AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: gregonomic

form_srcid: gregonomic

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: gregonomic

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'gregonomic%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/12/04 13:34:29, Link
Author: gregonomic
In the interests of keeping the "Salvador Cordova vs. Lenny Flank" thread free of comments from those not directly involved in the "debate", I thought I'd start a thread where others can leave comments.

Sadly, it already looks like it's going to be a bust. SC's first question (after much chest-puffing) to the good "Rev Dr" is "State the laws of physics from which Darwinian evolution can be derived". Clearly this is not going to be a rational discussion.

Date: 2005/12/04 16:37:27, Link
Author: gregonomic
Yeah, I think you're right Lenny. That doesn't sound like the real Sal Cordova - too manic. Another parody, perhaps?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank says:
By the way, why do all the nutters (everybody from the New Age wackos to the flying saucer kooks) always want to blither on and on about quantum mechanics?

Because they don't understand the biology behind evolution? And they want to move the fight to their own turf?

Date: 2005/12/06 02:21:00, Link
Author: gregonomic
Yikes. The poor guy has definitely lost it.

Is there any way we can draw the attention of the IDiots to that thread? Oh ... wait ... they'd probably declare him the victor.

Oh well, if there's one good thing to come out of this, it's that I don't need to bother reading anything Sal writes ever again.

Date: 2005/12/06 18:09:22, Link
Author: gregonomic
First question: do you live in Kansas?

Date: 2005/12/06 18:25:32, Link
Author: gregonomic
Ghost says:
Has Mr. Flank ever given any specific criteria on what constitutes an answer to any of his questions?

Well, unless you're even more of a newcomer than I am, you'd know that we've been waiting a LONG time for Sal to answer these questions. And he's had a LONG time to think of coherent answers. When he finally turns up and spouts the same old obtuse nonsense (actually, it's even more obtuse and nonsensical than usual), what is Lenny supposed to do?

BTW, does Sal really believe he's got the upper hand just because he has a college degree? I mean, really? I have degrees coming out of my yin-yang, and I can tell that Lenny is far more intelligent than Sal and me put together.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:29:01, Link
Author: gregonomic
I think we've got a pretty good idea where Heddle lies on the fundie scale.

He has admitted that he thinks the Bible was divinely inspired and is factually inerrant, so we can take that to mean that he accepts the miracles contained therein. Anyone who accepts miracles for an explanation of anything is pretty high on the fundie scale, IMO.

He strikes me as someone who is very fundie deep down, but who doesn't want to make it obvious because he knows it's not cool, and how damaging it would be to all of his arguments. He's obviously doing a good job of keeping a few people guessing.

In summary: he's not Carol-Clouser-fundie, but he's in that same ball park. I give him 8 burning bushes out of a possible 10.

Date: 2006/01/11 14:56:24, Link
Author: gregonomic
However, that does not answer the question of whether he accepts miracles to be within the purview of science itself, as Carol genuinely appears to.

Oh, I don't think either of them actually believe that. Carol has admitted that she believes the miracles in the Bible actually occurred, but she firmly stated that they couldn't be refuted using science (see here).

Heddle always ignores questions about miracles, which, again, I take as an admission that he believes them (but doesn't want us to know he believes them, because of how foolish it will make him look). But I don't think even he would try to argue that miracles are scientifically testable, so I'm guessing he's in the same boat as Carol.

Aureola Nominee nailed them on that one though - he/she basically forced them to admit that they can't maintain their claim that "the Bible is perfectly compatible with science" without fencing off significantly large portions of the Bible as science no-go zones.

Date: 2006/01/11 17:56:17, Link
Author: gregonomic

Yeah, I'm relatively new around here, but I did see Carol's "elephant in the room" posts. Clearly, in the light of her most recent posts, those earlier posts were disingenuous (to say the least) - her real motives are well and truly on the table now.

The point I was getting at in the link (to comment #69893) in my last message is encompassed by these sentences:

There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don’t think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.

I agree with you 100% that this statement is completely untenable, and incongruous with her other claims that the Bible is totally compatible with science. Carol and Heddle seem to be the only ones who don't see the logical impasse. But what's new?

As for Heddle, from what I've seen, he evades any and all tricky questions, so it's difficult to discern his actual position. When anyone is being that sneaky, though, I tend to assume the worst.

Date: 2006/01/12 02:40:56, Link
Author: gregonomic
Carole (on PT comment #70408) wrote:

Despite some defects in chartacter and short temperedness displayed here, I still think, as I always did, that scientists are the greatest people around. That some of them have a mental block in certain areas is worthy of my efforts.

I think you have your answer right there, Russell. She's on a mission from God. And there are simply more potential converts over there. Of course, given that she's basically told us we're all going to ####, I don't think she's going to win too many people over.

Date: 2006/01/15 18:02:59, Link
Author: gregonomic

"Intelligence" is almost certainly genetically determined, at least in part. But, like many human characteristics (including our susceptibility to all sorts of subclinical diseases/disorders), it is likely a complex trait.

This means that it is influenced by many loci (or genes, if you will), each of which has several alleles (or possibilities). And these alleles are likely to be finely tuned to developmental/environmental signals, so that any disruptions during critical stages of development will have a profound on the capabilities of the individual.

Comprehensive genetic studies of people of different nationalities have shown that the majority (~90%) of genetic variation in humans is within populations, with a much lower amount of variation (~5-10%, IIRC) occurring between populations. However, these studies suggest that although most human populations possess most of the possible alleles at most loci, the frequencies of the alleles differ between populations. I would not be surprised if this is also the case for "intelligence" genes.

The scale of genotyping that's going to happen over the next decade or two will surely lead to major advances in our knowledge about this, and other genetic phenomena. So hold the phone.

As for Affirmative Action, I'm with ericmurphy - you can't expect a group of people that has been oppressed for a dozen generations to bounce back in 2 generations. Especially when the oppression has still been largely present for those 2 generations. The playing field is clearly not even level yet.

Some people might be happy to wait for a dozen generations for the playing field to get level again, but I'd rather hurry the process up a little.

And regarding the comment that started this thread, I think it's farcical that the GoP would deny being a racist and simultaneously label Jared Diamond as one.

Date: 2006/01/16 10:57:53, Link
Author: gregonomic

Obviously you're asking the wrong people for the answers to your questions. Perhaps you should be asking African Americans for their views?

One possibility that hasn't been proposed yet (and again, I'm only theorising) is that the failure of African Americans to rise out of poverty is that they are protesting against the system. For many, the only career path is to spend their whole life in a minimum-wage, service-industry job, helping to grease the wheels of progress, without actually reaping many of the rewards. How much different is that from actual slavery? Who could blame anyone for not wanting to play that game?

I've only lived in the USA for a few months, but two of the saddest aspects of African American culture for me are:

1. The fact that African Americans should be immensely proud of the contributions they have made to American/global culture - they basically invented most of the major musical styles to arise this century (blues, jazz, soul, r&b, rap/hip-hop), they've made some of the most powerful movies, and they dominate professional and amateur sports - and yet there doesn't seem to be much celebration of those achievements.

2. The degree to which Christianity has pervaded African American culture. After all the crap white America has flung at African Americans, why is it that stuff that has stuck?

Anyways, now I'm over-generalising.

Happy Martin Luther King Day, everyone.

Date: 2006/01/16 12:59:59, Link
Author: gregonomic
Flint wrote:

Just how much does my own standard of living improve knowing that people who resemble me have done great things?

Point taken.

As for achievement in sports, my reading is that this HAS had a profound effect in the inner city, where taking education seriously is frowned upon by the community, but being able to sink 25-foot jump shots commands real respect.

Maybe for the reasons you've already discussed. If it's hard for African Americans to "make it" by conventional means, sports provide very visible examples of African Americans who have done so. Maybe the probability is lower of actually succeeding via this route, but the dream is alluring, no matter what your skin colour is.

Perhaps I should quit my day job and become a sociologist?

Well, you certainly seem sufficiently interested in, and concerned about, the issue. But I can't help thinking that someone somewhere has already ask the relevant people the relevant questions?

Date: 2006/01/21 05:11:17, Link
Author: gregonomic
Flint wrote:
Ghost has taken a coherent, and as far as I'm concerned entirely reasonable, position. He is advocating (if I understand him correctly) as level a playing field as it is possible to maintain, cultural differences being what they are. His position is that all men are created equal (sound familiar?), and SHOULD be equal in the eyes of the law. Absolutely no Official Favoritism Or Discrimination instituted in favor of or against anyone.

Which is all fine and dandy if the playing field is already level. However, it does nothing to promote the creation of a level playing field. All it does is promote the status quo. Which, I suspect, suits the GoP down to the ground.

Date: 2006/01/21 06:39:50, Link
Author: gregonomic
So what would you do?

Implement laws that favour people on racial grounds?

Yes. I thought I'd made that clear already. It wouldn't be a permanent situation, but some sort of affirmative action would help to accelerate progress towards equality, in my view. If the current forms of affirmative action aren't working, then perhaps a different approach is required. But I don't think abandoning affirmative action altogether makes sense.

How about trying to change negative culture,...

How, exactly?

...along-side trying to level the opportunities for advancement?
By which I do not mean AA, rather try to get every citizen a reasonably equal opportunity for education while promoting self-reliance.

And how do you level the opportunities for advancement without implementing some sort of affirmative action in favour of those who are currently disadvantaged or discriminated against?

How, exactly, do you "get every citizen a reasonably equal opportunity for education while promoting self-reliance" when some people are starting from a position which is clearly disadvantaged? I don't see how you can do it without consciously giving them a leg up.

I do believe in a welfare state. However it should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

On that, I'm sure we all agree.

Date: 2006/01/21 06:45:41, Link
Author: gregonomic
I should amend my previous statement. I don't think affirmative action (or equal opportunity legislation, or whatever you want to call it), should be "race"-based. It should apply to everyone who gets dealt a crappy hand at birth, regardless of "race".

Date: 2006/01/21 16:50:53, Link
Author: gregonomic

You've mentioned New Zealand a few times. As a New Zealander, I think I should warn you that New Zealand may not be the idyllic paradise you imagine it to be.

We have problems with racism that are not very different from those in the USA. Our problems have been caused by a couple of centuries of oppression of the original pre-European occupants of New Zealand, the Maori, by the more recent (primarily British) colonists. Now, Maori form a large percentage of those who are impoverished, poorly-educated, welfare-dependent, and/or imprisoned. So we're desperately in need of solutions like the ones we're discussing here.

However, in our last general election (Sept 2005), the National Party (the centre-[verging-on-far-]right party) ran a campaign based largely on racial issues, and proposed policies similar to those of the Republican Party's (tax-cuts for the wealthy, increased privatisation of education and health, reduced social welfare). And they almost won. They got ~39% of the vote; only the Labour Party (centre-right) got more votes (~41%).

We have a proportional representation system in NZ, so Labour was able to form a (somewhat tenuous) coalition with several of the minor parties - we'll see how long it lasts.

My point is that a significant proportion of the New Zealand population is very socially and fiscally conservative and environmentally unfriendly; perhaps not quite as many evangelical Christians as in the USA, but still plenty of fundies.

I'm not trying to alarm you, or to discourage you from moving to New Zealand (you're exactly the kind of person we want to immigrate), but I wasn't sure how much time you've actually spent there, and I wanted you to be aware of what's going on.

Date: 2006/01/22 04:45:43, Link
Author: gregonomic

"Once Were Warriors" (the movie) is obviously a dramatised/Hollywood-ised account, but it's not totally divorced from reality. Many Maori are still caught in that cycle of poverty, alcoholism, and domestic violence.

Interestingly, Alan Duff, the author of the book on which the movie was based, is very outspoken on what he thinks are the best ways for Maori to break this cycle. He thinks education is the key, and that Maori have to take it upon themselves to get themsleves, and their children, educated. So maybe you're onto something, Stephen.

He has started programs called "Books for Schools" and "Books in Homes", to encourage corporations to donate to schools in poor areas, to help improve literacy in young Maori.

There is also a lot of anti-Asian sentiment in New Zealand. Paradoxically, our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who is a very intelligent and moderate leader, appointed the leader of the NZ First Party, Winston Peters, as Minister of Foreign Affairs when she formed the coalition in October. Peters has been one of the most vocal critics of our immigration policies, particularly with regards to Asian immigrants.


It's true, because of our size, New Zealand has to rely on diplomacy over force. But the leader of the National Party, Don Brash, has been equivocal over whether he would have joined the "coalition of the willing" had he been in power at the time. It seems clear that he probably would have. Which would have put New Zealand right up there with Australia as one of the prime terrorist targets.

You're right though, it's a good place for marine research, if you can find the money (funding for research in New Zealand is abysmal, hence why I live in the USA).

Date: 2006/01/22 14:20:32, Link
Author: gregonomic
Thanks David, for clarifying your position. I've only been following Panda's Thumb for ~6 months, and even then not religiously (pun sort-of intended), so if you had stated your position earlier than that, or on a thread I didn't read, I didn't see it.

But I think it was clear by the other posts here that there were a few regulars who weren't clear on where you stood.

Do you understand that part of debating is recognizing the other person’s perspective?

We're not having a debate, are we? I was just trying to figure out what you and Carol are on about. Now I know, and it's still a completely untenable position. But that's just my HO.

Date: 2006/01/23 02:10:38, Link
Author: gregonomic
Heddle wrote:
What you guys are really saying is that there are no miracles. If there were no miracles, then it would make sense to ask “why even be a Christian apologist at all?”.

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. The belief, or not, in miracles (or the possibility thereof) is a pretty big difference in opinion, wouldn't you say, David? It renders most of our discussions with you moot.

So what do you think makes some people more inclined than others to accept miracles? Were you brought up in a religious environment?

Date: 2006/01/23 04:26:33, Link
Author: gregonomic
Heddle wrote:
If you see no difference between the positions: (1) There are no miracles, and  (2) Miracles aside, the bible is inconsistent with science, then we have nothing to talk about.

I see the difference, David. But I agree that, given that you believe in miracles and I don't, there is nothing more to talk about.

I’ll only debate the second position.

So you keep saying. The miracles aren't up for debate. Kinda takes the fun out of it, really.

People are not “inclined” to believe the bible (which includes the miracles)—they are either given the faith (as opposed to somehow mustering the faith) or they don’t have it and can’t have it.

Are you serious? Seems a little arbitrary to me. Are you sure the time at which you were "given the faith" didn't coincide with some other milestone in your life? Maybe you met a nice girl, or someone close to you died, or you had a near-death experience, or something? Or did you just wake up one morning and say "Oh, hey God, how did you get into my bedroom?"?

You see, you comfort yourself that you have rationally decided against believing...

Yes, I do.

...but in fact that’s not the case at all—it is impossible for you to believe unless you are drawn by God.

You realise you're taking quite an extreme position here, David? It makes me wonder whether you're capable of judging what is rational and what isn't.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:27:17, Link
Author: gregonomic
It is an extreme position, David. If I understand you correctly, you're saying there is no correlation between whether someone was brought up in a religious environment and whether they end up having religious tendencies. That is patently false.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:49:07, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2006,11:34)
I hope he doesn't believe that, but it is a position I've seen with a few evangelicals like Heddle before -- they say that they're Christians because of how truthful it is, or because God spoke to them, or because they CHOSE it for whatever reason. What they DON'T say is "I'm a Christian because my parents were and everyone else around me was". The fact that they were raised in and lived in a context and a society where Christianity is approved of and very strongly encouraged doesn't enter into it.

Well, Heddle claims he wasn't raised in a religious environment, so there must be some other explanation in his case.

But surely he can't be denying that religion, for the most part, gets 'em while they're young?

I guess the other possibility he might propose is that people who are brought up in religious environments are simply more likely to be leading Godly lives, and are therefore more likely to be drawn by God. That would be a tenuous argument though.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:10:23, Link
Author: gregonomic

I had a quick look at your blog. The predetermination stuff was a bit too Bible-centric for me, and you know how I feel about the Bible.

Well, it's not surprising how I feel about the Bible, given today's revelations - I'm clearly not a member of the target audience.

Is your book semi-autobiographical, by any chance? Anything in it that might clue us in to your "rebirth"? Leila, the undergrad beauty, maybe? You old horn dog, you!

Actually, you look kinda young in the pic on your blog. I'd picked you as being much older.

Congrats on jumping from #882,354 to #103,368 in the sales rank overnight, BTW.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:06:01, Link
Author: gregonomic
DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:19:56, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2006,19<!--emo&:0) looks like Australia is the best bet.

Are you joking??? They re-elected Bush's chum John Howard and the Liberals in the last election. Same sh*t, different pile, if you ask me.

Date: 2006/01/25 06:56:01, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 24 2006,07:14)
I seem to remember quite a lot of Ozzies would like to send you Kiwis back Gregonomic.

Yeah, it's true, there are a lot of NZers (including some of my friends and family) making hay in Australia while the sun is shining. I've even considered moving there myself.

BTW, I worded my previous post a little harshly - I was referring mainly to the current government than Australian citizens. I love Australians, especially when they're beating us at cricket and rugby.

Date: 2006/01/25 17:55:00, Link
Author: gregonomic
I doubt there has been much dolphin genome sequencing done, so if it's dolphin specifically you're looking for, I can't help you.

But the genome of a relatively closely related terrestrial mammal, the cow (Bos taurus), is currently being sequenced, and there is already quite a lot of data in the databases.

For an analysis of a large (1.8 Megabase) region corresponding to part of human chromosome 7 (including the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, CFTR, aka "the cystic fibrosis gene") in 12 vertebrate species, see:

Thomas et al, 2003, Nature, 424(6950):788-93. Comparative analyses of multi-species sequences from targeted genomic regions.

For more recent phylogenies of mammals see:

Murphy et al, Nature. 2001 Feb 1;409(6820):614-8. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals.

Madsen et al, Nature. 2001 Feb 1;409(6820):610-4. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals.

Liu et al, Science. 2001 Mar 2;291(5509):1786-9. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals.

Date: 2006/01/25 17:58:26, Link
Author: gregonomic
By the way, Stephen, are you looking for % identity in exons (ie. protein-coding) regions (which will be most similar) or intergenic regions (less conserved)?

Date: 2006/02/03 07:13:19, Link
Author: gregonomic
I am always amazed when these religious types compare themselves to Galileo. Do they even know what Galileo discovered, or how? Do they acknowledge who he was being condemned by?

That the IDiots can't see the irony in their comparison just goes to show how IDiotic they really are.

Date: 2006/02/10 07:14:47, Link
Author: gregonomic

I've quickly read through most of your posts here, and the summary of your position seems to be:
- you don't know enough mathematics to understand Dembski's work on design inference, or the refutations there-of;
- you don't understand enough molecular biology to be able to assess the validity of Behe's idea of irreducible, or the critiques there-of;
- you haven't read, nor have any intention of reading, any of Mayr's (or any of the other major figures in the modern synthesis' [<-not quite sure if I got the placement of that apostrophe correct]) writing on evolutionary theory.

And yet you are firmly convinced that the IDiots are right, and the evolutionary biologists are wrong?

I think that for lack of greater knowledge, evolutionary theory has placed all its eggs in the mutation basket.

Have you actually ever compared any DNA sequences? Have you looked at an alignment of the human, chimpanzee, and mouse GAPDH genes, for example? If not, then I think that statement tells me everything I need to know about you.

Date: 2006/02/10 07:42:44, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,12:56)
My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?

Yeah, I'll bite too.

If there is a God, and he/she has the power to create a universe, and yet he/she chooses to make the evidence of his/her abilities so vague that it is, for all intents and purposes, unrecognisable ... well ... why?

Taking it one step further, if this God controlled evolution, and Homo sapiens as it exists today was the intended end point of this process, would you then suggest that this God cared about us? If so, then I would conclude that either this God is powerless to do anything about the multitude of atrocities that occur every day on this planet, or that he/she is actively refraining from doing anything about them.

If I thought any of this was true, I'd suggest that maybe this God wasn't really worthy of the respect some people show him/her.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:04:42, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
But then, too, let us not forget that it is not only religion which is capable of this - after all, we have the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which were, if anything, worse than living under the Ayatollah of Iran.

Is Godwin's Law still observed?

Date: 2006/02/10 11:51:14, Link
Author: gregonomic
OK, I'll take a stab at this.

The development of drugs for use in treating human diseases almost always requires testing in some sort of "model animal". The choice of model animal is based on such factors as their evolutionary relationship to humans, their reproduction rate, their amenity to being housed and bred in laboratories, and (especially recently) ethical concerns.

Today, the most common model animals are rodents, because they are sufficiently closely to humans that many of their responses to drugs are similar to what they would be in humans, and because they satisfy many of the other requirements which are not satisfied by other animals.

If there was no evolutionary relationship between any of the animals on Earth, then there would be no reason to choose one animal as a model over any other. Why would we not choose cockroaches, since they satisfy all of the requirements far better than mice do?

Date: 2006/02/10 12:14:04, Link
Author: gregonomic
Russell: congratulations on your latest publication (that's you right - J Virol, Feb 2006?).

Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?

Date: 2006/02/10 12:55:00, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,18:40)
...I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that avocationist's contributions here are unwelcome, or not worthwhile, because he is not a professional research scientist.

I, for instance, have no papers to my credit, no higher degrees, just an interest in the issues, a willingness to learn, and a functional BS-detector.

Sorry C.J., that's not what I meant to imply.

I just find it amusing that Avocationist is so clearly out of his/her league when it comes to talking about the actual science of evolution and yet so adamant that the IDiots are correct, and I couldn't resist taking a little dig.

Date: 2006/02/10 13:16:49, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
I totally know what you mean about people willfully ignoring evidence and not understanding that such a stance pretty much invalidates their claims.

So, are you saying that, when someone clearly doesn't have the credentials to support the claims they are making, we shouldn't call them on it? Or that we should do it in a less mocking tone than the one I used?

But most of us out here in the ether aren't scientists, just concerned, and to whatever degree, (mis)informed, citizens.

Yes, but when we want to get informed, what do we do? We either do a bit of reading or we consult the "experts", right?

Avocationist seems to be being very selective about the material he/she is willing to read. And, when it comes to digesting information, he/she seems to accept everything an IDiot says at face value whilst instantly rejecting anything a "Darwinist" says. If you don't think he/she deserves to be mocked for that stance, then I respectfully disagree with you.

Date: 2006/02/10 15:14:43, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,20:23)
Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?
Careful there. If a reasonably intelligent and interested layperson cannot come to an opinion, then like I said yesterday, get this out of high school, get this out of undergrad studies and put it in grad school where it belongs and leave the public out of it.

A reasonably intelligent and interested layperson - even a ninth grader - can quite easily understand, and even accept (if they haven't already acquired a mental block which prevents them from doing so), the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution, as I hope you'll discover when you read Mayr.

It has been said a thousand times already, but I'll say it again: we should be teaching high-school students accepted scientific theories (or at least the basics of those theories). The point I was trying to make with that comment was that it is invariably non-biologists (like you) who are trying to tell us biologists what is and isn't an accepted theory in biology. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by biologists, whether you like it or not (clearly you don't).

I sincerely hope you get something out of Mayr's book. But given that you've already made up your mind that mutations aren't necessary or sufficient to explain evolution, before you've bothered to learn what mutations even are, I suspect my hope is in vain.

Date: 2006/02/10 15:49:11, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,20:42)
say it be proved true God design think rats magically not be rats and people not be people anymore?

relationship now is objective relationship established in past immaterial to reality today...understand? matter what history turn out be true present not change

Congratulations on issuing the standard creationist response. I'll hold back on my reply until I've worked out whether you're an honest-to-goodness serious creationist, or just a parody there-of.

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,21<!--emo&:0)
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

anyone don't know who say?...hint: bloody famous a$$hole

Which part of Dawkins' statement do you disagree with?

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,21:12)
in real world one want to know how much money russel get paid for publishing...credential mean nothing...bill gates almost richest most influential man in world is college dropout...michael dell revolutionize computer manufacturing get $20 billion for trouble he drop out of college too...even nobel winner get money much that russell piece worth to the market in yankee dollah?

You clearly have no idea how little scientists get paid.

By the way. Gates, Dell, etc, actually produced something that was (arguably) useful to actual people. IDiots don't.

not mean to be mean but appeal to credential is last defense of losing argument

Why is it always people with no credentials who say this?

Date: 2006/02/10 16:10:51, Link
Author: gregonomic
Philip S. Skell

Date: 2006/02/10 16:21:53, Link
Author: gregonomic
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,22:10)
people lie, money is honest

Riiiight. What about people who lie for money?

Date: 2006/02/11 06:27:46, Link
Author: gregonomic
Phred = JAD

Date: 2006/02/13 17:30:48, Link
Author: gregonomic

Are you watching this (PhishyPhred/pressmydigitator/WesleyDingleberry/JAD/DaveScot/etc)? Do you see what kind of person/people you align yourself with when you promote ID? Does it not make you wonder?

Date: 2006/02/14 04:32:06, Link
Author: gregonomic
Did anyone notice this comment in thread #809 at UD?

As far as Davison goes sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. He’s a brilliant experimental biologist with 50 years experience at it. He was Sternberged 20 years ago by the Darwinian priesthood for heresy and has good reason to be hateful about it. What they’ve done and continue to do to him is despicable. You get back what you give out. If nothing else show some respect for your elders and cut them some slack.

Comment by DaveScot — February 13, 2006 @ 10:31 am

Was this common knowledge to people here? It's the first I'd heard of it. Explains his fury, I suppose. Although, given his insane ramblings, it doesn't really surprise me that he was "Sternberged".

Date: 2006/02/14 05:55:39, Link
Author: gregonomic
I wouldn't put much stock in any claim by DaveScot or JAD either.

I just thought that someone around these parts was asking questions about what happened to JAD ~20 years ago that caused him to drop off the science map. And I thought this might be an explanation.

Of course, submitting wacky papers might have been a symptom, not a cause.