Daniel's absence. I don't think I have seen a comment of yours that was in any way less than polite. I was thinking of the name-calling that sometimes seems unnecessary to make a point. It can allow the recipient to avoid the substantive issue.

Date: 2007/10/13 06:15:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
VMartin

Just wondering why you post here, so I am trying my explanatory filter.

Is it because:

1) You wish to improve your English,

2) You have an alternative theory which better explains examples of apparent mimicry than does RM + NS, and you are soon to enlighten us,

3) You have an innate dislike of evolutionary theory.

As the evidence for 1) is patchy, and the evidence for 2) is non-existent, I am forced to conclude 3). Unless I am falling for the fallacy of not considering the unknown explanation.

Date: 2007/10/13 07:58:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This is an old point, but what the heck...

Is there a genetic element to how credulous we are? Is the tendency to believe what we are told, or to doubt and question, influenced by nature and not just nurture? Perhaps that is why atheists and fundamental Christians find themselves unable to comprehend each others' viewpoint.

Date: 2007/10/14 04:23:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
England won 14 to 9. The hosts of the world cup are out. France got well beaten.


Yes, I haven't ventured outside yet. I may need a disguise. In fairness, I thought the teams were evenly matched.

It must reaaally hurt, being Jeannot at the moment.

Date: 2007/10/14 04:24:48, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Oops. Post didn't show. Double deleted.

Date: 2007/10/15 12:21:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I think the corner has been turned with ID, it is all downhill from here and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. So after that spate of bad metaphors it is time for me to admit that I need to spend time on other things.

It would be unfair to single out any one contributor among the many whose pearls I have enjoyed reading, so a general thank-you to all for the free entertainment while beating ID up as a scientific concept.

Best wishes to everyone
Alan

Date: 2007/11/24 12:59:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 24 2007,06:13)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 23 2007,17:49)
       
Quote
all the other elegant complexities within life

These words mean nothing. Are worn out knees elegant? Please define elegant complexities so that it means something tangible. Do you think that what initially appears to us to be inelegant, will on further examination (possibly from a ID point of view) turn out to be elegant after all? Otherwise it seems to me a single example of "inelegant" design falsifies your theory.

The phrase "all the other elegant complexities within life" is - yours!  I just copied and pasted it directly from your original question.
Permalink
When you're done digesting the delicious irony of the situation, get back to me!

[delurks]

Well played, Daniel!!! (Sorry, Oldman, but you gotta smile)

[/delurks]

Date: 2007/11/25 05:00:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
@ Oldman

Very sorry, my excuse being I haven't been following along very closely. I feel like Abu Hassan now.

@ Daniel

Thanks for making me look a prat :angry:

Date: 2007/11/25 05:54:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.


I doubt anyone has any argument that is going to change your antipathy to Darwinism. Mind you, your utter inability to produce any coherent argument in support of whatever your alternative is suggests both we and you are all wasting our time. I think you have the bigger hill to climb.

Quote
You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection"  gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.


People are irritated by you because your posts are agenda-based whereas others are interested in evidence.

Quote
Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are as afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better some explanation of it..


What would be the point as you appear uninterested in evolutionary explanations?

 
Quote
You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".


I think Erasmus has already told you:  
Quote
It's boring to have the same old nonsense rehashed over and over again.

Martin, if I can't verbally abuse you then I don't even want to talk to you anymore.

Date: 2007/11/25 15:20:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Nice to see you Alan.

Well, having dug in well rotted sheep manure into our veg. patch and cooked a nice green thai curry for supper, my wife has unlocked the keyboard for a limited foray.
 
Quote
Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here.
Oh the irony!
 
Quote
Last time you buzzed off

Punning in a second language? I commend you (although it might arouse suspicion in those who doubt your Bratislavan credentials)
 
Quote
when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps.  It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Are you referring to this comment?
 
Quote
Now you claim that I have given no evidence.

Which you can now refute with a citation or two.  
Quote
You are really amusing.
Thanks
 
Quote
I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be.

Which you can now demonstrate with a citation or two.
   
Quote
You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

I do not have a hypothesis, although I am hoping for one for Christmas.
 
Quote
Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.

I have never disputed that individual birds may or may not have strategies to deal with wasp stings. Whilst I have never seen such behaviour, I don't doubt it occurs.
Quote

Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.

Au contraire, my Slovakian friend, I have never disputed such behaviour. How does it impinge on Darwinian evolution. and how does it better explain your hypothesis? Which is what, by the way?

Date: 2007/11/27 07:34:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Telic Thoughts seems to be going the same way as all the pro-ID blogs. (That's imploding, in case anyone wasn't sure!)
Take UD's list of ID friendly blogs:

ARN
(Fair moderation policy has resulted in most pro-ID posters being beaten into submission by some excellent anti-ID regulars. Almost moribund.)

Design Inference
(Just Dembski stuff, no comments, not a true blog)

ID in the UK
( Just one witless guy's blog with nothing posted for a couple of months)

ID the future ID Superblog
(DI propaganda, no comments, not a true blog)

ISCID
(Moribund, apart from one notable exception.)

Overwhelming Evidence
(Moribund, supposedly for young ID folks, but same, sad faces)

Post-Darwinist The Blog of Denyse O'Leary
(Heavily-moderated, Gobbledegook threads, very few comments, none meaningful)

Telic Thoughts
(Somewhat of a maverick, used to be the thinking man's UD, what happened to Bilbo?)

Young Cosmos Personal site of Salvador Cordova
(Amazingly, Sal is still posting, so ID is not dead yet.)

Date: 2007/11/27 08:13:29, Link
Author: Alan Fox
When you start wondering if things can't get any worse for Dembski...

Just wonderful!!! And all his own doing, too!

Date: 2007/11/28 05:12:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through this thread and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:

Date: 2007/11/28 05:25:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 27 2007,03:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2007,07:13)
When you start wondering if things can't get any worse for Dembski...

Just wonderful!!! And all his own doing, too!

Now, now, Alan. You know the routine. Plagiarism suggests a plagiariser, but you don't get to ask who the plagiariser is! ;)

That was deep, Kristine...

     ...deep like the deep, dark pools of your eyes...

Ow! *rubs side of head* "But it's Science, dear, it's all Science, honest."

Ow! *rubs other side of head*

[/undelurk]

Date: 2007/11/29 02:27:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,05:10)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through this thread and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:

Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the previous thread took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the Adelson illusion.  Deal?

Deal!

Date: 2007/12/16 04:29:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Where to start, where to start?


Isn't it time you had a go at a bannination, Bob? I mean since Carl Sachs got booted, you must be the only non-closet rationalist still posting there. You're dying to break out of that carefully cultivated polite persona and give 'em hell.

Go on, you know you want to!

(Hi Lou, waving the big stick, now, eh?)

PS: Have I missed any new developments in the science of ID?

Edit: forgot to edit

Date: 2007/12/18 03:36:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I suppose I would be interested in a capable, coherent and intentionally empirical defense of orthogenesis as a challenge to focus my thoughts.  Not God Did It That Way (that's what UD is for).  I think JAD fails the first two prongs of that test, but AFAIK he is a candidate.


There may be something to interest you shortly.

Edit: (I know, Don't call me Shortly!)

Date: 2007/12/20 06:52:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I have long had admiration John Davison's feistiness (though not for his PEH) and it seems a shame that his avenues for discourse have gradually closed off. ISCID is all but defunct and the ashtrays are all full on his previous blogs. In support of John I would like to point out that he is a strong critic of climate change denialists, especially David Springer and his mentor, Bill Dembski.

So John has a new blog here and promises to try and be more civil to those who may want to visit.

Date: 2007/12/20 09:15:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Have a good trip, Louis. Bring back some more dog speciation stories.

I'm off exploring the Cap de Creus and the Dali museum over the Winterval break so let me also wish one and all Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Date: 2007/12/22 16:59:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox


For Bob O'H (though they slightly misspelled vittu)

And the wine is quite good, too!

PS thanks for the plug.

Date: 2007/12/27 08:50:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I don't know if "to the death" is not exaggerated a bit, but who knows Alan.


I hope I am never in a situation that obliges me to answer that, though I have had to raise my voice at the dinner table occasionally.

PS unless you meant "who knows Alan?" rather than "who knows, Alan?" in which case it is not for me to reply.

Date: 2007/12/27 09:03:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just back from the Cap de Creus. If anyone is around north-east Spain, try not to miss Dali's house. It is simultaneously exotic and rustic, standing in his studio looking at his armchair from which he painted surrounded by his bric-a-brac was quite moving.

Afterwards stopped for lunch at a little restaurant by the lighthouse on the headland. Tapas of thin sliced smoked duck breast and anchovies on tostados followed by a fresh-caught whole sea bass picked out from the day's catch and baked on a bed of sliced potato, tomato, onion, garlic and white wine. Washed down with a local white "picapoll" wine. Heaven.

Date: 2007/12/27 14:08:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

Date: 2007/12/28 09:07:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2007,05:50)
Gah, it's WORDPRESS.

Can we get to post without having to log in?

John is considering dropping the registration requirement. Is it a big turnoff and is that because the admin gets to see email addresses?

Date: 2007/12/28 09:17:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Have you ever heard about Paul Leautaud?


No. What do you think I might learn from reading his work, and what might be a good piece to start?

Date: 2007/12/28 10:24:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 27 2007,18:15)
Alan,

I just wanted to say that I think it was very nice of you to help John set up his blog.  It's looks very good, btw.  Maybe I'll have to have you help me with mine some day. ;)

Thanks. If you check the wordpress 5 minute install, you'll see that it is not that demanding.

Date: 2007/12/29 02:58:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just my two cents:

Someone* said Science is to Art as fact is to opinion. You could equally substitute philosophy or religion for Art.

Facts can be accepted, challenged, verified or ignored. They can be debated but the exercise is, like Plato's debate on horses teeth, usually unrewarding. Everything that is not a fact is an opinion and available for debate. When you have separated (preferably agreed) fact from opinion, you can maybe have a meaningful exchange. I look forward to witnessing one, someday ;)

*Anyone know who?

Date: 2008/01/01 05:46:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
*groans*

Happy New Year, everyone!!!

*remembers incident with explosions from noisy firework echoing round hillside, frightening dogs and neighbours, groans*

*remembers fetching outfit in red satin and curly wig, groans*

*remembers incident with wig and flaming barbecue, groans and goes back to bed*

Date: 2008/01/01 06:23:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.


Your assertion led me to google and I came across this. It seems someone is testing the idea that undescended testicles result in sterility in the Florida panther. There is lots more on sperm viability and temperature control of the testes.

It seems to me differential temperatures and sperm viability are measurable, and a resultant hypothesis, (sperm survives better at a slightly lower temperature than normal internal body temperature in mammals) is quite testable.

Date: 2008/01/01 11:52:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.


I was responding to your claim:
Quote
As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.


My point is that undescended testes in mammals reduce fertility, and that hypothesis has been tested, so is not "untestable".

I was tempted to speculate about sex determination in crocodilians being temperature dependent, and that maybe the line via dinosaurs through to birds resulted in different problems and solutions to sperm stability, but, being a layman, I am not qualified to comment. I suspect research has been done, and if not, there is no reason why it could not be done.

Date: 2008/01/07 15:15:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
*delurks*

Not to make Rich a fibber, I closed comments at my blog because it was starting to accumulate spam. but if Guts feels he can dig himself out of his hole better at Languedoc Diary than this den of ebola spredn' church burn'n iniquity, I will dust off the furniture and open up for him.

PM me if I can be of service.

*undelurks*

Date: 2008/01/21 14:23:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Who's Jessica Alba?

Date: 2008/01/21 14:27:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Never mind. googled.

That was an interesting journey. Besson is somewhat under-rated.Anyone else enjoy The Big Blue?

Date: 2008/01/23 15:32:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
P.S. your new avatar makes me think you might be interested in a few more cats.


Thanks for the link, Bob. The subject is Ginger (how we struggled to come up with that). I have a few more photos (in the drier, in my wife's knicker drawer etc. ) but alas, Ginger is no more...

Date: 2008/03/01 07:28:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Unfortunately,Jeannot, it may be a while before VMartin can respond, as I heard there may have been problems over time spent on internet discussion forums in the workplace.

Added in edit: Mea culpa! VMartin is between home internet providers and is prohibited from using his work connection for personal blogging.

Date: 2008/03/04 06:00:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Tom wrote:
Quote
I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.


Great minds think alike!

Date: 2008/03/13 13:32:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2008,13:54)
I think I'm done here.

I'm just getting tired of arguing.

There's really no point to it anymore.  We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here.  Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things.  You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs.  I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING!  I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on.  Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

Farewell, Dan.

Glad you feel there was some benefit to your experience here.
I second JAM's point about NOMA. You should give "The Ancestor's Tale" a try too.

Best wishes
Alan

Date: 2008/03/14 04:08:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Yet the Australian aboriginals separated from the rest of mankind about 50 million years ago


???

I take it you meant "thousand", Bruce?

Date: 2008/03/18 09:06:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 18 2008,03:40)
As far as I remember KF is some sort of government official in some Caribbean government?

I wonder if the people who voted that government in know he refuses to take a position on the age of the earth? I wonder if the scientists who he claims to teach "how to teach science" know this?

Is there anyway we can let them know I wonder :)

Been lurking a little lately and following the "exchanges" between the ever patient and polite Jack Krebs and the ever pompous and vapidly pontificating Gordon Mullings aka Kairosfocus. On googling to confirm if Gordon was actually a government official, I came across Barbados Free Press, where I read      
Quote


BFP To Kairosfocus

Dear Kairosfocus:

Your volume of comments and the length of your comments are upsetting the normal mood of this blog.

When you post four or five new comments all at once we see nothing but you under the “new comments” column.

Readers are complaining, and these are not only the readers who disagree with your position. You are monopolizing the comments on only one issue.

While we appreciate your position on the threat of world islamist fascism, and we post such articles occasionally, your debates are turning this blog into something else.

We have therefore placed you on moderation, and will restrict your comments to two a day of short length. You are more than welcome to invite our readers to your own site -

- BUT THIS IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE.

Yours truly,

Robert
Link

Edit for alliteration.

Date: 2008/03/18 09:36:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
This caption describes Gordon as a "representative of the church community" on Montserrat in 2004. (Click on 5th photo along)

Date: 2008/03/21 10:12:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 20 2008,23:19)
Keep a look out for the 100 000th post - coming soon!

Will  there be a prize?

Say, a one-on-one debate with Kairosfocus, for instance?

Date: 2008/03/23 12:12:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   here pdf.


This paper is a work of history. I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something. Perhaps you can pick out something?

Date: 2008/03/26 04:01:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Martin,

I wrote:
Quote
I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something.


You replied:
Quote
I suspect you of very superficial reading the material.


This is true, but I was merely scanning for evidence of research and any alternative explanation of mimicry; I found none and asked you to point some out. There is nothing in your reply that answers my question.

I see that one or two other posters have expressed a similar interest in hearing your alternative explanation.

You complain:
Quote
It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts.


Well, if you want to hold on to the few that are still bothering to glance at your comments, perhaps you could try a new strategy of answering a simple question, for example:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

Date: 2008/03/27 11:26:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 27 2008,06:02)
Jack - I suspect you both you and Allen are fairly immune to bannination, because you've both been well behaved (I know.  Difficult, isn't it?), and also because you're seen as being movers and shakers in the whole ID-evolution debate.

Dave also seems to have done less banning recently.  There are a couple of sockpuppets who I'm sure he knows are sockpuppets, but he's allowed to remain posting at UD.  He could have banned them a couple of months ago.

He must be going soft in his old age.

Call yourself a scientist, O'Hara! Let's see some hypothesis testing. You post a comment telling Gordon just what you and everyone else thinks of him and we'll see if you get banninated. If, as you suggest, politeness  is a factor, you'll  be "no longer with us", or if Bill is right, you'll survive.

Date: 2008/03/30 16:22:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 30 2008,07:58)
Dave attempts design detection and fails.
   
Quote

Turner

Given that information I’d guess you are none other than Alan Fox.

Turner Coates might just be Turncoat, who mentioned his fleeting role in the Evo Info Lab and, thus, is clearly not Alan Fox.  Better knock the lint out of the Explanatory Filter.

Yes Dave, you thicko!

It's Tom English, again!

PS The phrase  
Quote
Dave, I can’t help but love you a bit sometimes.
has never flowed from my fingers whilst violating 2lot. And I loathe David Hagen with a passion, too!
And good luck to those sockpuppets who think it is worth the effort. Me, I'm sticking with the banned.

Date: 2008/04/01 07:16:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 30 2008,13:59)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 30 2008,16:22)
PS The phrase        
Quote
Dave, I can’t help but love you a bit sometimes.
has never flowed from my fingers whilst violating 2lot.

For a guy living in France, you aren't much of a romantic, are you?

I just never had a lover called Dave.

Date: 2008/04/05 08:59:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it.


Nonsense. Unpalatability/toxicity to vizually hunting predators (aposematism) is one explanation relying on selection. Or are you saying this is an implausible explanation?

Not making much headway here either, are you?

Date: 2008/04/11 13:12:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.


How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?

Date: 2008/04/11 13:35:58, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You have still to learn.


Agreed. So, teach me your alternative to variation followed by selection.

Date: 2008/04/11 15:25:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Such wit!. Brought tears to my eyes.

Date: 2008/04/11 15:38:03, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2008,09:45)
And finally, I suspected DaveTard was wrong, because.... he's Davetard.


Here it is:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-229841

Credit where credit's due.

Date: 2008/04/14 08:43:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Go Leo!

Date: 2008/04/14 08:43:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Oops! 'scuse dbl. post

Date: 2008/05/17 04:44:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 16 2008,22:56)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 16 2008,07:54)
Several of the comments in that thread have vanished. I have them saved, I will post them here in a little while.

Stuff dissappearing in UD? NEVER!

Meanwhile, Michael Egnorance wonders where some of Dr Novella's posts have vanished.

His blog posts are gone. Like they never even happened.

So I publicly ask Dr.Novella this question: what happened to your blog posts? A post on your blog NeuroLogica to answer this question would be helpful.


Oh my!

Couldn't have any connection with this, could it?

Nah! It has to be an evil darwinist conspiracy!

Edit: Oops, I just noticed the date. Never mind.

Date: 2008/05/18 04:25:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
@ Carlsonjock.

You're up early!  
Quote
I am pretty sure that one won't survive the day.


I thought the same and saved the whole page, as I thought it might become a 404. DLH gets huffy as his PhD is in engineering. I also was amused that Frost gets so indignant he loses the power of spelling.

Date: 2008/05/18 04:46:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I started to post here that Davetard, in his Jonathan Safarti ban, actually banned a guy with his own Wikipedia page, but then I discovered that Wesley, Paul Gross, Mark Perakh, Nick "Denzel" Matzke, PZ Myers, and probably other PTers have Wikipedia pages.


Well, I got a footnote :)

Date: 2008/05/18 07:17:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 18 2008,01:43)
It's a momentous occasion for Frost.
   
Quote (Frost122585 @ 05/18/2008, 2:41 am)

I also don’t have time to respond to all of your nonsensical statements above. I find your views completely redundant of the stupefying mainstream media and public at large. I wish we didn’t have your “balance” here at this site UD. I prefer 100% clear thinking to a perceived fair and balanced 50% clear thinking 50% liberal propaganda. I don’t care what you think of call that closed minded non democratic etc.- Man made global warming is not happening- it never has and it never will no matter how much you and you kind want to believe in it. The docs here in Baltimore city haven’t raised an inch in 100 years of CO2 emissions. Nor have they in New York or anywhere else. No will ever raise because of man. Global wamring is just a left wing idological political tool.- anyone non biased or with a an IQ over 115 can see this.




Frost has earned  a new honorarium: The Dohn A. Javison Cranky Crank Prize.  It's kind of like a Nobel, but not.

Hey, that's not entirely fair on John, Lou. He is a vehement critic of UD's climate change denialism. Scroll to see why I say "not entirely"!

Date: 2008/05/18 10:26:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Googling names on that UD GW denialism thread:

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Arthur B Robinson

(Funny how the Disco Institute name pops up)

Date: 2008/05/18 11:42:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dave asserts        
Quote
CO2 induced warming should be greater the higher in the troposphere you go but the increases are greatest at the surface.
Cite?    
Quote
It should be a global phenomenon but in fact is almost entirely limited to the northern hemisphere.
Cite?      
Quote
Oceans should be getting warmer but recent measurements by thousands of robotic diving thermometers show a slight cooling instead up to the depth limit of the instruments (300 meters).
Cite?

Excuse me, Dave, for preferring Realclimate  for unbiased information on climate change.

Edit: As for your assertion about the  ARGO project data, see here.

Date: 2008/05/19 12:41:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hey, Dave,

Didn't you follow my link:
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 18 2008,06:42)
Edit: As for your assertion about the  ARGO project data, see here.

From the paper:
 
Quote
Abstract.

Two significant instrument biases have been identified in the in situ profile data used to estimate globally integrated upper-ocean heat content. A large cold bias was discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats along with a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in expendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data. These biases appear to have caused the bulk of the upper-ocean cooling signal reported by Lyman et al.(2006) between 2003 and 2005. These systematic data errors are significantly larger than sampling errors in recent years, and are now the dominant sources of error in estimates of globally integrated upper-ocean heat content variability. The bias in the XBT data is found to be consistent with errors in the fall-rate equations, suggesting a physical explanation for that bias. With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2004 and 2006.

Date: 2008/05/19 13:02:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dave,

Tim Ball,  formerly with Friends of Science, seems to have links with the gas and oil lobby.

Date: 2008/05/19 13:25:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Tom Harris has a little history, too.

Date: 2008/05/19 13:32:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
To be serious for a moment, Dave states he has three kids and three grand-kids. Has he no concern for their future? Will somebody explain the downside of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Date: 2008/05/19 14:58:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2008,09:47)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....wi.html

   
Quote
Essential Readings: What's Darwin Got To Do With It?
What’s Darwin Got To Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution
By Robert C. Newman, and John L. Wiester with Janet Moneymaker and Jonathan Moneymaker
InterVarsity Press, 2000, 146 pages
ISBN: 0-8308-2249-6

Feeling primitive? Unevolved? Inorganic? Then try a bowl of Primordial Soup! What’s Darwin Got To Do With It? is an illustrated friendly conversation about evolution and what science can explain about life. Aimed at younger students, this comic-book style work helps students understand if finch beaks really prove Darwinism is true or if the encoded message in DNA implies an intelligent designer.

The book opens by helping students to understand important terminology. What does evolution mean? Some people say evolution just means change through time. But simple evidence of change does not necessarily mean that new phyla can emerge or new body structures can evolve. Thus, we have microevolution and macroevolution.

The book explains in illustrated form why intelligent design is the best explanation for life. When we see letters on a hillside spelling out “Welcome to Victoria,” we have a valid rationale to believe that that the letters were designed. Similarly, if a radio signal from outer space said “hello earthlings,” we would have good reason to infer design. But what about when we find an encoded sequence in our DNA which, using a complicated sequence of biochemical commands, creates miniature motors which resemble human-designed engines? This and other topics concerning intelligent design are presented in clear language with a wealth of illustrations.

This book is a must read for young students who are still learning the basics of science but want to understand evolution and design. As Phillip Johnson wrote when he reviewed the book, it’s “more fun than a barrel of Australopithecines.”

Ah! A Janet and John Moneymaker. how appropriate!

Date: 2008/05/20 03:36:26, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Are you sure it's a good idea to be so specific about your location?

Me, just over an hour's drive from Toulouse.

Date: 2008/05/20 11:42:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Louis @ May 20 2008,00:08)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 20 2008,09:36)
Are you sure it's a good idea to be so specific about your location?

Me, just over an hour's drive from Toulouse.

Do you occasionally go to watch the rugby Alan?

If so, you might get visited. Now this can be done the easy way....*

Only kidding of course.

Louis

*By the way, you don't have a predilection for guns, large greasy dogs, oversize pickups, cheesy poofs and all women except Inuits do you? ;-)

Confession time, I am not très  sportif. I did manage to take in a couple of world cup matches. There is a strong tradition of rugby à treize here, and my neighbour's nephew plays for Catalan Dragons, so I have been dragged to a couple of matches.

You'd have to come when my wife is away, she is a bit anti internet dating.

No to guns, dogs, pickups and cheesy poofs. What's wrong with Inuit women?

Date: 2008/05/20 12:11:51, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
The "guns dogs etc" was a reference to our friend Monsieur David "Tard" Scott Springer of UD fame and the fun Blipey has had with trying to pay the chap a visit. For the record, there's nothing wrong with Inuit women, it was yet another DaveTard reference.


Sorry, Louis. Sometimes my typing is too deadpan. I was doing my High court judge "who are the beatles?" impression.

Date: 2008/05/21 02:52:12, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Not faulting Allen, of course, but I would have taken the socratic approach.


I think Allen MacNeill (if his belief is that ID is scientifically vacuous and his aim is to convince UD (and Telic Thoughts for that matter) posters and lurkers of the fact) is wasting his time.

I know I've said this before but if all AtBC sockpuppets and anyone else* with such honourable intentions would stop holding a mirror up to the likes of UD regulars, I predict the thread content would quickly deteriorate to the level of the resident acolytes. Scientific ID is an ex-concept, and support may drift away more quickly without the stimulus of having to address or ignore awkwardly rational points.

*@ Bob O'H

Bob, I always enjoy your posts there, but I wonder if they don't regard you along with Mr MacNeill as their resident tame evilutionist.

Date: 2008/05/21 04:08:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
b) You cheated by fighting at tea time and weekends. No gentleman fights at tea time.


Well, you should have taken advantage of the two-hour French lunch-break. Too gentlemanly by half!

Date: 2008/05/21 04:25:35, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just to set light to the oil-soaked strawman of irrelevant nationalism, sights to see when you drop by:
The highest genuine bridge in the World. The biggest passenger plane in the World. The fastest train in the World.

Date: 2008/05/21 06:19:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
And besides, we were operating under a mad king called George, who could barely speak English, ignored his advisors and kept getting involved in overseas wars with woeful lack of preparation and no sort of sensible exit strategy vowing "never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans, and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal."

Thank God those days are past.


LOL

Date: 2008/05/21 08:27:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Yes, Blair has left office, but Brown isn't any better.


I thought the name George, and difficulty with language, suggested another national figure.

Date: 2008/05/21 12:22:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Could we organize a one-two week period wherein all sock puppets do not particiate at UD. Or even more radically, a complete no-peeky at UD for a one-two week period?

I know it would be hard for all you tard addicts, but think of how their traffic would fall!!!! Any other people curious to see this happen? I am


They haven't got the will power ???
and they dare not let us be proved right!

</goading>

Date: 2008/05/21 12:48:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2008,07:41)
 
Quote
Bob, I always enjoy your posts there, but I wonder if they don't regard you along with Mr MacNeill as their resident tame evilutionist.

Oh, I'm sure they do.  But I'm pretty much a nobody in evolutionary biology.

You're too modest, Bob; Patrick has certainly noticed you. Step carefully now ;)

Date: 2008/05/23 08:47:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Zachriel @ May 23 2008,03:18)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:53)
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  

Have you ever watched the pirouette of the Earth and Moon as they orbit the Sun? In the Platonic Realm, an ellipse is an ellipse. The Moon's orbit around the sun is not much of an ellipse, but more of dodecagon with rounded corners (and even then, the orbits don't line up).



If the Moon were pulled over and told to walk an ellipse, poor Luna would fail the sobriety test—again.

Well, obviously!

Date: 2008/05/23 09:18:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Louis @ May 23 2008,04:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 23 2008,11:31)
Half of everything is "opposite that Starbucks". The other half is "next to that Starbucks".

True true.

I'm reminded of Lewis Black's epic piece about the fact that he has discovered the end of the universe. I.e. that bit between two Starbucks facing each other on the same street.

Anyway, I'm off to Starbucks....

Louis

What's Starbucks?

Date: 2008/05/23 10:31:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Louis @ May 23 2008,05:02)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 23 2008,15:18)
   
Quote (Louis @ May 23 2008,04:16)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 23 2008,11:31)
Half of everything is "opposite that Starbucks". The other half is "next to that Starbucks".

True true.

I'm reminded of Lewis Black's epic piece about the fact that he has discovered the end of the universe. I.e. that bit between two Starbucks facing each other on the same street.

Anyway, I'm off to Starbucks....

Louis

What's Starbucks?

LOL Don't be mean just because you live in an apparently civilised country as opposed to an apparently uncivilised one, or one which, for some reason* is trying very hard to emulate an uncivilised one.

Louis

*Love the USA though I do, and I genuinely do love it and its people, I am constantly bemused by the "Special Relationship"**. I can only think it's because we, as a nation, are too lazy to learn French, and that the words "Entente Cordiale" sound to the Little Britainers like some kind of soft drink. We should stop mincing about, join Europe and get on with life. Doesn't mean that the USA can't play too (it needs to be more positively outward looking, by which I mean having a foreign policy beyond "They're foreign, bomb them". Learning from your own mistakes is clever, learning form the mistakes of others is genius. It's time we all shaped up, but can I hope just a little bit that the USA will learn from the imperialist cock ups of Europe?), it just means that we should strong forge links closer to home as well as across the Atlantic. I've always thought that the UK's future lies in Europe, mainly because they have better cafes, cuisine, women and mountains. ;-)

**Which seems to be the same as the relationship between a beaten trailer park wife and her abusive uneducated thug of a husband, as Marcus Brigstocke put so memorably.

Bloody hell you read a lot into my post. No really, what is Starbucks?

Anyway nobody noticed my other bit of meanness;

Edit to add that I forgot to add that I edited the URL, sorry.

Date: 2008/05/23 11:38:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (J-Dog @ May 23 2008,05:55)
I'm off to my son's baseball tournament in WI for the weekend, so you all have fun, play nice, and don't take any wooden creationists while I'm gone.

To all American's here - Have a good Memorial Day weekend. Hot Dogs and Beer!

Make sure to continue the fight to Keep Christ Out Of The Firecrackers and Hot Dogs.

All you god-less furiners here - back to work on Monday!  That's what you get for not being smart enough to be born  American.

PLAY BALL!

Have a nice time

You have no idea about days off. Here in France we have a quaint custom of faire le pont. If a jour férié (bank holiday) happens on a Tuesday or Thursday, everybody takes the extra day to make a long weekend. May, alone has three jours fériés, so that's a week for most people. Plus today I go to my tax office to claim a VAT refund, and find the fonctionnaires are all on strike, enjoying the sunshine in the town square while I am fuming 'cos I can't get my money.

Date: 2008/05/23 12:26:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 23 2008,06:56)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 23 2008,11:31)
Bloody hell you read a lot into my post. No really, what is Starbucks?

A coffee house chain that's based in (ahem) Seattle of all places.

The coffee's mediocre, the prices are outrageous, and it's the place to see and be seen by the mindless hordes of lemmings that wouldn't know good coffee if it bit them.

Most irritating of all, instead of ordering your coffee in small, medium, or large, it crashes right through the stupid and pretentious barrier by labeling its sizes as "tall, venti, and grande" (or maybe vice versa on the last two, I forget).

Thanks Lou. Can't seem to get a straight answer out of Louis; He's rambling on about beatles now, God help him.

Date: 2008/05/24 04:43:20, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
DaveScot

05/24/2008

4:04 am

ATBC

First of all, I’m expelled from ATBC so save your silly platitudes about me talking at you from here. Glad to do it there. Just get Wesley to unblock me.

Secondly, all the shouts about me linking to a retracted report on global ocean temp decline is unfounded. The study, then the correction, were done in 2006. I linked to a 2008 magazine report that quoted that described the project and quoted a lead investigator. The quote did not contradict anything I wrote. Global ocean temps declined slightly from 2002 to 2007. Deal with it. You can call it insignificant all day long but that doesn’t counter the claim - ocean temps DID decline. They didn’t stay the same, they didn’t rise, they declined. Rationalize it, explain it, just don’t deny it.
link

Not to speak for Wesley, Dave, but I don't think he has forgiven your threat to hack PT. If you want to engage directly with a wider public than at UD, this can easily be arranged via a new ad hoc venue. Email me, if you like.

alanfox.frATgmail.com

Date: 2008/05/25 01:17:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Who's the Coronation Street fan, I wonder?

Date: 2008/05/25 02:48:43, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Hi, I'm anonymous. Oh bugger, that was a bit of a give-away.

Date: 2008/05/25 03:22:02, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Can we expect comments from Ms Sharples soon?

Date: 2008/05/25 03:30:07, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Still a problem with new posts showing up on the UD thread. A post I entered disappeared into the ether, and the topic list showed Rich had posted something but I tried posting after him to see what happened and there's no trace of his post. (Please feel free to delete my test post). The old workaround of adding 30 to the page count no longer seems to work.

RB doesn't make stuff up

Date: 2008/05/25 08:52:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 24 2008,23:25)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 25 2008,03:22)
Can we expect comments from Ms Sharples soon?

I think you mean Sheena Arples.  :D

Indeed, and I think the reference to the coalfields of Grange-over-Sands brings much credibility to Ms Riley's comment.

Date: 2008/05/25 15:14:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2008,09:52)
I thought ARN had a discussion forum but when I went there:

http://www.arn.org/boards/

I get a 404.

You had a lucky escape! Try reading anything by fundamentalist flooring contractor, Frank Cox

ETA: not that I mean to imply that there is anything fundamentally wrong with flooring contractors in general.

Date: 2008/05/25 15:19:36, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I wonder if M Caldwell is an acquaintance of Ms Arples :)

Date: 2008/05/25 15:34:22, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 25 2008,09:18)
Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2008,12:12)
Given how ill-tempered Davescot is, you can bet that Dembski is now worried that Dave will get revenge by leaking all the listserve messages he received. I would be worried too. Dave strikes me as no stranger to spite.

I think Bill cuts Dave as much slack as he does because he knows he's a lot safer with Dave inside the big tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.

Yeah, look how Dave turned nasty on JAD after they fell out. Sycophant to psychopath in very short order.

Date: 2008/05/25 18:48:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
The sanctimonious David L Hagen starts another global warming denialism thread, featuring pronouncements by S Fred Singer who is with Natural Resources Stewardship Project along with Tim Ball. Small world, isn't it?

ETA Link

Date: 2008/05/27 17:12:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Aren't we all being a bit premature? This could just be another  bit of "Street Theatre".

Happy days!

Date: 2008/05/28 01:21:27, Link
Author: Alan Fox
He's back!

Hi Dave, you old rogue, speculation about your departure was indeed premature!

Date: 2008/05/28 02:04:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Did you read to the whole of Dyson's review, Dave? As you posted an excerpt without comment, I wonder what you think of this bit that you quoted?

     
Quote
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.*


Looks like Dyson might be suggesting Pascal's wager, too :)

*cue RTH diagram*

Edit: *my emphasis

Date: 2008/05/28 04:07:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
1] GIGO — no computer simulation is equivalent to reality. None is any better than its input data, algorithms and underlying assumptions [not to mention error propagation etc etc etc]


Gordon says something sensible

Careful Gordon. Dembski and Marks might not appreciate that remark.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:29:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:29:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:42:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

Date: 2008/07/06 05:42:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

Date: 2008/07/06 05:45:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position.


He's not the only one that is completely ignorant of your position. I freely admit it. What is your position? If you don't want to restate it, perhaps you have a link that says more than ... is competely ignorant and ...sucks.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:45:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position.


He's not the only one that is completely ignorant of your position. I freely admit it. What is your position? If you don't want to restate it, perhaps you have a link that says more than ... is competely ignorant and ...sucks.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:48:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
Joseph Heller would have been proud :D

Date: 2008/07/06 05:48:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
Joseph Heller would have been proud :D

Date: 2008/07/06 06:07:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Please, please, please, Guts,

State your position.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:07:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Please, please, please, Guts,

State your position.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:24:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

Date: 2008/07/06 06:24:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

Date: 2008/07/06 06:32:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.


No need to write a book, surely? Just try a post with an example, starting with something like "my position on (fill in with subject of choice here) is..."

Date: 2008/07/06 06:32:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.


No need to write a book, surely? Just try a post with an example, starting with something like "my position on (fill in with subject of choice here) is..."

Date: 2008/07/06 06:45:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.
This thread was started as a commentary on the general doings at TT, as the traffic had slowed at UD, and some people find it interesting to observe what goes on at TT. So it is not about you or your position, although your moderating behaviour has been examined. But noöne is wanting to prevent you from demonstrating your superior intellect. We will welcome your contribution, as soon as we know what it is.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:45:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.
This thread was started as a commentary on the general doings at TT, as the traffic had slowed at UD, and some people find it interesting to observe what goes on at TT. So it is not about you or your position, although your moderating behaviour has been examined. But noöne is wanting to prevent you from demonstrating your superior intellect. We will welcome your contribution, as soon as we know what it is.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:47:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here


So, provide a link to your best work.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:47:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here


So, provide a link to your best work.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:57:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.


If I do as you say, I get this which appears to just tell me your email. It lists thread titles from all contributors, but that is not very helpful. You must know the title of a thread post or two that you are proud of, surely?

Date: 2008/07/06 06:57:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.


If I do as you say, I get this which appears to just tell me your email. It lists thread titles from all contributors, but that is not very helpful. You must know the title of a thread post or two that you are proud of, surely?

Date: 2008/07/06 07:16:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,01:59)
Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit

Thanks for explaining :)

I have skimmed through the list and, frankly, there is not much substantive content from you, rather than lifting quotes from others. I will lift something from the list if you want, but generally someone such as Zachriel or Nick Matzke seem to have dealt adequately with your position. I can't believe you don't have a favourite thread where your debating skills are particulary well-demonstrated.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:16:32, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,01:59)
Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit

Thanks for explaining :)

I have skimmed through the list and, frankly, there is not much substantive content from you, rather than lifting quotes from others. I will lift something from the list if you want, but generally someone such as Zachriel or Nick Matzke seem to have dealt adequately with your position. I can't believe you don't have a favourite thread where your debating skills are particulary well-demonstrated.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:27:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:19)
Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.

It seems to me that if you want to fulfill your challenge, you would be the best person to provide material, as, presumably, you know where to look. I never offered to debate you, and I claim no special knowledge, other than BS biochemistry of many years ago.

So, I claim that I can find no substantive, unrefuted defence of Intelligent design as a worthwhile scientific pursuit anywhere at Telic Thoughts in your own words.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. (Preferably with cites.)

Date: 2008/07/06 07:27:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:19)
Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.

It seems to me that if you want to fulfill your challenge, you would be the best person to provide material, as, presumably, you know where to look. I never offered to debate you, and I claim no special knowledge, other than BS biochemistry of many years ago.

So, I claim that I can find no substantive, unrefuted defence of Intelligent design as a worthwhile scientific pursuit anywhere at Telic Thoughts in your own words.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. (Preferably with cites.)

Date: 2008/07/06 07:30:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
In fact no one has asked me for my position
Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?

Date: 2008/07/06 07:30:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
In fact no one has asked me for my position
Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?

Date: 2008/07/06 07:36:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
Is there one that makes some claim supporting Intelligent Design that you could link to?

Date: 2008/07/06 07:36:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
Is there one that makes some claim supporting Intelligent Design that you could link to?

Date: 2008/07/06 07:48:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:38)
From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?

I further suggest that there is no thread topic on TT written by you that (randomly or otherwise) effectively undermines evolutionary theory, or, indeed, produces any evidence that Intelligent Design is more than a philosophical concept.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:48:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:38)
From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?

I further suggest that there is no thread topic on TT written by you that (randomly or otherwise) effectively undermines evolutionary theory, or, indeed, produces any evidence that Intelligent Design is more than a philosophical concept.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:49:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.

Name one, Nelson, or link to it.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:49:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.

Name one, Nelson, or link to it.

Date: 2008/07/06 08:06:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,02:53)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (Nelson Alonso).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.

Thanks, the problem is there's a demonstration of Camargais bullfighting (the bull survives, some human participants may not!) in the local town just starting, and i did rather want to see it.

@Guts,

When you decide to enlighten us with an example of your best work, let me know.

Date: 2008/07/06 08:06:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,02:53)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (Nelson Alonso).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.

Thanks, the problem is there's a demonstration of Camargais bullfighting (the bull survives, some human participants may not!) in the local town just starting, and i did rather want to see it.

@Guts,

When you decide to enlighten us with an example of your best work, let me know.

Date: 2008/07/18 09:43:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Dr Heddle gets banned/barred from Joy's All-Science thread for telling it like it is:  
Quote
Nice post you have here. Is this the high-road we can expect from a post-Mike TT?


I fear so, David, I fear so.

link

Date: 2008/07/18 09:51:54, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Which means I'm going to have to wait longer for my richly deserved apology I suppose.


It may just be an oversight ??? Nobody's perfect.

Date: 2008/07/18 10:41:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I don't dispute a) or b), but I would like a link to an example of c) :D. I am experiencing a slight feeling of déjà-vu with Lenny and his reluctance to admit the possibility of an error. I also wonder whether Gary actually realises there is an outstanding issue. So, don't lose any sleep over it. I put Gary in the same folder as John Kwok.

Date: 2008/07/18 11:20:28, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, the whole thread's disappeared now, Albatrossity, so I can't cite the evidence and thus will have to retract.

I did toy with the idea of copying it, and then I thought there wasn't much worth saving, so I didn't bother. Sorry.

Date: 2008/07/18 11:49:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Bugger; you left me without a figleaf.

Date: 2008/07/18 11:54:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I see we have another contributor from Weatherfield ;)
link

Date: 2008/07/19 05:03:25, Link
Author: Alan Fox


Found a couple of months ago (dead or dormant) under the edge of a pool cover. The larger one was about 80mm or 3" long. Could they be some kind of moth larva?

The friend who found them just reminded me I said I had an idea where I could get some info. on a science site bursting with eminent academics.

Date: 2008/07/19 11:12:15, Link
Author: Alan Fox


Thanks for your suggestions, Dave. It does look very similar to the image above, described as Larva of Chrysoperla carnea or perhaps C. mediterranea feeding on an aphid. But there does seem to be a difference in scale as the thing I saw was about 70 - 80mm long, while the C. mediterranea in the Wiki photo must be smaller unless it is eating a giant aphid.

Date: 2008/07/23 12:01:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 19 2008,07:24)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 19 2008,05:03)


Found a couple of months ago (dead or dormant) under the edge of a pool cover. The larger one was about 80mm or 3" long. Could they be some kind of moth larva?

The friend who found them just reminded me I said I had an idea where I could get some info. on a science site bursting with eminent academics.

i don't think they are aquatic, and they are definitely not megaloptera (dobsonflies or their ilk).

i'd say probably a beetle larvae but my inordinate fondness for beetles does not cover the terrestrial forms.  the size tends to rule out Neuroptera.  there are some structural differences between the first pic and the lacewing larvae, or whatever it was that was a few posts below.

are their fleshy prolegs along the abdomen?  what does the posterior end of the abdomen look like?  hooks?

Hi Erasmus

Only just spotted your reply, for which many thanks. You are right in that they are not aquatic. If they had come from the pool they would have been bleached. Also I don't think we get dobsonflies or fishflies in Europe.

I am sorry to report that my friend did not keep the specimens, so I can only report what I remember from looking at them around Easter. I saw six walking legs towards the front of the body, don't remember obvious prolegs or abdominal hooks.

I'll try googling coleopteran larvae.

Date: 2008/07/27 10:06:53, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 27 2008,04:56)
 
Quote (Louis @ July 26 2008,17:13)
You guys call it ding-dong ditch too? Nice. "Knock down ginger" was the prefered nomenclature when I were a lad, but the other was known also.

I think we mostly called it "Ring and Run" when I was a kid, though "Ding Dong Ditch" was something I heard, too.

You young shavers are all too young to remember the pre-electronic age. "Ring and run" indeed! It was "knock and run" in my day.

Date: 2008/07/27 10:13:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks Nuytsia.

There is an abandoned orchard next to my friend's property which is carpeted in dead and decomposing wood, and lycid beetles seem quite evident around. But they tend to be on a much smaller scale, perhaps 20mm. What scale are the larvae in your photos? They do seem very similar in general appearance.

Date: 2008/07/27 10:21:17, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2008,04:44)
Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,09:58)
F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

Maya, your demise was sorely in need of memorialificationating. But that's been remedied.

Belated congrats to Maya. The thread is well worth a re-read as an encapsulation of the moral degeneracy of UD.

Date: 2008/07/28 11:29:11, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 28 2008,05:45)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2008,11:03)
Shamone, Bob.

Are there any scientists left at UD? Can't have the readership have their heads filled with silly "facts".

I think they still let Allen Macneill post.

I seem to recall Allen MacNeill saying he was going into self-imposed exile from UD, because of their moderation policy, connected with this thread.

Date: 2008/07/28 11:39:42, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 28 2008,06:32)
Oh, I've just realised: I can finally use this:


It's the one thing I've been missing out on over here.

Bob,

I am sorry to say this may have been my fault as I was thinking of repeating my suggestion of a boycott of UD to highlght the dearth of new ideas by the remaining pro ID clique.

It seems I am to get my wish courtesy of UD moderators.

Date: 2008/07/28 13:57:31, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
So what's Wildman Javison up to these days? I don't hear anywhere near as much from the nutty old fart as I used to. I assume he still loves it so, and that the invitation to kiss his ass to a purple blister still stands?


Assuming for the sake of argument this is a serious question, John still has his latest blog here. Note that he has progressed from the single-endless-thread format to the new, improved several-parallel-endless-threads format. He has also managed to goad a couple of responses from Springer over at ISCID, and accrued a few more bannings from several other websites. Not bad for an eighty-year-old.

Date: 2008/07/28 14:43:21, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,09:11)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 28 2008,11:57)
   
Quote
So what's Wildman Javison up to these days? I don't hear anywhere near as much from the nutty old fart as I used to. I assume he still loves it so, and that the invitation to kiss his ass to a purple blister still stands?


Assuming for the sake of argument this is a serious question, John still has his latest blog here. Note that he has progressed from the single-endless-thread format to the new, improved several-parallel-endless-threads format. He has also managed to goad a couple of responses from Springer over at ISCID, and accrued a few more bannings from several other websites. Not bad for an eighty-year-old.

Well, as serious as anything having to do with Javison can be...

I see that most of his comments are from himself, and that VMartin is still his special friend.

Does he still call you Falan Ox?

Hey, never heard about this before (I know, it was probably discussed here):

   
Quote
John A Davison said, on February 21, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Speaking of selective banishment, my papers have been restored on the side bar at Uncommon Descent, but I am still unable to comment freely there or defend them in any way. I have no password.

I recently received an email from David Springer inviting me to participate at Uncommon Descent but with the following qualifications. David Springer has created a “contibutor membership” in my name. I was intrigued by this and soon found out that the “devil is in the details.”

Springer explains - “As a contributor you can write articles under your own name and manage the comments. Any articles you write are saved as draft copies. An administrator has to approve the draft for publishing. If you want to write articles email me to get your drafts published. As long as it’s about science and isn’t offensive to evangelicals it’ll get published. A notable exception is the global warming topic. Dembski and I both believe it’s based on consensus science and I think you will agree science is not a democracy where the truth is determined by a majority…”

Without going further into the details, Springer indicated that if I did not comply he would remove my papers from the side bar.

 
Quote
Does he still call you Falan Ox?

Not to my face. Actually if we avoid the PEH, we do have some common ground. We both think climate change is a real phenomenon and David Springer is not a very nice person.

Regarding the dealings with Springer, I think Dave would like John to rejoin the ID fold, if only he would  behave with a bit more decorum. John, to his credit, will have nothing to do with Springer. Unfortunately John has been seduced, so to speak, by that Canadian siren and extraordinary wordsmith, Denyse O'Leary. See Overwhelming Evidence.

Date: 2008/07/28 17:36:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 28 2008,12:13)
GilDigan is amazed that Fox News would publish OOL "nonsense". Heck, Fox has a whole Evolution and Paleontology site! Three cheers for our fact based network!

ps - how do I link directly to a UD comment, like all the cool kids?

Here's an example.

I wonder how many geneticists will answer the call?

Date: 2008/07/28 17:46:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
All this current preoccupation with birthdays is understandable as there is absolutely nothing new emerging from planet ID. However, could it not be arranged that wedding anniversaries and wife/girfriend's birthday were logged instead. It would have saved me a lot of grief today, for instance.

Date: 2008/07/28 18:02:59, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,13:00)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 28 2008,15:46)
All this current preoccupation with birthdays is understandable as there is absolutely nothing new emerging from planet ID. However, could it not be arranged that wedding anniversaries and wife/girfriend's birthday were logged instead. It would have saved me a lot of grief today, for instance.

What, today's your wife's birthday but you thought it was really your girlfriend's?

Of course not! What do you take me for. And my mistress is only there to help improve my French.

Date: 2008/07/29 13:29:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox

The nearest I have got to a wild griffon vulture while hiking in the Cerdagne last month. There was a group of about half a dozen that seemed to come and check us out for a few minutes before moving on. Best I could do with a basic  digital.

Date: 2008/07/30 01:22:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
FYI.  I appear to have been silently banned at UD, or at least moderated into non-participation.
Jack, it's not the content, it's the abusive and repetitively boring nature of your posts that is at fault, here. Had you but attempted to adopt a more civil tone, then I am sure your comments would be getting through. :p

Date: 2008/08/04 12:42:13, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
RogerRabbitt Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 5:39 am

steve says:  
Quote


Who's the designer? I'm not supposed to say. When was the design implemented? I'm not supposed to say. What's the purpose of the design? I'm not supposed to say.


I guess I never got that memo. Do you have a copy you could share with us?



Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 4, 2008 @ 5:39 am    
Quote
David Heddle Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am

RogerRabbitt
   
Quote

I guess I never got that memo. Do you have a copy you could share with us


I can help there. I got the memo. It was when I was still in the good graces of the IDers. I raised the issue of the scientific evidence for an old earth. While ID has a Brobdingnagian tent including YECs, OECs, a smattering of self-described atheists some of whom are likely sockpuppets, Christians, Moonies, as well as “Transparadigmantic” and “Noetic” Scientists, it has a nano-tent when it comes to discussing science. In particular, the age of the earth is off the table—I was told so by the big cheese himself. The ostensible reason was that the age of the earth is not relevant for ID. That explanation is as bizarre as a Mary K. Olsen fan club. There can hardly be an issue more relevant for ID. If the scientific evidence confirms a young earth, then ID wins hands down. Dawkins himself would attend midnight Mass on the day science demonstrated that the earth was only thousands of years old—virtually everyone would accept design. So the scientific evidence for the age of the earth can hardly be irrelevant for ID. The real reason for the nano-tent? Well, I reckon you don’t have to be Federico Fellini to figure it out.


Comment by David Heddle — August 4, 2008 @ 10:00 am


Just in case. BTW who's the big cheese, David?

(link added in edit)

Date: 2008/08/05 04:22:39, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Who, Mullings or Springer?


Mullings, surely. He strikes me as having a sort of Tourettes syndrome of the fingers.

Date: 2008/08/05 15:18:14, Link
Author: Alan Fox
John has a visit from a new poster.

Date: 2008/08/17 09:41:41, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2008,19:56)
 
Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 16 2008,15:19)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2008,03:20)
I think GCUGreyArea is arguing that wheels are irreducibly complex, so couldn't evolve.  Oh the irony.

Where are you seeing references to IC?

As far as I can see, he is only talking about the simple practicality of wheels as biological components. In other words, he's not addressing the feasibility of evolutionary paths to wheels, he's addressing the feasibility of wheels themselves. Even then, he specifically points out that he does not claim that they are impossible.

He doesn't formally say it, but he's talking about the sorts of difficulties in making a wheel, showing how hard it would be to get there.  Dave's responding by saying that wheels are less fit, the naughty evolutionist.

You're not going to win this argument, you know.  If you continue I'll demand you explain every step of the path of evolution of a wheel, including selection coefficients for all intermediates.  If you still want to go on, I'll claim a wheel would exhibit CSI.

So can we say that since no multicellular organism has evolved a wheel this is evidence that irreducibly complex things can't evolve? So, if it evolved, it ain't irreducibly complex. Challenge to IDers! find an organism with a wheel!

(There's a flaw here somewhere, isn't there? I'll get me coat)

Date: 2008/08/17 14:46:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 17 2008,09:13)
Suddenly I'm getting a serious case of nerves about school starting tomorrow.

8 AM, my very first Bio class since 9th or 10th grade (1983ish?).

Very best of luck, Lou, though I am sure you will not need it.

Date: 2008/08/17 18:05:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:      
Quote
   
Quote
It isn't that interesting, but I felt Joy and I did fairly well and there was even a little evidence of some independent thinking being provoked (see midwifetoad's questions to Oleg).

     
Quote
Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.

So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

link

Date: 2008/08/18 16:06:10, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2008,03:59)
I'm liking this wheel thing:

From an engineering / intelligence perspective (DT is an expert on niether) it does seem an easy concept to understand and create - yet we see none in nature. What was the designer not thinking about?

This is a good IC / Design refutation because we see none yet we can all understand the utility of them.

Well, it works for me. What do you have to say, Professor Behe? No wheels in nature, so evolution is true!!!!!!1111

ETA: and embryology too (in case anyone thought I had overlooked the difficulty of growing a wheel)

Date: 2008/08/22 18:27:38, Link
Author: Alan Fox
I thought I could add some caustic comment, but it really isn't needed. However, Dave, you are a complete and utter waste of space.

Date: 2008/08/30 07:03:33, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Louis (and other non-colonials tempted to insert their 2 cents)

Look what can happen :O

Date: 2008/09/02 08:19:01, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,13:02)
Of course, the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms.

Wow.

*takes own advice and refrains from further comment*

Date: 2008/09/04 04:28:44, Link
Author: Alan Fox
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2008,23:11)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2008,03:52)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,19:43)
I hope she leads better than she names kids.
Trig and trix and boff and spug or whatever...

To my amazement I have yet to see a Brit make a lewd joke about Palin's daughter being named 'Bristol'. Could either you or Louis take care of this once and for all?

I AM NOT YOUR DANCING MONKEY!!!!!!!!oneelevenshiftone!!!

I am, on the other hand, quite staggeringly hungover. Partying on a school night is a bad idea....unless you have a day off! Hurrah!

So, you wanted some Benny Hill-esque joke about some young pregnant kid* being called Bristol eh? Young girl, Bristol....hmmmm....Bristol.....Bristol City.....girl.....girls have boobs....Bristol City might rhyme with some euphemism for boob.....hmmmmmm....it's a toughie.

No, sorry Arden, can't think of anything.

Louis

*I know it's all culturally dependant but over here, where the age of consent is 16, a 17 year old girl being pregnant is a sign of remarkable restraint on her part! 17's a bit young, but not unheard of by any means. It's quite funny to see the differences. The news we get from the USA is that this girl is being used as the "silly sex having teen" in the debate over abortion/sexual freedoms/sex ed etc, whereas the view in the UK seems to be "she kept her legs together until she was 17? The girl is practically a nun!". The American media on both sides of the fence are using this kid as a political playing piece, and the "shock" at her youthful sexual shennanigans is mirrored across the divide. The British media are just trying to get the video rights to the birth....

Reminds me of a true story (well, it's true this guy told it to me at least). A former acquaintance once owned a couple of this make of classic car (he later went bankrupt). His wife was cutting the front lawn one day, and the garage was open. A passer-by asked her:

"Excuse me, do you mind if I take a look at your Bristols?"

Date: 2008/09/05 17:56:45, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But Jack seems to be able to keep this up indefinitely.
I am not sure this is entirely up to Jack Krebs' transparent decency. I think Dave Springer likes to retain a "pet" evo. Bob O'Hara also led a charmed life for a while, but, in the end, unpalatable truths, including flaunting your own good nature in the face of such... unadulterated tard* will eventually get you banned.

*please excuse unfamiliarity with foreign terms :)

Date: 2008/09/05 18:46:56, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Guess again - Jack Krebs banination!


Waddyamean! I was saying Jack's days were limited just like Bob's turned out to be. I claim victory!!!!1111.

Date: 2008/09/05 18:51:09, Link
Author: Alan Fox
And I predict Larry's days at UD are numbered too!

Date: 2008/09/05 20:31:24, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
This is because richardthughes is really an embodied alien telic entity somewhat resembling a giant brain that moves about the galaxies in his living spaceship that is *really* only an extension of his mind...as indeed all things are.


Rubbish! He's just a very naughty boy!

Date: 2008/09/07 04:46:37, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Belated Happy Birthday, Rich. Sorry to see you go. Surely you could still manage to log in occasionally!

Date: 2008/09/07 11:32:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
I get a little obsessive sometimes about liking to discuss things with people who disagree with me: not only have I spent way too much time at UD lately, but I keep getting sucked in (it's my own fault) to further conversation despite my vows to myself to quit.
Boy, does this feel familiar.      
Quote
I'm off to do more productive things with my life.
This sounds like damn good advice. In the three years I have been following ID, there has only been an inexorable slide into obscurity. That is not going to change. I think a lot of us should consider taking Jack's advice and try being a little less obsessive about the failed political strategy of ID. A "watchful waiting" strategy, perhaps, with a rota?

Also having no real substance to criticise any more* seems to make people irritable.

*Tootsie line "Were you ever famous?"

Date: 2008/10/11 17:34:16, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
Hiding the swear word is WORSE than actually swearing. Not only are you swearing (which some, not I, consider to be an issue), a linguistic choice you apparently think could be deemed offensive, but you are trying to disguise the fact (poorly) which, even if the word doesn't offend, is guaranteed to offend by patronising the reader.
Swearing is supposed to be offensive. Also it enables one to one to be almost incoherently speechless with rage and still say something. Which is why I do not understand why "fuck" et alis need to appear in print at all, except as dialogue.

Date: 2008/10/11 18:08:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 11 2008,12:23)
 
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 10 2008,13:44)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 10 2008,10:27)
My prediction is based on a God of infinite knowledge.

And hence, your "prediction" is not actually a prediction at all.

In your theory, what kind of universe couldn't be created by God ?

One in which origins were easily explainable by humans.

Hi Dan

You should link to your blog.

Date: 2008/10/29 10:01:05, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
No, it doesn't, it works fine. Probably because you're sposta marinate the whole thing in the fridge. Or maybe some weird chemicals in the spices prevent it.


It does work fine. You add the yoghourt before adding other liquid or stock, and in smallish dollops, stirring it in to the mix while heating it. You can then add water, stock or tomatoes to obtain the required consistency, and reduce back to required thickness if you add too much liquid. Creamed coconut (I guess this is available in the US) is also a good thickener in the appropriate curry. You can also make real coconut milk by grating the fresh flesh and extracting using boiling water. It thickens and tastes great but is a bit fiddly!

No need to thank me. Just answer the following:

We have a group called the "country club", where we have dinner at someone's house based on the cuisine of a country selected at random from a hat. This month it is the US . Does anyone have a recipe for an interesting or unusual US dish with which I could astonish* my friends?

*preferably in a good way.

Date: 2008/10/29 10:58:34, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Thanks, Arden.

I googled and found a recipe for scrapple. A couple of things make me wonder. It appears to be normally served at breakfast, and the last line of the recipe I read says:
Quote
It is in-arguably and unfathomably vile.

Date: 2008/10/29 11:07:47, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Carlson

Chicken-fried steak sounds a bit like Wiener Schnitzel using beef instead of veal. Do you recommend it?

Date: 2008/10/29 11:44:46, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote
But, you probably don't have a smoker
True
Quote
...and can you even get okra over there in the old country?
Sure

Date: 2008/10/30 10:16:52, Link
Author: Alan Fox
OK we're going with the smoked ribs and she-devil mopping sauce. So as not to offend Arden and his mum over the scrapple, we are looking at his suggestion for a corn-based accompaniment.

PS to Steve.

Try:

Clarified butter (melt and pour clear liquid off milky residue). Use liquid, discard residue. Fry chicken and  plenty of  sliced onion gently in the butter, add fresh garlic, then dry spices (try mixing your own selection). Add yoghourt in spoonfuls, stirring to prevent separating, then add tomatoes. Even better, save tomatoes from the garden, cook down with a little onion and garlic, blend and bottle up and use when necessary.

Date: 2008/10/30 10:41:19, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 30 2008,05:20)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 30 2008,10:16)
OK we're going with the smoked ribs and she-devil mopping sauce.

Sweet. Pork ribs, I am assuming?  Did you locate a smoker?

Pork, indeed.

We have a hooded gas-fired barbecue and we can add some wood chips. I will experiment with a small sample, I think.

Date: 2008/10/31 16:16:30, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Just road-tested the chicken curry recipe with ghee, fresh garlic and chili, spice mix and yoghourt. Quite nice really*.

*fuckin' awesome in colonial speak.

Date: 2008/11/03 04:59:00, Link
Author: Alan Fox
We had:

Pumpkin soup, sourdough bread, crabcakes, ribs, meatloaf, boston baked beans, coleslaw, fried sprouts? (tasted OK), corn biscuits, cheesecake, apple pie.

Apple wood seemed to work OK, Carlson.

Success? Yes! Do it again? Not for a while! Nobody managed to buy any US wine, by the way; not a bottle to be found on any supermarket shelf.

Date: 2008/11/05 03:03:40, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Well, that's a relief!!!

Date: 2008/11/05 08:19:57, Link
Author: Alan Fox
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 05 2008,00:45)
  <
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2008,02:05)
UD used to be like a bright shiny toyland where we would run amok and giggle and play with all the new toys. Now it's becoming like that toystore in the mall that people used to go to, like 15 years ago, and it's all small and dimly lit and few people really think of going there.

It's not yet time to stop all the clocks, and cut off the telephone, like the man said, but I'm starting to worry that we're getting there.