Darwin's Birthday, Interventionism's Infancy

[Ouroboros]

On what grounds do you say this? Is it just because he got fed up with being immured in academe and went off to be a novelist (among other things)?

Incidentally, 'science' and 'scientist' are well recognised as being so nebulous as to be worthless in any assessment of credentials. Anyone can call themselves a scientist.

 

 

Whatever.

[Kuroikaze]

Don't forget that you, if you are a 'true ex-Christian', were once parroting the kind of things a preacher said, to those who asked probing questions about Jesus. Now you seem to be parroting the rhetoric of Dawkins and his lap dogs. It's time to change yourself *from the soul*.

 

Please, don't bother insulting me by claiming I am some shill for Dawkins. For one, I have never even read any of his books in entirety. I could just as easily claim you are nothing but a shill for psudo-science, but it would do little to advance the conversation. Not that I am much interested in conversing with you as you show a decide lack of rationality or skepticism, you just seem to buy Pye's works as uncritically as you claim I buy normal science. If you have nothing better than insults I am done here. I will read up on Pye though, I love ripping apart psudo-science, It'll make a good blog post.

 

I submitted the link to Lloyd Pye's work not because I myself am going to get any kind of a lift from it, but because I thought it might interest people. I am not going to keep wasting my time with slaggings-off, the likes of which I was subjected to in the Rants and Replies section. I thought the Colosseum was supposed to be better in this regard. It's up to you whether or not you want to be seriously critical -- or, instead, ludicrously dismissive -- of what authors who present alternative theses have to say, but don't expect me to be part of any bickering.

 

I am dismissive because I have heard the same stuff plenty of times. Your arguments are of about the same level as creationists, homeopathic practitioners, and UFO believers. There are rules here, but that does not mean I can't criticize your ideas. You have offered nothing except the unbelievable claim that mainstream science (a place where people regularly make a name for themselves by proving others wrong) is full of people who are all lying to the public about what they think.

 

You seem to deny anything and everything that is considered well accepted science for no appreciable reason. I mean, debating relativity...really? Since most stuff in physics breaks down to mathematics anyone without a PHD in math or physics is not really qualified to even understand most physics, much less criticize it. Its easy for you to pretend you know anything while speaking with a layman like myself, I wonder how you would fare disusing relativity with the likes of Hawking.

[Kuroikaze]

On what grounds do you say this? Is it just because he got fed up with being immured in academe and went off to be a novelist (among other things)?

Incidentally, 'science' and 'scientist' are well recognised as being so nebulous as to be worthless in any assessment of credentials. Anyone can call themselves a scientist.

 

Um....anyone can CALL themselves a scientist in the same way that I could CALL myself a pilot, though I have never flown. Anyone who starting asking question would realize I am not a pilot rather quickly.

 

There are, in fact, plenty of things that can distinguish a real scientist from someone who is not, a PHD or Masters in a scientific field would be a good start, does the person actually DO science, and publish their findings as part of the peer review process.

[Kuroikaze]

Are you trying to disprove evolution with this statement?.....because if so, you suck at it.

Be nice now. This is the Colosseum, and he wanted a place to talk about his views on this topic.

 

It was supposed to be a joke....its a reference to a quote from the movie "Erin Brokovich" "is this you apologizing, because you suck at it."

 

I forget this stuff doesn't translate into text well all the time. It sounded funny in my head I promise.

[Ouroboros]

I forget this stuff doesn't translate into text well all the time. It sounded funny in my head I promise.

I do it all the time too. I forget that people might not see that I'm joking or just being tongue-in-cheek at times. Oh well. That's the drawback of written communication.

[oddbird1963]

I think Paradox should make good on his threats and just go away.

 

Here is an outline of his approach.

 

1. States how smart he is and how thoroughly read he is in academic circles.

 

2. Claims close association with prominent scientists and thinkers. Claims to be "connected" with the big wigs.

 

3. Points everybody to external links that are not his.

 

4. Says nothing. Makes no arguments on his own. Makes no case for anything.

 

5. Threatens to go away if we do not listen to him.

 

If you can't make arguments on your own, state a position and defend it, then why bother to post?

 

I think it would be a better use of everybody's time if Paradox just went away. Maybe some other proponent of his position, whatever that may be, will come along and actually say something.

 

Of course this is just my opinion. All other members may disagree.

 

But, for someone who has made strong claims to be so smart, Pardox has yielded little of his own in the way of discourse and argumentation.

 

Buh-bye.

[Paradox]

 

1. States how smart he is and how thoroughly read he is in academic circles.

 

No, I was just returning, in a more medicinal form, the kind of supercilliousness -- being called a crank, a crackpot, a quack -- that I had myself been subjected to. You give someone a load of snide comments designed to demean their scholarly credibility, and you can expect some of it back.

 

I think it would be a better use of everybody's time if Paradox just went away.

 

Just what I was thinking.

 

Of course this is just my opinion. All other members may disagree.

 

Possibly the moderator would -- and I hope he does. He had well and truly enthused about creating this thread. There's nothing I am gaining from it. Why don't you just grow up?

[oddbird1963]

Possibly the moderator would -- and I hope he does. He had well and truly enthused about creating this thread. There's nothing I am gaining from it. Why don't you just grow up?

You start this thread advocating a position called Interventionism.

 

Based on what you have said in your own words, I have no reason to believe that you know what it is, what it's claims are, or any of it's strengths or weaknesses. You have shown no ability to state, in you own words, what is right about "Interventionism" and what is actually wrong with the theory of evolution.

 

You have started a post and said nothing, nada, zip, zilch zippo, null about the topic at hand.

 

What you have done is boast about how smart you are , how connected you are and how rude everybody else is for not thinking like you. Although, you haven't stated what you think or why we should bother considering your thoughts.

 

You sound like a lot of kids I grew up with in high school and college who never studied for exams but tried to fill essay book after essay book with voluminous but vacuous content.

 

Although I recognize my need for personal growth in many areas of my life, I don't think it is me who needs to just "grow up."

 

As for our esteemed moderator, I greatly admire his intellectual capacity and his immense patience. It seems that he is learning a lot about your guy Pye. But he hasn't really learned anything about you because you won't say anything substantive on your own about what you claim is true. Ouroborous has more patience than I. That is for sure. He is a credit to this great forum.

[Kuroikaze]

What you have done is boast about how smart you are , how connected you are and how rude everybody else is for not thinking like you. Although, you haven't stated what you think or why we should bother considering your thoughts.

 

 

This is something I have noticed most pseudo-science groups have in common. I very rarely see serious scientists tooting their own horn in this way, but it is typical of say, homeopathic practitioners or the anti-vax movement to constantly tell everyone how qualified they are, and how "big pharma" or whatever organization they blame "just won't listen"

 

P.Z. Myers calls it "cargo cult science" Cargo cults are these religious groups that formed on islands in the east after WW2. Soldiers dropped cargo by planes and then after the war the cargo stopped coming, so these islanders built the elaborate mock ups of airports....that of course do not work.

 

These people in much the same way, put on lab coats and try to emulate scientists, but because they really never understood science or the process they end up looking like a cargo cult follower talking on a radio made out of coconuts. Then they get mad because they cannot match the results of actual science and because, as a result, no one takes their "science" seriously.

[Darklady]

Are you saying that Pye's hypothesis is that the scientists doing the DNA comparisons are lying and constructing the evidence?

 

You'll have to elaborate as to which comparisons you are talking about but I can only say that fudging and biased selectivity in regard to publication is indemic to the culture of research-level science, as has been confirmed to me repeatedly through my own experiences and through those of others.

 

And here I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Vigile]

 

 

I thought Lloyd Pye's point, or (implicit) hypothesis, was that it has been a process of progressive splicing, mixing and matching, and general exercising of lab techniques to get the desired results.

 

And he argues each lab uses precisely the same techniques across the globe in order to get repeatable, if spurious results?

 

BTW, just as an aside, you seem like a very intelligent person and while I'm not yet convinced you are who you say you are, I find your distinct Oxfordian (is that a word?) prose charming and fun to read.

 

I am confused as to why you reject a theory without contra evidence, but rather an argument. I read your links to Pye and he offers no evidence, but only explanations. I haven't read this entire thread yet, but so far, what I see you doing is offering apologetics rather than contra evidence when people like Oroboros ask you questions about current evidence.

 

As an academic I'm sure you can see where this tact can be problematic, no?

[Vigile]

A skilled researcher can package and present a finding -- whether it be to do with DNA sequences or anything else -- in such a way that it looks entirely consistent with orthodox findings, even when it is not. That's an old one.

 

In science, not theology, which is apparently your field, research must be repeatable. It could not be if the findings were packaged and presented in such a way as to merely fit as you suggest.

 

I sent the Pye article to my sister, who is a Professor of zoology at a leading University in the UK (and whose tutor, as a I said, was Dawkins). She didn't reply. I sent it to her again, pressing her for a response. Again. she didn't reply. And I sent it round other academic biologists. Likewise, they all just keep silent. My challenge to you is to find an academic biologist who has a serious rebuttal of Pye. Surely, not *all* of them would just dismiss it as rubbish -- even if it was rubbish -- without saying *why*?

 

For a smart guy, you might need to hone your reasoning skills. You think the silence speaks volumes. The silence probably speaks pity. (not intended as an insult, so sorry if it comes across that way).

[Paradox]

 

BTW, just as an aside, you seem like a very intelligent person and while I'm not yet convinced you are who you say you are, I find your distinct Oxfordian (is that a word?) prose charming and fun to read.

 

 

Well that's a welcome breath of fresh air amid the litany of name-calling that almost every other of the several dozen replies I have received, has provided as an excuse for a response. (The word is Oxonian, BTW; but I am not about to get narcissitic about any of that :-) ). I was on the very point of throwing in the towel and walking out for good.

 

I am confused as to why you reject a theory without contra evidence, but rather an argument. I read your links to Pye and he offers no evidence, but only explanations. I haven't read this entire thread yet, but so far, what I see you doing is offering apologetics rather than contra evidence when people like Oroboros ask you questions about current evidence.

 

As an academic I'm sure you can see where this tact can be problematic, no?

 

I have never rejected Darwinian theory. I don't even think you could say Pye does -- indeed he says that microscale Darwinism is incontrovertible. But what Pye *does* say is that the fossil record does not support the theory that the origin of the gamut of species on earth, in all their manifold distinctions, can seriously be explained through this orhodoxy.

 

Even taking the orthodox line, we can see that we are not really speaking about Darwinian theory per se. One can illustrate this by reference to the ediacara biota. There's an interesting discussion of this fossil band here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh2s3

where you see it all presented as vindication of Darwin (as I say, one can package things as one pleases to convince people one way or the other). But I take it to show quite the opposite. You hear one of the guests saying something like 'It was a case of "here is an ocean; go ahead and diversify"'. This is not remotely Darwinian. In Darwinian theory, species are formed gradually by way of intense battles fought in the form of competition for resources. In Darwinian theory, speciation is NOT brought about by having as many environmental niches as one could possibly dream of, in which to luxuriate. Pye makes this point in regard to the Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium (and there's a Scientific American article 'Score One for Punk Eek', on the latter, here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=score-onefor-punk-eek ). The fact that, between extinction events, ecological developments reach the point of stasis, remains an enigma in the Darwinian framework.

 

Thanks for being the first to stimulate me sufficiently to get into the guts of it.

[Paradox]

A skilled researcher can package and present a finding -- whether it be to do with DNA sequences or anything else -- in such a way that it looks entirely consistent with orthodox findings, even when it is not. That's an old one.

 

In science, not theology, which is apparently your field, research must be repeatable. It could not be if the findings were packaged and presented in such a way as to merely fit as you suggest.

 

I'm more philosophy of science. And I would say that the study of evolution (as a history, as distinct from a lab-based set of trials) is not really science; not really biology -- precisely for the reason you give. There is no repeatable experimentation. It's meta-biology.

 

The silence probably speaks pity.

 

I remembered last night after my bout of posting, that in fact I *did* get a reply from a highly qualified biologist (also a science fiction writer, a bit like Pye ). It was from a very dear friend of mine (who sadly died in 2009). Interestingly, she did not present a single word of contradiction to anything specific that Pye said, but gave the one 'criticism' that I imagine a great many people would have thought of, which is that whoever seeded and brought and nurtured life on earth, must themselves have arisen by way of some biological process, presumably Darwinian evolution. I wrote back referencing what Pye himself had said: the question is irrelevant. Who knows what gave rise to these beings? Who knows whether or not they were even biological entities, in the customary sense? They might even have been -- gasp -- angels ;-) .

[Ouroboros]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

Observed Instances of Speciation

[ShackledNoMore]

BTW, just as an aside, you seem like a very intelligent person and while I'm not yet convinced you are who you say you are, I find your distinct Oxfordian (is that a word?) prose charming and fun to read.

I hope this isn't too out of place in the Colosseum, but I think that Paradox is a young male, very intelligent, bored, and he is entertaining himself by toying around with the board and watching the reactions he gets.

[Vigile]

BTW, just as an aside, you seem like a very intelligent person and while I'm not yet convinced you are who you say you are, I find your distinct Oxfordian (is that a word?) prose charming and fun to read.

I hope this isn't too out of place in the Colosseum, but I think that Paradox is a young male, very intelligent, bored, and he is entertaining himself by toying around with the board and watching the reactions he gets.

 

Possibly. I find it hard to believe an Oxford-trained intellectual can take the positions he has. His approach, however, is quite brilliant even if wrong IMO.

[Paradox]

 

I hope this isn't too out of place in the Colosseum, but I think that Paradox is a young male, very intelligent, bored, and he is entertaining himself by toying around with the board and watching the reactions he gets.

 

You ain't seen nothing yet: just wait till I get on to Big Bang theory . Also, no so young any more .

[ShackledNoMore]

 

I hope this isn't too out of place in the Colosseum, but I think that Paradox is a young male, very intelligent, bored, and he is entertaining himself by toying around with the board and watching the reactions he gets.

 

You ain't seen nothing yet: just wait till I get on to Big Bang theory . Also, no so young any more .

ShackledNoMore reaches for another box of popcorn for the show...

[florduh]

Shackled, may I have some with lots of butter please?