1a: Glossary and Description of Terms I Use


I was once an avid supporter and believer in evolution.  I was sure Darwin was right, and all of living nature formed through some sort of genetic changes that were selected to survive by natural selection processes.  But then, in 2001, I had an eye-opening change of stance.  That paradigm shift in my thinking took me on a path that brought me to the point of writing this blog.  I wrote Ev-illusion for one purpose only: to make an objective and investigative analysis of the state of man’s scientific thinking on the origin of life, organisms, and mankind.  I have always been fascinated by science, particularly astronomy and the origins of humanity and all living species.  After 2001 I did an incredibly detailed and thorough study of evolution.  This blog will detail my findings.  I am not religious, nor part of any religious organization, or anti-evolution group.  I hope that covers all of the bases.  I do have an agenda; that of getting belief and fantasy out of the science that I find so incredibly fascinating and so puzzling: that of our origins.  I realize I am not even a drop in the bucket in that endeavor.  But I will be satisfied being only a part of a drop in that bucket.

During my research and search for truth, I got myself entangled in many debates on the subject of evolution with avid evolution believers.  I debated online un

der the name stevebee92653.  The debates made me even more skeptical of evolution than I was when I first had my “awakening”.  I kept a log of my findings and the sites where I found them on a blog. In case you don’t know blogs, a blog is a kind of online diary or log.  The information I put on the blog was really only for me.  I made it so I could refer back to sites and information that I had dug out on my searches.  However, a few avid evolution believers found my blog, and began arguing with some of my conclusions.  My blog became a site of many intense arguments.  I found quickly that

I needed some new vocabulary words so I could accurately communicate my thoughts with my opponents.  So I coined a few words that would do the job.  They came in handy and saved me from repeating the same material and lists over and over.  For some reason, some of my new terms irritated the hell out of the evolution zealots, which in some ways made them even more enjoyable to use.  All words are respectfully coined, and not meant to demean anyone at all.  And, they describe the entities that they are intended to describe very accurately.  So I will continue using them, even though probabilities are that they won’t be utilized in the worldwide biological community anytime soon.  All words in the English Language were initially coined by one person before they caught on to become commonly used. I use all of my newly coined words in this book.  This, my first “chapter”, is a glossary and explanation of why I coined the terms.  So when you read the book and run into my terms, you will understand what I am trying to convey.

 (1)  Evolutionaut: When I first started writing this blog, I often used the term evolutionist to denote believers in evolution.  Evolution believers universally hate that term.  It’s commonly used by creationists and anti-evolution arguers to refer to evolution supporters.  And it’s a term that is commonly detested by them.  Evolution believers somehow think it represents them as “religious”, probably because of the       –ist suffix.  They see it as similar to the names of some religions such as Bapt-ist or Method-ist.  Every time I got a complaint for the usage of the term evolutionist, I asked what they would like to be called.  I never got an answer.  Never.  When discussing in any online chatroom, the names used are always pseudonyms chosen to keep the writer anonymous.  Here is a dissertation by a commenter and moderator at http://www.rationalskepticism.org who calls himself Calilasseia.  This person is quite famous in online evolution circles.  He is a pretty big hero and attack dog, and is called on when evolution believers are having trouble debating their opponents.  For some reason he is known as “The Blue Butterfly”.  And if he is coming to get you, his fellow evolutionauts warn you.  “Here comes the Blue Butterfly!”  As if you are really in for it now.  Calilasseia wrote a dissertation on http://www.rationalskepticism.org telling in no uncertain terms that evolution believers should NOT be called evolutionists:

  Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandist for a doctrine, it’s the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here……… now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.

There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. Why do I say this?  Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever.  For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word “evolutionist” is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a “doctrine”, and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori “assumptions”.  This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of “symmetry” between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago. When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them “gravitationists”? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them “microbists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell’s Equations make them “electromagnetists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them “quantumists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them “stellarists”? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.

I think you get the idea how hated the word evolutionist is.  I find it strange that he so derides the term evolutionist without the least bit of thought as to what a group of people who avidly support evolution should be called.  I asked numerous evolution believers what they would like to be labeled.  What term would they be satisfied with so I can refer to them.  Not one time has that question even been addressed.  So I coined the term evolutionautEvolutionaut is a combination of evolution, and –aut, a suffix meaning voyager or traveler. The suffix -aut is used in the words astronaut and Argonaut, both respectful terms.   Astronaut means space voyager.  So I refer to evolution believers as evolution voyagers, or evolutionauts which removes the –ist from any references to them.  Evolutionaut is a perfectly respectful term that evolutionauts also hate.  As a whole, they are certain it is some sort of degrading term.  They think it was coined to make them look bad. 

One avid evolution believer named Paul summed up his feelings about my new term this way

It seems a bit hypocritical for stevebee92653 to complain that someone has been unkind enough to mock him repeatedly for a stupid comment and just not let it go, given stevebee92653’s continuous use of language clearly intended to be insulting – such as referring to opponents as “evilutionauts” – which is just one example. stevebee92653, do you have any good reason why anyone should show you any consideration, or give you anything, beyond that which is required by the  forum rules here? I can’t think of one – and you’ve more than made it clear how much respect should be shown in debates.  You have also used the word “evilutionaut” in posts aimed at individual people here, where it is clear from the context whom it aimed at. I think the word is clearly intended to be insulting. It is implying that the person is “evil”. You don’t see “evOlutionaut” which would make more sense. (Me: The word IS evolutionaut!  He is so filtered, he can’t see the actual spelling of a word I used frequently.  I have NEVER spelled it with the prefix evil-.) It is also implying that the person is some kind of “space cadet” – out of touch with reality and suffering from some mental illness that causes fantasy delusions. It seems to me to be a personally directed insult.”

I explained the term to him and why I coined it:
I used the term “evolutionist” many times and was soundly scolded by evolutionauts for its use. I asked repeatedly for a better term and was never given one. So I coined the term “evolutionaut” which is composed of “evolution”….and “-aut” which means sailor or voyager. The word “evil” is only used in your poorly researched misspelling. No evil, no space cadet, no mental illness, and it is a very respectful term. So blow your nose, wipe your tears, and next time spend a little time researching your complaint before crying.

Paul’s response:

“It wasn’t about me being “sensitive” Steve. It was about the hypocrisy in YOU being sensitive about people just not letting it go when you made a transfinitely idiotic comment that will probably still be amusing people long after we are all dead.  And I reject any explanation you want to give out of hand Steve. You are merely trying to rationalise a clear attempt to insult. Really, a far as I am concerned, nothing you say has any value outside the field of comedy.  I am feeling distinctly apprehensive about booking my next dental checkup if this is what the dental schools are doing these days. I mean… the idea of reading all this from someone and then letting them put sharp objects into your mouth…”

Now you may get a hint of what discussion with evolutionauts is like.  This demeanor of discussion is common.  This is a very typical sample.  Of course Paul has to be as insulting as he can in his answer. And, notice that he doesn’t come up with a term he thinks would be more respectful.  So I will continue using evolutionaut as long as I do this gig.  You will see it in practically every chapter of this book.  Changing the term to something evolutionauts would like would be a cave in to their anger and demeaning.  The term is not disrespectful in any way.  I get a kick out of how they want to make it out to be.

(2) Ev-Illusion:  The title of my book.  And a term I coined to describe what evolution really is: an illusion.  Ev-illusion makes people, and particularly students,  think they see what really isn’t there.  Evolution is much like the works of an illusionist or magician who can fool an audience into thinking a certain event happened that really didn’t.  Once the audience is fooled with the first event, they can then be fooled by quite absurd and seemingly impossible follow up events.  The ev-illusionist can tell the audience anything he wants once he has fooled the audience with the first impossibility. The audience will believe anything once they have fallen for the first illusion.  Their brains have been “prepared” by the illusionist for follow up illusions.  

When I was a kid I dabbled in magic tricks.  One trick I had was the famous Chinese linking rings.  Most people have seen it sometime in their lives.  It’s really amazing performing a trick like this one and seeing how an audience can be fooled by such a basic illusion.  When you know how it works you really wonder how anyone could be fooled.  But I was fooled as well before I bought the trick.  Chinese linking rings is a perfect example of how ev-illusion works.  The illusionist’s technique is the same as the one ev-illusionists use: get the audience to believe the first impossible task, that of linking two rings which look to be continuous and unbroken. Once the audience believes the first “impossible” linking has been completed, they will then fall for every other step in the linking rings illusion.

The trick works like this: The illusionist shows two apparently solid and complete rings.  He taps them, and slides them against each other to show they are solid.  Of course there is an opening in one ring which is hidden by the illusionist’s hand.  Unseen by the audience, he will slip one ring into another.  He then holds the out the two “linked” rings, one on top of the other, and drops one.  It falls with a “clank”, as if the two had just joined.  The illusion is that two completely solid rings linked.  He can then spin one inside of the other, ostensibly showing that the rings are linked and solid.  Of course he continues to hide the small opening in one ring with his hand.  The illusionist will then show the audience another set of two or three rings, which actually are welded together like a huge chain.  He holds them out vertically, one on top of the other, then does the same drop, in just the same fashion as he did with the first unlinked rings.  The drop makes a “clank” sound.  It looks like he did the same exact thing that he did with the first two rings.  He can then hand the actual linked and welded rings to the audience for inspection, keeping the first rings, one with the trick opening, on his arm.  The audience gets to check the second or third set of rings which truly are welded, and cannot come apart.  After he links the first rings and the audience believes what he wants them to, the rest of the trick is easy.  They will fall for everything else.  And they do.

The exact same scenario works with evolution.  Once you believe the first absurdity, the first impossibility, you will fall easily for the others.  That’s just the way the human mind and illusions work.  Once you can believe a human heart/lung/blood/vessel system can form itself all on its own, just by random chance genetic errors that are selected for by natural selection, you will believe anything he says after that.  You will believe that human consciousness can be formed by evolution. That brains can.  That humans can.  That double sliding double ball and socket joints, our jaws, can.  That all species can.  You will believe that this simplistic notion of animals procreating with or killing other animals selectively because of some advantage they have due to some odd mutation can develop every living entity and species in nature.  You can fall for the illusion just like I did.  

(3) Ev-Illusionist:  

A leader or major speaker in the evolution movement.  One who speaks to large audiences and is able to perform ev-illusion on them.  Like a good magician, they are very skilled at what they do. Dr. Ken Miller, PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, and Eugenie Scott are great current examples. They do their ev-illusion, and the audience swoons.  Here is how ev-illusionists work:

Step 1: Have a very credible demeanor as if your are “above it all”. Sound British, or at least very intelligent. Be or be like a college professor. Talk in echo-y lecture halls. No one will want to challenge you, whatever you say. The audience will be responsive, worshipful, intimidated, and even more enthusiastically on your side. They will laugh at your jokes, no matter how bad they may be.

Step 2: Group all skeptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical. Make fun and light of the least credible in the group so it seems like the whole group is equal to the buffoon. Demean their education, let them know that their challenges are “old and tired”, call them names, degrade their ability to think. Most in the audience will not want to be associated with any group of skeptics, and will willingly and enthusiastically slide over to your side. No one wants to look foolish.
Step 3: Make the audience think that they are witnessing an impossible event of your choosing (as in the linking rings illusion), or that an impossible event took place that you describe. Make them think they are seeing something that they are not. Fool them into believing an event took place that didn’t. Telling them that twenty pound fox-like animals evolved into 400,000 pound 100 ft. long whales is a good start.  Or that theropod dinosaurs evolved into hummingbirds.  Once they believe in just one single impossible event, they can be easily convinced the next impossible event they are given also took place. As each impossible event is displayed, the audience will be more and more easily convinced, until an entire series of impossible events of your choosing will be accepted by the audience without question.keptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical. Make fun and light of the least credible in the group so it seems like the whole group is equal to the buffoon. Demean their education, let them know that their challenges are “old and tired”, call them names, degrade their ability to think. Most in the audience will not want to be associated with any group of skeptics, and will willingly and enthusiastically slide over to your side. No one wants to look foolish.

(4) Groupthink:  I coined the word groupthink to describe the group thinking, and group psychology displayed by evolutionauts. The  basis for groupthink is the indoctrination that evolutionauts have undergone, unknowingly of course.  They have all been successfully indoctrinated, and in doing so, must believe the most preposterous scenarios.  Which they do without the slightest change of expression.  They gobble it up and accept everything, no matter how absurd.  And they will stand nose to nose with you and defend the absurdities without ever questioning  those absurdities themselves.  Why?  I don’t get it.  It is just a hint as to what indoctrination of any kind can do to
people.  When I was a child I accepted the fable that a family built a big wooden boat and collected all of the animals in the world, and put them on that boat which saved the lives of all of nature.   Why did I accept that story? My brain was young and immature, and ready to accept and lap up everything

 I was told by adults that I revered and respected.  But my thinking matured.  I began to doubt the absurd stories I was taught.  I questioned.  And when I went to college, my thought processes were ready for a new more mature tale.  I needed to know how humans came about.  How all of nature formed.  And just like a cookie fits a cookie mold, along came evolution.  A perfect fit!  I traded one belief system for another.  Bible fables for evolution fables.  I accepted that natural selection and friends built heart/lung systems, vision, us; a tale more preposterous than a family collecting and saving all the animals in the world. I had my second indoctrination. And that is what almost 100% of evolution indoctrinates have had; their second indoctrination.  And they think and respond as a group.  They say the same stuff; express themselves the same way. They communicate in plural pronouns.  They commonly say “We think that……”  “We can’t believe that….”  It’s hard to imagine sitting in front of a computer all by myself and saying “We think…..” about any subject.   But they commonly do it.  An evolutionaut that says “I think….” is actually a very rare exception.  And for this sameness, I have coined the term groupthink for them. Because that is what evolutionauts do. They speak as if they were one entity.  I find it difficult to discern different personalities in their writing.  One evolutionaut could just as easily be another.  It’s difficult to tell the difference between any of them.  Actually I thought groupthink was my own custom term.  Actually a psychologist named Irving Janis coined the same term in 1972.  His description of what the term means was spot on; exactly what I meant my version to be.   So I will credit Janis with the origin of the term.  In any case, it’s a valid term and it suffices for my use in this book and my other writings.

Here are the three laws of groupthink: 

The first law: Every person  in the group thinks exactly like all other memebrs of the group. Group members do not  challenge  what one member of the group says or thinks.  Further, groupmembers cannot challenge the selected belief that brought the original formation of the group.  For example, if the group is put together to defend evolution, no group member will ever, under any circumstances, challenge evolution or its tenets. 

The second law:  When communicating with non-group members, or individuals who challenge the philosophy of the group, groupmembers always communicate in plural pronouns.  They never say blasphemous words such as “I think……”  “I have found that……”  They always use terms such as “WE think…..”  WE believe…..”.  Groupmembers are in a group.  They are not  individuals and cannot communicate as if they are.    

The third law: every person in the group thinks every other person in the group wins all discussions and debates, no matter how absurd the other groupmember’s debate tactics and skills may be.

(5)  Bio-System or bio-logical-system: I find it strange that this term confounds so many evolutionauts.  It’s a term I coined as an abbreviation; a combination of “biological” and “system”; not too tough of a concept.  The term “biosystem”  is currently in use and is an  accepted term in science dictionaries.  Its definition can be commonly found online.  The agreed upon definition from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/biosystem “A living organism or a system of living organisms that can directly or indirectly interact with others. ”  This term isn’t what I had in mind when I coined it independently.  I needed a term that would cover this definition: interdependent utilitarian entities that originated from living organisms or exist inside of living organisms.  So I coined a hyphenated version of the term: bio-systems.  I most commonly use the term for interdependent groups of organs.  A good example is a heart/lung/blood vessel/blood system is a bio-system (pictured left); the musculo-skeletel system is as well.  Under my definition, a bird nest is also a bio-system, made up of many different small entities, such as mud, straw, twigs, all woven together in a complex system from a living organism meant to be home for the bird’s eggs and newborn.  Bird nests are DNA coded into the brains of birds, are assembled strictly for the use of nurturing and protecting bird’s eggs and young, and the entities that make it up are interdependent.  Each twig or straw is dependent on the others for support.  If I wanted to make my term strictly to do with organs, I would have used the term “organ system” or “organ-system”.  Bio-system has a much broader connotation. Of course words evolve just like nature does.  (Evolution does occur in nature.  It’s just that, as this book will show, evolution isn’t within light years of being powerful enough to form any bio-system.)  Bio-system evolved to become bio-logical-system.  I like my new version even better.  The addition of the word logical separates my term from the highly accepted term of biosystem.  It denotes the fact that there is an immense amount of logic in the designs of bio-systems.  So, bio-logical-system is my new generation for this term. 

(6)  Evo-Denier or Evo-Skeptic:    Of course that would be me.  I both am skeptical of evolution, and I deny that it was able to form all of living nature.  Generally these are people who think evolution is not real science, but a fable made up by pseudo-scientists.  Why “psudo”? Because, they as a whole, support natural selection as the source of all of nature even though there is little change in the fossil record within species, and no bio-logical-system has ever been observed being invented, designed, assembled, and sustained by natural selection. Reason enough for me.

 (7)  Evo-Abiogenesis: This is a term that describes evolution’s version of the beginning of life on earth. It seems to have been confiscated by evolution to mean the dumb luck random formation of biochemicals and lipid micelles on the sea floor which then somehow miraculously came together and then became alive.  The term abiogenesis without the prefix to me, and therefore in this book, simply means the formation of life from sterility on Earth from unknown causes. 

 (8)  Natural Selection:  Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the predator has over the prey. A secondary process is sexual selection, the choosing of a mate for the purpose of procreating. Environmental survival is also in the mix. But, by far the most pervasive foundation for evolution is the selective killing of one type of organism with lesser advantages by another with greater genetic/mutational advantages, and the repeat of this process over eons.

(9)  Random Mutations:  Accidental changes in the genetic codes of organisms.   According to evolution, advantageous mutations remain in the population which are then “selected for” by natural selection.

(10) RM and NS:  I frequently use this abbreviation for random mutations and natural selection.


Advertisements

52 Comments

  1. cadman2300 said,

    I prefer the term evolutionist. It does have a certain clunky quality because creatards keep trying and failing to depict this aspect of biology as a religion requiring faith, but there aren’t really that many descriptive terms that work well in this context. Evolutionary Biologist or Evolution Supporter are certainly more accurate but they’re too much of a mouthful. Because your blog is totally overlooked by the mainstream scientific community, it’s fairly certain that the even more clunky term “evolutionaut” will never catch on.

    Keep on failing.

    • ADParker said,

      I think the term they are desperately skirting around is “Scientifically Literate.”

  2. gene said,

    Hi evolutionist team !

    Are you guys enjoying your orgy on

    http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/why-stevebee-is-wrong-t14136.html

    • ADParker said,

      Hygiene! 😉

      No team I’m afraid, just a number of individuals (from all over the world as it happens.) There is that old saying about organizing atheists being like herding cats, after all.

      And if you think that is an orgy, then you really have to get out more.

      As for enjoying it. To be honest; not so much at the moment. It is hard to have the real fun of rigorous back and forth (from which comes the only real means of possibly learning something and improving one’s understanding), when those who disagree with us can’t be bothered to engage. (It ONLY looks like a purely atheistic-evolution-accepting ‘love-fest’ because no one else appears willing to join in! Where are you guys?! Surely there is someone willing to take up the opposing position!)

  3. gene said,

    Hi AD Park her

    To be honest I could use an orgy or two myself. Problem is I don’t think my wife would approve. I don’t want to get on her bad side – she is Calabrese.

    I know only basic biology so I can not argue evolution. Some stuff regarding common understanding of evolution doesn’t make sense to me so I’m trying to learn on few blogs and forums .
    I’m a technical guy working with PLCs and robotics so I always try to visualize and understand problems logically.
    Also, thinking logically about these issues can make you realize there are limits to explanations using materialistic worldview.
    I think I take slightly opposing view but would not join above forum because of “hyena pack” behavior of some members.

    • ADParker said,

      This “hyena pack” and “group think” idea always sounds just plain odd to me.
      Most (if not all) of the time it is just individuals responding directly to a single post. Where it just so happens that a number of other separate individuals (even from other countries and time-zones), without reading any of the following posts, also respond to that post.

      It might feel like they are all coming together and deliberately ganging up on you – I have experienced the same thing on narrowly focused Christian forums for example (narrow as in supporting one particular sect/view as opposed to a more generalised forum) – but in reality it is just a number of single comments one after another, that’s all.

      I know we have a few theists/agnostics/new-atheists (some progressing through the three) who only join in to ask questions, and/or to just sit back, read and learn.

  4. ADParker said,

    Stevebee said:
    “And a bird nest is also a bio-system, made up of many different small entities, such as mud, straw, twigs, all woven together in a complex system meant to be home for the eggs and newborn.”

    So that would make houses, computers and washing machines “Bio-Systems” as well?!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hey ADParker, just wow! Is your house constructed by a bird with no plans? Did the bird make it from a pre-coded “birdbrain program”? Is it made of entirely biological components? Like twigs and straw? Possibly a little muddy glue? Does it hold eggs for the sole purpose of keeping the eggs safe and warm until your children hatch? When the children hatch do you move out? Then your house IS a biological system. Congratulations!
      Question 2: Is you computer made of twigs and………..

      • ADParker said,

        You honestly believe that all bird nests are made exclusively of organic material?!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Actually I think just as I said: your house is a biological system! Why change the subject?
        ADParker, what is it about you evolutionauts that twist everything I say? I love your “stevebee thinks 2X2 is 22” Where on earth….no why on earth would you say something so stupid? Hard to believe . Another fun one: stevebee thinks 0 doesn’t equal 0. Or stevebee says birds can’t learn. What a hoot. You are like a bunch of clones. All think and talk alike. Strange what evolution does to people. I would think it would be boring talking and thinking just like a bunch of other people.

  5. gene said,

    AD Parker

    It’s sad to hear how some on Christian forums mistreated you. They should know it’s not very christian of them.

    I checked forum again and it’s same old. No substance to many comments. It looks like posters compete who will bash more.

    Only decent challenge ( in last few days) was by poster Latimeria regarding some school test, the rest is just mocking. If you want to talk there – no! Here – yes (with Steve’s permission).

    • ADParker said,

      gene said:
      “It’s sad to hear how some on Christian forums mistreated you.”

      Read what I said again, and it’s context.
      I did not say that they mistreated me (the one who ran the forum did so, but that is another mater, and came as no surprise.) But that it can feel like people are ganging up on you simply due to the predominant position on the forum is in opposition to your own. ASSUMING that it is a deliberate team effort would be a mistake; confusing Correlation with Causation.

      gene said:
      “They should know it’s not very christian of them.”

      Oh I think their actions were VERY “Christian.”

      gene said:
      “I checked forum again and it’s same old. No substance to many comments. It looks like posters compete who will bash more.”

      Not surprised. No one feels capable of arguing Stevebee’s position, not even the man himself.

      gene said:
      “Only decent challenge ( in last few days) was by poster Latimeria regarding some school test, the rest is just mocking.”

      It’s the kind of thing that happens when the opponent runs away.

      gene said:
      ” If you want to talk there – no! Here – yes (with Steve’s permission).”

      No thanks. I prefer to talk on forums, set up for two way discussion. Not Blogs, which are set up for one way articles and comments. Anything remotely resembling a lengthy discussion just becomes a mess.

    • Latimeria said,

      Thank you, gene. Please stay tuned to see if Steve is willing to respond enough to see what my point was (but I think you may be able to guess it).

      I wouldn’t be shy about signing up at ratskep; people who have genuine questions about evolution tend to ask them in a different part of the forum and people are always willing to give some friendly help and address your questions at the appropriate level for whatever your scientific background is.

      The kind of situation stevebee is in over there only happens when someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about comes in with guns-ablazing declaring that thousands of professional scientists have it all wrong, and they can prove it, but are unable to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the topic. It is funny, but by this point in the conversation with stevebee I don’t have much hope of him learning anything. I learn a great deal from other posters on the site, and stevebee’s posts usually have the unintended consequence of being good practice for learning to spot logical flaws, which is good training for anyone in my opinion.

      Some things in quantum physics seem very strange or counter-intuitive to me, but my response is not to declare that the physicists are all deluded and argue against them, for the simple reason that I haven’t studied it enough to really argue against it. I ask questions, and when something seems off, I express what my doubts are, but am open to hearing an answer.

      If there is a temporary lack of substance, it’s because the thread is for steve to make his case, and every last bit of it was destroyed so there is nothing left to discuss. He fails to see it, and the history with stevebee goes a long way. If there is any part of what stevebee has said that you are having trouble finding the response to, I’d be happy to assist you. Part of the point of engaging in all these conversations is to see to it that people who are unsure are able to see particular arguments deconstructed.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        The sad thing about being an indoctrinated teacher Latimeria, is that now you are indoctrinating kids to believe the same bullshit you believe. Ever watch “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. That would be you and your fellow indoctrinates. You have been fooled, and have no idea. What has been snatched from you is your skepticism, reason, doubt, ability to question, and your humor. All I see out of you and your fellow evolutionauts is nit-picking, demeaning, and anger. I truly feel sorry for you and the kids you teach your bullshit to.
        There are plenty of questions here that you ignore. And I know why. You can’t answer them, so you continue ragging on me personally. How about answering a straight question for once. Try any of the “Ten Impossibilities of Evolution”, which you pretend doesn’t exist. A fun one for you to show off your stuff would be the evolution of the Kreb’s Cycle. Give that one a go. Instead of ragging on me, show us what kind of great teacher you are. Kreb’s cycle, Latimeria. Do it. Teach us. Of course your group failed miserably at bird nests, so that was skipped. Flight is good for you to teach gene. Tell us about birds running up inclined planes in the forest so we will know how scientific evolution really is. Tell gene about how those dedicated scientists set up those inclined planes, then watch birds run up. And how they actually filmed them running up. Yes, actually FILMED! So they can show how wings evolved. THAT is real science at its best! So have at it. Teach gene. And me, because I do want to know how flight evolved.
        Give the ten impossibilities a try. I can’t wait. Show your stuff!

      • Latimeria said,

        Stevebee, I was talking to gene. Put your persecution complex to the side for a moment. You and I have a conversation elsewhere, and if you would like to continue it there you are welcome at any time. The formatting of your blog is not conducive to lengthy conversation. Incidentally, your post here does serve to prove one of the points I was attempting to make.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Latimeria, you are on my blog. I get to respond as I wish here, sorry to inform you. To any post. This was/is your big chance to show the world how you know the source of all of living nature. You’re not going to blow it are you? Here is your shot at proving that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Just think. You can answer my questions above, and copy to rats.org. My gawd, you teach this stuff to kids. You should have the answers at the ready. So show your great knowledge. I will even copy your answers over to rats.org for you. I promise. So, goddammit, do it: Kreb’s cycle, and birds running up inclined planes to get airfoil wings and flight. Two easy ones for you, since you are so educated. Even get your friends to help you. I am sure the vaunted blue butterfly has at least 10,000 peer reviewed papers he can copy for you to really muddle things up. But maybe that’s what you need. As a cover up. Gee, I hope not. Because I really want to learn. Really!
        If you answer these like I know you can, then the rats will all know the truth about stevebee, and you will be a hero! You can prove that you really put me down. Really embarrassed the hell out of me. Show that your comment below isn’t just you ragging on in typical evo-fashion:
        Latimeria says: The kind of situation stevebee is in over there only happens when someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about comes in with guns-ablazing declaring that thousands of professional scientists have it all wrong, and they can prove it, but are unable to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the topic.
        So, have at it Latimeria.

      • Latimeria said,

        What I said before stands. I will be happy to discuss whatever you wish, but somewhere else. Just to list a few reasons: Your blog doesn’t allow for embedded quotes or videos, the problem of chronological ordering of posts becomes an issue after a while (for several reasons), the narrow field of text makes posts 2 or 3 times the length they need to be, I would prefer moderation for accountability in post content (irrelevant ad homs / trolling), and I would prefer a place where neither of us has censorship ability over the other. That’s just a start, but I really was just trying to tell gene he is welcome at ratskep.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        In other words you are an evo-wimp. You need all your groupthink rats.org support. Right? You say I have no challenges for you. They are all over the place here. You come here and feel free to insult me. But when I give you some basic challenges, you are nothing but a fucking wind bag. A fake. You really make me ill. You have nothing, and you play pretend. You pretend you are so goddam smart, and so proud in front of the other groupthinkers at rats.org. And you get all the groupthink support you need when you are there. So here are the challenges Latimeria. Challenges you continually say I don’t have. Ten impossibilities for you to answer. Just sitting there for you. My chin is out. Take a swipe. Methinks you will continue your bullshit, you won’t even try so you can avoid looking foolish trying to give answers you goddam well know you don’t have. You will continue to pretend the challenges aren’t there. And you WILL continue to pretend like you know how all of nature formed. What a laugh. ADParker has had no trouble with the size and order of responses. He has left HUGE ones, and several hundred. Your responses will even show up in your email. What the hell more do you want? You are just one big fat excuse. And as I say, you teach your garbage to kids, which really is nauseating. By the way, for a little more fun, try page twenty. It’s a final exam you could give the children you are indoctrinating. Twenty questions for you. It will save you from writing a test. I am thinking of you here, Latimeria, and the help I can give you. Hey, another suggestion. Let me know how the six oculomotor muscles evolved, and in what order. That’s page 32. I really want to know, and I know you have the answer. So, please, give me the truth about that one. Did they evolve one at a time? Gee, wouldn’t the eye only move in the one direction of the pull of that muscle? How did the oculomotor nerves get hooked up. Ya know, brain to muscle…. How did the brain learn how to control the first, then all six oculomotors, one at a time? C’mon Latimeria. You know all this stuff. And I know you can write here. Just ask ADParker for help if you are mentally stuck. He can help you. Or get Cali. I’m sure he has all the answers. Or go back to your fellow groupthinkers with your tail between your legs. Then brag about how you conquered Ev-illusion and stevebee. I’m sure you will. Because that’s what evolutionauts do.

      • Latimeria said,

        “ In other words you are an evo-wimp. ”

        An insult, and fallacious considering I offered to speak to you about whatever you want somewhere more conducive to lengthy discussion.

        “ You need all your groupthink rats.org support. Right? ”

        “Somewhere else” could be any forum with a coherent format, so long as the discussion is allowed within their user’s agreement. In that case, I would simply request of them that they evaluate the soundness and validity of your arguments (rather than whether they agree with evolution). At this point, that is what needs to be demonstrated to you before anything else: Every argument I have ever seen you put forth is fundamentally flawed.

        “ You say I have no challenges for you. They are all over the place here. ”

        I know, we have discussed many of them at length, and you have refused to change your presentation or reframe any of your challenges in light of repeatedly having your indisputable misrepresentations and logical flaws dissected and handed back to you. I would say it’s intellectually dishonest, but I don’t believe you even understand the flaws. But, again, we can continue to talk about it somewhere else.

        “ You come here and feel free to insult me.”

        I have only intended to point to elements of your argument or approach, and I am willing to disrespect bad ideas. Look around at who is making direct personal insults…

        “ But when I give you some basic challenges, you are nothing but a fucking wind bag. A fake. You really make me ill. You have nothing, and you play pretend. You pretend you are so goddam smart, and so proud in front of the other groupthinkers at rats.org. And you get all the groupthink support you need when you are there. ”

        See what I mean?

        “ So here are the challenges Latimeria. Challenges you continually say I don’t have. Ten impossibilities for you to answer. Just sitting there for you. My chin is out. Take a swipe. Methinks you will continue your bullshit, you won’t even try so you can avoid looking foolish trying to give answers you goddam well know you don’t have. You will continue to pretend the challenges aren’t there. ”

        As I said, I’ll talk about them with you elsewhere. I notice you still have things posted which you know to be incorrect.

        “ And you WILL continue to pretend like you know how all of nature formed. ”

        I have never made anything approaching such a claim, and do not intend to. Please support this with a reference or retract it.

        “ What a laugh. ADParker has had no trouble with the size and order of responses. He has left HUGE ones, and several hundred. ”

        Good for ADParker. He’s not an extension of myself or part of any groupthink support group of mine. I respect his posts, but I’m an individual with my own thoughts and behavior, something you have repeatedly failed to recognize.

        “ Your responses will even show up in your email. What the hell more do you want?”

        If you would read the comment you are responding to, I already listed quite a few things that your blog does not provide, and I don’t think any of them are unreasonable requests.

        “ You are just one big fat excuse. ”
        Was that necessary?
        “ And as I say, you teach your garbage to kids, which really is nauseating. By the way, for a little more fun, try page twenty. It’s a final exam you could give the children you are indoctrinating. Twenty questions for you. It will save you from writing a test. I am thinking of you here, Latimeria, and the help I can give you. ”

         Despite your sarcasm, I’d be happy to take a few of your claims on page twenty and point out the flaws. Somewhere else. You can pick a forum with decent formatting that allows it!

        “ Hey, another suggestion. Let me know how the six oculomotor muscles evolved, and in what order. That’s page 32. I really want to know, and I know you have the answer. So, please, give me the truth about that one. Did they evolve one at a time? Gee, wouldn’t the eye only move in the one direction of the pull of that muscle? How did the oculomotor nerves get hooked up. Ya know, brain to muscle…. How did the brain learn how to control the first, then all six oculomotors, one at a time? C’mon Latimeria. You know all this stuff. And I know you can write here. ”

        We have talked about some of this already, and while I do not claim expertise in all areas related to these questions, I am willing to discuss them with you, and to highlight the flaws in the arguments you use in conjunction with your sarcastic questions. Based on your phrasing, you appear to have missed some important elements of the previous discussion. I will do this on the condition that you discuss it in a civil manner.

        “ Just ask ADParker for help if you are mentally stuck. He can help you. Or get Cali. I’m sure he has all the answers. ”

        While I’m sure they could make meaningful substantive contributions, I sense that this is insincere and intended as mockery.

        “ Or go back to your fellow groupthinkers with your tail between your legs. Then brag about how you conquered Ev-illusion and stevebee. I’m sure you will. Because that’s what evolutionauts do.”

        A broad, sweeping stereotype and generalization, but since you made up that word I suppose you can define it as the people who fit those characteristics if you wish. Now, having done all that, let me say it’s a pain to write, especially if you wish to continue a long conversation.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You come to my site and write the same demeaning bullshit that you and your fellow indoctrinates use at rats.org. Which I find rather amazing rude and naive on your part. Just like the naive questions you posed for me. “What was my reasoning for giving little Johnny the grade…..” You gotta be kidding.
        Every evo-skeptic at rats gets the exact same treatment by the rats no matter what the source of the skepticism. Demeaning. All of you evolutionauts write nearly the exact same stuff. Like robots. I have seen the other threads there with other people being attacked in the same fashion. by the same cast of characters, and it’s pretty astounding. Astounding that supposedly intelligent educated people could continue doing that over and over. Funny that a guy that is a teacher as you say you are can’t see it. But you can’t. And won’t.
        You have no answers for the questions I pose and you know goddam well. You couldn’t argue without using the items I listed on p. 34. “That’s an argument from incredulity….that’s not the way evolution works….stevebee doesn’t know what he is talking about….oh, that’s an argument from ignorance…..you’re education sucks….’ Over and over. You would fall on your face in a real argument. Splat. You can’t answer what no one who ever lived cannot answer. Unless you are gawd hisself.
        I love your response to gene: that’s borderline abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t do abiogenesis. Because we can’t think of any good bullshit fable for abiogenesis.

        If you could you would grab it. Right? And you know goddam well. “Oh, life started with…..” You would love to be able to say that. And suddenly they would be combined.

        I love this one: “Oh, and that’s irreducible complexity gene. When we take parts away from a system, it still had function, and therefore could have evolved.”
        What puke. Try removing your computer power cord, and figure out a new use for your computer. How about a paper weight. Right? Remove your optic nerve and see if your goddam IC challenge is correct. Or smash your visual cortex. Is it now IC? Is there another use for an eyeball with no optic nerve? That is such a stupid challenge, but one you will believe as a good indoctrinate should. I also love how you so kindly explain it to gene like you know. Your response to gene shows nothing but indoctrination and groupthink. “WE” know, gene, and I will tell you.
        Want to debate, you and me, one on one? You couldn’t do it and you know it. You would use the trite arguments I listed on p. 34. Which would completely cripple your “argument”. Because you don’t have an argument. Just indoctrinated bullshit that someone told you, which you believe, and you tell your students. Which, unfortunately, they will believe.
        What a joke.
        I have plenty of questions here on this blog. You can’t answer any, except to say “they’re wrong.” Talk is cheap. You don’s seem to have any problem talking with me and gene right now. Right here. And, just think, you can write all you want. So have at it. I had the guts to come there and get taken on by 20 evo-robot killers. Take on the ten impossibilities. Take on the test. there are thirty questions for you. And the oculomotor system. Thirty one questions. That is the start of the debate. Why should I spent my time copying the same stuff to some other site? My debate is always here for you to take a swing at. What more do you need? Have at it, or wimp out. Your choice. But don’t give me any bullshit p. 34 answers. I expect nothing from you.

      • Latimeria said,

        I’m content to let your last post stand. As long as what I actually said is allowed to remain without selective editing, I think anyone coming along can see what is going on here. The only other thing I’d add is that the last time I addressed one of the claims you are talking about (one of your test questions), you stopped the conversation.

        http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/why-stevebee-is-wrong-t14136-1240.html#p673560

        You know where to find me, and I’ll talk to you on any suitable discussion board or forum that allows for easier conversation.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        If I stopped the conversation, it was due to endless indoctrinated bullshit answers on your part. P.34, over and over. I never discontinue interesting conversation. Take a critical look at the thread at rats.org. I would be embarrassed if I were on your side. How many pages can be devoted to the way I choose to use a single word? And please don’t embarrass yourself by adding to the nonsense, as I would expect. “Yes but stevebee, your use of that word shows your complete lack of education, and that you don’t understand evolution, and….and…..” I know you are just twitching to get that out. Right? You’re an evolutionaut. You are just wired up that way.
        There is simply nothing of interest to discuss at rats.org. Funny how I had to list for you groupthinkers the path to the evolution of bird nests, which no one could correct or even say much about. Better to rag on a word, and hyphen usage, I guess. I mean, really, don’t you ever get embarrassed by your peers? As I said, my stuff is here for you to attack.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Note: I didn’t respond to your coelacanth discussion because you should be intelligent enough to see that the amount of evolution displayed in 420 million years is non-existent to puny. You gave me “evidence” that wasn’t, and not worth my time Analyze it yourself.

  6. ADParker said,

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Actually I think just as I said: your house is a biological system! Why change the subject?”

    Say what?!

    stevebee92653 said:
    “ADParker, what is it about you evolutionauts that twist everything I say? I love your “stevebee thinks 2X2 is 22″ Where on earth….no why on earth would you say something so stupid? Hard to believe .”

    Not familiar with basic analogies stevebee92653? Why am I not surprised?

    For those not in the loop:
    This analogy in context was me liking stevebee92653 claims of we “Evolutionauts” {ugh} using “groupthink” by all pointingout the same flaws in his rants to (the analogy) stevebee92653 claiming that 2×2=22 and everyone else saying “No, the answer is 4!”, and stevebee92653 dismissing this as “groupthink” mentality, avoiding the discomfort of thinking that perhaps it is he that is in error.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Another fun one: stevebee thinks 0 doesn’t equal 0. Or stevebee says birds can’t learn. What a hoot. You are like a bunch of clones. All think and talk alike. Strange what evolution does to people. I would think it would be boring talking and thinking just like a bunch of other people.”

    See what I mean? Practically everyone agrees that he is wrong, THEREFORE it MUST b e groupthink, because the alternative, for him, is just too much for him to bear even thinking about.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Know what gibberish is? You can’t maintain a rational conversation. You can’t discuss. You are so intent on defending your belief, everything you write comes out as just that. Gibberish. ADParker:”My beliefs are number one, communication, reason, interest, exchange of ideas to the terlet. Stevebee thinks my house is a bio-system. And my computer and dishwasher are bio-systems too. And he thinks 2×2=22. And birds started building arboreal nests by laying eggs one by one in fork of Y tree branches with no nests. Stevebee doesn’t think 0=0.” You are hopelessly and over enthusiastically indoctrinated, and all logic and reason is gone for you. Too bad. I sincerely hope sometime in your life you will wake up to the fact that you have been fooled, just like all your rats.org friends. Unity. Groupthink. Notice how not one of the twenty has any questions or wonder about what I have to say. They can’t even consider the points I bring up. You are all 100% pure. I have honestly NEVER seen that situation in any venue ever.

      • ADParker said,

        And once again you resort to snide little childish insulting rants. Because you know that you have nothing better.

        What was did you think was gibberish stevebee92653? I see none, so it seems that you only THINK it was gibberish because you were unable to gasp its meaning. Perhaps I could help by explaining to to you, if only I knew what it was you are referring to.

        And no, it is impossible to “maintain a rational conversation” when this is the kind of nonsense one gets in response. It is like trying to have a rational argument with a petulant child!

        Note how stevebee92653 accuses me of “groupthink” while attributing everything anybody says on the forum, most of which did not include me, TO me!

        stevebee92653 said:
        “And birds started building arboreal nests by laying eggs one by one in fork of Y tree branches with no nests.”

        And? Not that I said that exactly. But as that IS what some birds are KNOWN to do today, it is certainly one possibility.

        stevebee92653 said:
        “Stevebee doesn’t think 0=0”

        Actually stevebee92653 thinks that one impossibility (impossible = “probability = zero”) is MORE impossible than another impossibility.

        stevebee92653 said:
        “They can’t even consider the points I bring up.”

        Oh, many (if not all) “considered” it. And in doing so found it laughable.

        I mean seriously man: Do you honestly think a sufficient response to the request for you to back up your own assertion that you have shown hundreds of demonstrations of the impossibility of evolution, is “How did arboreal bird nests evolve?” SERIOUSLY?!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        See, ADParker, just more gibberish. You can’t carry on a respectful intelligent conversation. You don’t think anyone can actually think except you and your fellow indoctrinates. You have been overwhelmed by your groupthink buddies who say the same damn thing. Over and over. Try reading that stupid thread objectively. You can’t, of course. Even the thought is a pipe dream. There is NEVER any discussion. In fact there is not one single person at rats.org who can discuss different ideas that are not in the tight little sphere of NS and RM. Not ONE! Isn’t that startling? To me it is very. Everyone that doesn’t believe the preposterous notion that NS and RM can make any bio-system is treated as some sort of retard, and demeaned right up to the line, over and over and over. What a bore.
        This is you:
        Oh, many (if not all) “considered” it. And in doing so found it laughable.
        And once again you resort to snide little childish insulting rants. Because you know that you have nothing better.
        Not familiar with basic analogies stevebee92653? Why am I not surprised?
        all pointingout the same flaws in his rants
        See what I mean? Practically everyone agrees that he is wrong,
        So that would make houses, computers and washing machines “Bio-Systems” as well?!
        It is like trying to have a rational argument with a petulant child!
        stevebee thinks 2×2=22
        stevebee thinks 0 doesn’t equal 0
        stevebee……..
        I can’t imagine what it would be like actually thinking like you do. No inquisitiveness, no wonder, no searching, no skepticism………..just locked in indoctrination that you spend so much time defending. For some reason. You don’t want open discussion, intelligence, truth, science. You want to defend what someone taught you and you believe with all your heart. Me, I just don’t understand how anyone could actually be like that. Be like you. It must be awful.

  7. ADParker said,

    Oh and “exchange of ideas to the terlet”

    Tertlet?! Are you referring to the food processing machinery specialists, the town in the Netherlands, an error in typing on your part…or what?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Slang for toilet.

  8. gene said,

    AD Parker

    when you say: “Oh I think their actions were VERY “Christian.”

    What do you mean by that?

    • ADParker said,

      Basically a reference to the observation that religions tend to pretend humility while acting “holier than thou.” And many (not all) of their adherents act the same.

  9. ADParker said,

    stevebee92653 said:
    “See, ADParker, just more gibberish.”

    Oh, I see. It’s as I initially suspected; you don’t understand what that word means either. quelle surprise.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You can’t carry on a respectful intelligent conversation.”

    Yet it isyou who are the one who is so quick with the insults.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You don’t think anyone can actually think except you and your fellow indoctrinates.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You have been overwhelmed by your groupthink buddies who say the same damn thing. Over and over.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Try reading that stupid thread objectively.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You can’t, of course.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Even the thought is a pipe dream.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “There is NEVER any discussion.”

    That is because discussions are neccesarily two-way.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “In fact there is not one single person at rats.org who can discuss different ideas that are not in the tight little sphere of NS and RM. Not ONE!”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Isn’t that startling?”

    Perhaps it would be if it was true.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Everyone that doesn’t believe the preposterous notion that NS and RM can make any bio-system is treated as some sort of retard, and demeaned right up to the line, over and over and over.”

    And here you go ASSUMING that it is your general position that is “demeaned” and not your specific rhetoric.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “This is you:
    Oh, many (if not all) “considered” it. And in doing so found it laughable.
    And once again you resort to snide little childish insulting rants. Because you know that you have nothing better.
    Not familiar with basic analogies stevebee92653? Why am I not surprised?
    all pointingout the same flaws in his rants
    See what I mean? Practically everyone agrees that he is wrong,
    So that would make houses, computers and washing machines “Bio-Systems” as well?!
    It is like trying to have a rational argument with a petulant child!
    stevebee thinks 2×2=22
    stevebee thinks 0 doesn’t equal 0
    stevebee……..
    I can’t imagine what it would be like actually thinking like you do. No inquisitiveness, no wonder, no searching, no skepticism……….. “

    HA! Nice one stevebee92653! Trying to dismiss any and every commont that either disagrees with you, or points out you oh so many failings in basic reasoning as a lack of “ inquisitiveness, wonder, searching and skepticism.”
    How pathetic. You got some impressive defensive reactions there
    stevebee92653.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “just locked in indoctrination that you spend so much time defending.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You don’t want open discussion, intelligence, truth, science.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “You want to defend what someone taught you and you believe with all your heart.”

    Cheap empty insult. Ignore.

    stevebee92653 said:
    “Me, I just don’t understand how anyone could actually be like that. Be like you. It must be awful.”

    I wouldn’t know. It’s your fantasy Straw Man after all, not mine.

  10. gene said,

    AD Parker

    “Basically a reference to the observation that religions tend to pretend humility while acting “holier than thou.” And many (not all) of their adherents act the same.”

    Wow, what an attitude!

    Most reasonable men would assume good in others first. That is a basis of civilized discourse.

    • ADParker said,

      {Sigh} Not familiar with the distinction between “observation” and “assumption” then?

  11. gene said,

    When you came here you assumed you’ll get a fight but now you observe that you didn’t. There, we can play with words if you want.

    We like to reach consensus here in Canada, if we can’t we agree to disagree and go for beer. Simple.

    • Shrunk said,

      As a fellow Canadian, I’d like to also extend an invitation to discuss evolution at RatSkep, gene. Don’t be put off by the responses Steve is receiving. He’s brought that on himself by his rampant dishonesty and failure to adhere to basic rules of logic. If you approach things with an honestly open mind and desire to learn, you’ll find the board very helpful and accomodating.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Gene: If you find a desire to be indoctrinated, and part of a groupthink cult, you will fit in just fine at rats.org. But, whatever you do, don’t ask questions. You will be ragged on incessantly by the 100% pure group of believers, who themselves are chickenshit about asking questions for fear of the demeaning that will surely result from their fellow indoctrinates.

        Shrunk: open mind? What a laugh. The last people to realize they have been indoctrinated are the indoctrinates. YOU are one. You just don’t know it, and never will. Your brain is shut tight. Hey, I thought logic was out the window with evolution. Is it logical that theropods evolved into hummingbirds? Are we looking at theropods when we see a woodpecker? Did little “wolves” get rid of their fur and legs, grow fins, and become the largest animals that ever lived on the earth? That logic? Or the logic of gene’s question about the replication of DNA? Which did come first…the enzymes that allow the replication, or the DNA? Because, if it was the DNA, it couldn’t replicate….or the enzymes with no DNA would have nothing to catalyze. That logic Shrunk? You are very entertaining. Thanks.

  12. gene said,

    Latmeria and Steve,

    First of all I don’t want to cause any trouble and be cause of any trouble.

    Steve

    I don’t want to hijack your blog. I just want to show Latmeria one of my problems.
    You know more biology being closer to your field of work so you can ask types of questions I may not understand well – like Krebs cycle.

    Latmeria

    To give you an idea, here is one of the evolution problems I think about:

    While ago, I was reading about fascinating process of DNA duplication because I wanted to learn is if this is an evolvable, reducible process. If it is reducible, which sub function of this unified functional system can we remove and have for example slower or maybe partial duplication? Is it possible for this complex system to organize itself?

    After DNA helix duplication in the cell we see two DNA helices .We have to assume a copying function was performed on DNA helix. We know that copying function be it done by photocopy machine, computer or chemical assemblies has to be a very precise, organized and coordinated event.

    There seems to be a few absolutely critical events to the point of logical necessity. If any of them would be done in wrong order or at the wrong place or with wrong strength we would not get duplication.
    Assemblies like polymerase, primase , helicase already have function that could be used in some other cell process ( modularity). Further, each is assembled of discreet chemical components (folded proteins) which are arranged by some logic to provide their “standalone” functions. There seems to be layers of organization before duplication is done. There are pre and post duplication events but I can’t tell if there is proper event border to these or they all combine.

    We could even describe duplication in a few simple mathematical symbols f(x)=2x and consider duplicator as a “black box” defined only by its function without knowing inner details. Simplicity could be deceiving though because input and output of the function f are rigidly interdependent by the rules of mathematical logic.

    At the end I understand just basic biology so it would be nice to have help from somebody who knows cell biology very well to clarify this.

    I program automated systems (PLC, robotics) so when I learn about cell systems like this I may be biased to look at them as well programmed nano machines.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Don’t worry about it gene. Latimeria and I have been good “friends” long before his entry to you.

    • Latimeria said,

      Gene:

      That is an excellent question, and actually straddles the line between theories of abiogenesis and evolution.

      Abiogenesis is concerned with the initial formation of what we would consider “living things” from non-living matter, and is not considered to be part of the theory of evolution, although evolutionary biologists naturally have a strong curiosity about such things.

      The theory of evolution deals with the diversification and adaptations of living things over time once living systems are already in place.

      There are many surprising things discovered, and theories supported in research in how high-fidelity copying of genetic material may have arisen. I will gather together some resources regarding your questions which I currently have scattered in several different places if you would like to discuss this outside of stevebee’s blog. (As I said to Stevebee above, you can pick the place if you don’t want ratskep – I just hate this formatting as it makes lengthy conversations difficult).

      One thing I do wish to point out right away, though, is that it appears you may be thinking in terms of a particular phrasing of “Irreducible Complexity” arguments. We may examine particular structures or systems, and find that in their current form if you take a component away the rest is non-functional. The tempting fallacy here is to say, “therefore it could not have evolved”. This conclusion does not follow, as the “Irreducibly Comlex” system only offers a statement about the CURRENT system as it exists now. As a quick introduction to this concept, check out here:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

      And please let me know if you would like to talk elsewhere.

      Cheers,
      Latimeria

    • Latimeria said,

      Also, gene, just a quick reference before we get into any specifics:

      DNA Replication refers to the normal process of copying an organism’s genetic material.

      “Duplication” on the other hand, is generally used as a term to describe a mutation resulting when an extra copy of a portion of an organism’s DNA is made during the process of replication.

      I just wanted to make the distinction while I was thinking about it in order to avoid any confusion if you decide to take me up on my offer. There’s nothing worse than having a long conversation and then realizing that the whole thing was a result of people meaning different things with the same words!

      Latimeria

  13. ADParker said,

    Latimeria said:
    “I’m content to let your last post stand. As long as what I actually said is allowed to remain without selective editing, I think anyone coming along can see what is going on here. “

    Indeed. I actually thought that that comment of stevebee92653 was quite interesting, not to mention quite telling, in relation and contrast to what you actually said.

    I would recommend anyone here to read that comment:
    https://evillusion.wordpress.com/glossary-and-description-of-terms-i-use/#comment-4886
    and those that it followed and was in response to (the two comments from Latimeria above it.)

  14. gene said,

    Latimeria

    “DNA Replication refers to the normal process of copying an organism’s genetic material.
    “Duplication” on the other hand, is generally used as a term to describe a mutation resulting when an extra copy of a portion of an organism’s DNA is made during the process of replication.”

    I wanted to keep focused on “duplicator” because “replicator” doesn’t help me visualize the actual copying process. If there would be further discussion I agree properly defined terms should be used.

    Also

    “…The tempting fallacy here is to say, “therefore it could not have evolved”….”

    I would not say ” it could not have evolved ” because I do not have enough knowledge to make such a strong claim.

    All I do is setup thought experiments and examine logic of some scenarios. Doubts in established teachings can arise sometimes. If I had time it would be ( geek ) great to model replicator using programming language. Using any high level programming language copying a string of letters (or really anything) appears trivial.

    To do it proper way replicator should be studied well by sub function . Each sub function should further be “taken apart” by task. Tasks should be modeled on its own and than integrated backward to form integrated virtual replicator. Crap, looks more like a thesis for bio – informatics Ph.D. It would be cool but I’m not doing this.

    Anyway, I appreciate invite for discussion, but no thanks. Grass is usually not greener on the other side.

  15. gene said,

    Pretty good fight there at rationalskepticism.org. They are attacking from all sides. Stay calm and focused….

  16. Lion IRC said,

    …Don’t be put off by the responses Steve is receiving. He’s brought that on himself by his rampant dishonesty and failure to adhere to basic rules of logic. If you approach things with an honestly open mind and desire to learn…

    See the implicit justification here?

    Any unenlightened behaviour such as invective, abuse, argumentum ad hominem, etc is Steves fault. He “brought it on himself”.

    It’s interesting how the advanced, superior intellect of the “new” atheist manifests itself when it encounters the lesser, deluded, uneducated, misguided, unlettered, underdeveloped, immature, foolish, blind, or as in AC Grayling’s comparison – Neanderthal theists compared to Cro-Magnon atheists.

    I’m smarter than you so I get to shout at you. Swear at you. Laugh at you. Abuse you. Act smug and proud around you. Belittle you. Ignore you….

    It must really suck to be the child of atheist parents.

    I always thought a great man was known by the way he treated lesser men but you don’t hear many loud-mouthed atheists quoting Thomas Carlyle or letting “thoughts mature in silence.”

    As for the “basic rules of logic”, we can thank science (quantum physics) for demolishing the idea that fixed “rules” exist and we can especially thank Darwin for reminding us all that the majority in-group rules. Simply wandering into the Neolithic caveman’s tribe and announcing to everyone that you have killed their Shaman and appointed yourself ruler because a voice in your head said “atheists should be in charge” isn’t gonna fly – sorry. Atheists saying they want religion out of politics are no better than people who say women should stay out of politics. Everyone else in a democracy has to WORK to get their voice heard. The zero-burden-of-proof, non-stamp collecting, we invented logic and reason, Atheists are just being lazy

    I don’t think it’s needed, but if atheists want more of a say in politics as a counter-balance against religion, they should get up off their hind quarters and get politically active along with all the other anti-religion lobby groups that are up to their necks in policy agenda – like media magnates, the arts lobby, big business, pornography/prostitution advocates…

    • byofrcs said,

      An interesting interpretation of – Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Where you see an injustice then I think you’ll find that the more humanist approach is to not just change one injustice for another.but to cure the cause of the injustice. The injustice of a theocracy is that it is that one religion is not representative of all the religious views of all the people. This is equally true with politics in that the party in power is ostensibly for itself but in stable societies in the modern age we have added an extra layer of human rights that moderates political forces. Therein lies the problem for the religions – a set of human secular laws is more powerful then God’s word – thus the problem with religion in politics is that it must accept this truth. They don’t and that is the problem.

      So it is not that “Atheists are just being lazy” but that “atheist” is not a belief, it is not a religion, it is not a political system. I would have thought that by now you would have learnt the difference. I would have also thought that you would know that “atheists” can’t easily be grouped politically. I don’t have a problem with religion in politics as long as it is a justified rule and so as long as there is equality for all and faith is not imposed then it is fine. Most religions are not like that though – Unitarians I think are OK with Atheism. – but the mainstream religions that get the taxpayer money in Europe are the established State or former-State churches. Is that just ? Are they representative of all people ? Do they represent the large percentage of those without faith or religion ? No, no and no.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Atheism IS a belief: that there is no higher power that formed life and the universe. That the universe is devoid of intelligence beyond what humans or any other comparable aliens have. That is a BELIEF. It is also a belief about religion.
        Just like religion, it is a belief about a subject that cannot be absolutely proved one way or the other.

  17. Garm said,

    An atheist would never claim that there are definately no gods. Why? Because proving that gods don’t exist would be equally impossible to proving faeries, unicorns or werewolves don’t exist. An atheist is merely someone who doesn’t just assume that a god or gods exist, because of a complete lack of evidence for such a postulate.

    The funny thing is, we never call anyone who doesn’t believe in the existence of werewolves an a-lycanthropist. Or someone who doesn’t believe in faeries an a-faerieist. Nor would we call someone irrational or closedminded for not doing so. Neither would we call not believing in werewolves a religion. Not believing in faeries, a religion? Not believing in unicorns? Ofcourse not, Steve, and I don’t think you’d ever call someone who doesnt believe these things religious.

    So what’s so special about not believing in gods then? Nothing. There is no difference. A very important point: atheism DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING about what kind of god or gods are concerned, or what their attributes are (life- and/or universe-creating powers, for example). Just like a-faerieism doesn’t say anything about what kind of faeries are concerned and what their attributes are.

    I know you desperately want atheism to include more than that, Steve, but inventing your own definition of it isn’t going to make that happen.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Your werewolves and fairies analogy doesn’t even qualify as childish. There are so many entities in nature, so many bio-electromechanical devices that would require intelligence invention and design for their existence, and not one of them can be accounted for with NS and RM. Not bird nests, not heart/lung/blood/vessel systems, not Krebs, not consciousness. Do you know of any bio-electromechanical devices that have anything to do with werewolves and fairies? A horrible and evo-trite attempt at logic on your part.
      Intelligence in nature is everywhere you look. The source is a mystery, and is not RM and NS. Evolution as the source is as much of a fairytale as your werewolves.
      An atheist has a belief about god/gods and their existence. The word “atheist” is a description of a religious belief. Why would the word even exist if it wasn’t.
      Re: “I don’t think you’d ever call someone who doesn’t believe these things religious.”
      Of course I didn’t say atheists were religious. I do say they have a belief about religion and god.

  18. gene said,

    Garm

    “because of a complete lack of evidence for such …”

    just wondering, what would be good enough evidence for you?

    • Garm said,

      Well, that would depend on the description of said deity, given by the person who postulates its existence, now wouldn’t it?

  19. gene said,

    That makes sense.

    I can’t re postulate the whole thing but I think you are familiar with the idea of “standard” god, AKA Almighty,Creator etc

    That deity.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: