J: I “Debate” Evolutionauts at richarddawkins.net-Pt.3
Calilasseia was kind of a leader there, and many of the lesser evolutionauts posted that they “couldn’t wait until Cali took me on”. (paraphrased) Obviously they couldn’t do the job themselves. Then here came Cali, with huge essay-like answers, and many copy/pastes from “peer reviewed papers” on the subject of the evolution of teeth, and hearts. His main thrust is that there were over 1300 papers written on the subject of the evolution of teeth which I should read. Typical MO for evolutionauts who can’t answer themselves. Of course I read five or six papers before taking the subject up in my YT video, because I wanted to know what evolution had to say about how teeth evolved. The papers, and Cali had no idea how, and most of the information was an anatomic description of teeth, and stated that fish teeth evolved into more the more complex teeth of later species. Stating IT ain’t IT. Anyway, after being attacked in over 40 pages and here in the comments for using a pen-name for my writings and supposedly lying about patents I claimed to have, I finally left the site, as any sort of intelligent discussion with these evolutionauts was useless. Of course they celebrated their great victory, as I predicted they would do, and to this date, they are still ragging about what a liar I am, which is nothing more that a deflection from questions they can’t answer. Here is a scathing letter written to me by Cali: (What fun.)
Tue May 26, 2009 7:15 am
 Posted on his own blog comments to the effect that because he can’t work out how a natural process could have achieved the observed features of biodiversity we see, that this means no natural process could ever do this, and therefore that it’s all magic;
[ME: These people who called me a liar lie themselves so freely. I never said it’s “all magic”. I never said “no natural processes” could ever do this”. So, Cali, you are a liar. I think everything in the universe is “natural”, and that the intelligence that must be present for the complexity of life to exist in it’s current form is part of nature, is beyond our current capabilities to find, and that we should CERTAINLY continue the search. But that RM and NS is not close to the answer, and is a roadblock to that search.]
 Posted on his own blog material falsehoods with respect to his own identity, including a claim that the individual named “Steven B. Lyndon” (whom he claimed to be) is the holder of numerous patents, whilst even an elementary search of the various relevant patents databases yield NO results for that name;[ME: I write under a pen name for obvious reasons, and this was an A-bomb at dawkins.net. Actually, any person with half a brain could find my patents very easily. I didn’t do much of a job of hiding them. ]
 When challenged to produce the patent numbers, he failed to respond with anything other than his usual bluster, blather, insults and snide condescension; [ME: Again, my patents are easily findable, and have been on YouTube for over two years under my screen name, with my real name on board. Funny that when these evolutionauts found out I was not lying, or “full of shit”, or……not one of them apologized for being wrong or rude. As expected. They went on to a huge feeding frenzy about my pseudonym. Of course, they all use pseudonyms themselves. But no matter.]
 He is also linked to a YouTube video posted under another identity, one “Anders B. Lyndon”, who claims to be a tenured university biologist, yet no one of that name, or even remotely resembling that name, can be found on the staff list at the relevant university;
[ME: Anders is a fun guy that sent the evolutionauts into another feeding frenzy. The vid says he was a biologist at the U of TA, Arlington. What fun. Hours and hours of work in this feeding frenzy by the evolutionauts.]
 He now claims to have left this forum for good, basically throwing his teddy in the corner because he’s been caught disseminating material falsehoods, that were eminently checkable and exposable as such by anyone with even elementary web browsing skills.
[ME: As of this writing, Cali still doesn’t realize that the patents I claim to have I DO have. Many of his fellow evolutionauts have found them. So he’s pretty late here. Most of the rest of the evolutionauts now know. And, my pen name…….well. It should be obvious why I do that. A little anonymity on the net is always the best way to go. I am surprised that his parents named him Calilasseia. What an unusual name for such a respected scientist that knows the most reverend of the the reverend evolution scientists, and who “presents peer reviewed papers” almost daily.]
So I’m not going to receive an answer to my question about whether Steve, like all the other propagandists for “design”, actually possesses the hallowed metric for “designedness” that I asked for back in the Part 1 thread, and am probably not going to find out if he even understands what is being asked of him?
[ME:Cali wants me to point out “designedness” and its characteristics? It’s obvious beyond imagination. The fact that nature, hundreds of millions of years ago, invented a digital camera far superior to our own design, and a pump far more complex than any that exist on earth today is a hint. But if he is that blind, and his head is that far in the sand, so be it. And I love the word “designedness”. Take a simple word, make it more complex, scare those who question. D-d-d-duh, I-I can’t think of an a-a-a-answer to d-d-d-designedness. HAR HAR HAR]
[ME: Then Cali left me this nice essay on what a terrible person I am. Cali, if you read this, one or two sentences could have done the job. You just repeat and repeat. And, I really feel honored that you would spend so much time on little ole me! Thanks! Really…………………]
Oh, and Steve, if you’re reading this, allow me to say the following.
You have engaged in rampant discoursive malfeasance, have abused the hospitality of the Richard Dawkins Forums on a scale that, even by the usual standards of creationist/IDist duplicity, stands out as being of a special order, have demonstrated time and again that you know less about basic biology than a 12 year old school pupil here in the UK, that you think the world revolves around your personal incredulity and panders to your ignorance, and indeed, you have exhibited all of the characteristics that professionals in the field readily associate with pathological narcissism. Your galactic hubris, your frankly pathetic pretensions (as they have been exposed to be), your repeated dissemination of material falsehoods not only with respect to valid,. evidence-based, reality-based science, but also with respect to your own purported position of “authority”, and your pompous, bombastic, smug, self-righteous displays of self-satisfaction, bear all the hallmarks of the aetiology associated with uncritical adherence to a doctrine and wholly emotional self-identification with that doctrine, a familiar and frankly tedious pattern that has been seen in creationists time and time and time again. It is a mark of your complacent self-absorption and self-regard that you completely fail to understand why your behaviour has attracted the odium that it has: you seem wholly incapable of recognising that people regard pathological lying, of the sort that has been manifestly the foundation of your posts, to be beneath contempt, and seem genuinely surprised that you are regarded by the critical thinkers here with scorn and derision. The hideous spectacle of moral turpitude that you have presented, courtesy of your demonstrated wilful ignorance, your entirely specious attempts to hand-wave away the work of eminent scientists whose toenail clippings bear more of a stamp of authority than you do, and your oft-demonstrated inability to construct sentences that even remotely bear signs of constituting a genuine argument in accordance with the rules of proper discourse, merely highlight to those reading this thread who are in possession of functioning brain cells, not only the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the doctrine you have elected to accept uncritically, but the toxic and gangrenous effects upon the fibre and character of human beings said doctrine exerts. Assuming that you are going, for once, to be true to your word, unreliable as that word has been repeatedly exposed to be, and you are going to leave the Richard Dawkins Forums for good, I can say without fear of contradiction that your presence here, whilst possessing some entertainment value, has in the main served as a prime example of why creationism, and its various bastard ideological offspring, constitute an epistemological cancer eating away at the fruits of honest, rational labour, a cancer that needs to be excised as soon as possible. I for one regard your exit as long overdue, and my personal view is that if your exit is indeed permanent, then the only sentiment I can find myself willing to exert the effort to express is “good riddance”.
I think this covers everything.
[ME: Are you sure? Translation: He can’t answer the few questions I posed on dawkins.net, which makes him look bad in front of his worshippers. Why wouldn’t he want me out of there? I consider this writing a trophy. Thanks blue butterfly! Have a nice life.]
[ME: Here is another astounding exchange between me and a guy whose real name is Ecophysiologist. Strange name his parents gave him. This guy looks and talks like a very well educated evolutionaut. He has no idea that you cannot use what you are trying to prove as evidence for what you are trying to prove. I posed the following challenge to evolutionauts:
Stevebee92653 wrote on rd.net site, as challenge #4 to them:
“Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: That mutations can, do, and did form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue, and can place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be selected by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on, and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue.”
This is ecophysiologist’s answer. He asked me to comment on his answer, and that response is after his.
One of the morphological features differentiating humans from other primates is a well-developed and convoluted cerebral cortex. Agreed?
Now, how did the human cortex and primarily the neo-cortex come to be so large?
(MOD ANAT & GEN): We’re now aware of a number of gene sequences that have evolved significantly since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor. To focus on one in particular: The region known as human accelerated region 1 (HAR1) is an 118 amino acid sequence that encodes an RNA sequence. HAR1 is active in neurons that are significant for determining the pattern and layout of the developing cortex. Dysfunction in these neurons can lead to lissencephaly (’smooth brain’) and schizophrenia.
But back to humans vs. chimps…
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.):If we compare the chimp HAR1 region with the equivalent chicken region, there are only 2 AA substitutions over the period of ~300My since a common ancestor, so the region has been highly conserved. However, if you compare the human and chimp sequences, there have been 18 changes over ~6My since a common ancestor, so there has been a dramatic (900-fold) increase in the rate of mutation of that region. [ME: Read the question, THEN answer Eco.]
So we have:
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.):1. A specific DNA sequence
2. Coding RNA signals in neurons critical for cerebral cortex development
3. That has undergone rapid and significant mutation over the span of the 6My divergence of humans and chimps from a common ancestor
4. And profound increases in the size and complexity of the human cerebral cortex vs. the equivalent chimp anatomy.
Further reading provided below.
(READ PPRS): General: Pollard, K, Scientific American, May 2009
Scientific literature: Pollard, K., et al., Nature 443, 167-172 (14 September 2006)
Stevebee92653: Response to Ecopyhsiologist
The problem with your answer is the foundation upon which it rests. One assumption is needed to support the next. In this case, your assumptions are:
(1) chimp and man have a common ancestor. I know in your world this an absolute, in my world it isn’t. You are trying to prove something that my view can’t accept, and starting with chimps and man having a common ancestor brings up all kinds of questions, and can be undermined . Addendum: You are using what you are trying to prove, evolution and the idea of common ancestors, as evidence for what you are trying to prove, a huge scientific and legal error.
(2) That mutations occurred between our common ancestor and man producing a more complex brain than that between our common ancestor and the chimp, when there is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that mutations are the cause of the distance between man and chimp.
(3) That mutations formed man’s consciousness, ability to reason, talk, contemplate.
Chicken to chimp mutations? Have you tried counting theropod dinosaur to hummingbird mutations? I wonder how many there were. Or the theropod to chicken mutations would be interesting. And the mutations that made those hummingbird wings flap a thousand times a minute must have been some mutation.
I don’t know if this is a serious question or not. But if it is, it doesn’t answer the question I posed, and you should be able to tell that without my help. To be blunt, “bad” mutations can be so obvious. Multiple legged, bubble eyed specimens don’t rely on a ladder of assumptions to observe. But the good ones are invisible. But I said I would answer.
The rest of the discussion involve mostly put downs, rants against me, and ad homenim attacks. If there is anything of interest that I haven’t gone over, I will add it to this log. A sample of the rest of our discussion:
I’ve now read his laughable responses and it is clear the guy know nothing whatsoever about biology, evolutionary theory or even the most basic of facts necessary to grasp this topic, let alone debunk it.
I agree, SteveB is utterly ignorant of the ToE and natural selection, laughably so, he deserves every scrap of ridicule he deserves.
Mind like a steel trap, that boy.
Steve appears to be absolutely immune to irony
I didn’t know he had rumpled clothes as well as a rumpled understanding
Calli, please don’t use the scientific name for Betta splendens Steve might get confused
So how many lawsuits do you have against you? I feel this is a legitimate question as you seem to have done no actual reading and apparent lack of understanding of the materials.
And here we have an ample demonstration of why you’re regarded as scientifically ignorant and illiterate
Stevebee is apparently a troll or is completely blind to anything that counters his argument thus making him completely ignorant even of his own ignorance.
Amazing that these people would spend so much time ranting and ragging about lil ole me! That alone should tell the reader that I have had a huge impact on them, with just a few questions that were posed there by me and evocritic. As none of the questions were answered, I mean NONE, I found it unnecessary to add any more. They wouldn’t be able to answer those either.
Ta Da, as one of them said.
A creationist type, who ventured on the richarddawkins.net site, left a couple of “creationist type” posts (part 1 of richarddawkins.com “debate”). Cali’s explanation for his unmannerly response, calling him a fucktard, et at: (his response is pretty self explanatory)
And, if you look at the post in question, I clearly and explicitly label the quotes as originating from that individual ON YOUTUBE. Which means that as far as this forum is concerned, if he isn’t a member, he’s fair game, especially when he posts the kind of inane drivel that I dealt with in my linked post above.
Moreover, if one reads that post of mine, whilst I did say at the beginning that I considered him to be “a noxious little tosser”, and labelled him as such, the “fucktard” comment was aimed at his inane drivel and not at him. I described his assertions as “fucktarded nonsense”, not least because they were, and I demonstrated with ease WHY those assertions were fucktarded nonsense. Because his stupid, indeed fucktarded assertion that an amoeba cannot reproduce cells is precisely that, fucktarded, as anyone who has actually watched various Amoeba species undergoing mitosis under the microscope knows only too well. His assertion was palsied drivel of the most gangrenous and bubotic order, as was his assertion that the fact that we are composed of billions of cells somehow “disproves” evolution (why do these morons never learn the distinction between proof, which is a formal procedure in pure mathematics, and evidential support, which is the process by which hypotheses are established to be valid in the physical sciences?). Not least because, as I stated in that post, all humans arise from a single cell, namely a fertilised ovum (but then given the hangups fundie nutjobs such as this manifestly ignorant dickhead have over sex, is it surprising that they know fuck all about basic human biology?), and moreover, I once again cited the relevant scientific paper with respect to the appearance of multicellularity in a single celled organism, a process that has been demonstrated to occur repeatedly dozens of times in the relevant experimenal setup. Indeed, anyone here with basic skills in fishkeeping can set up the relevant colonies of Chlorella vulgaris and Ochromonas vallescia, culture them in jars, and then replicate the experimental circumstances leading to multicellularity appearing in the Chlorella culture. Sampling the Chlorella culture afterwards and examining the live colonies under any modestly capable microscope establishes that the organisms do indeed form multicellular colonies under that experimental setup. This isn’t fucking rocket science, this is something I can do in my kitchen. Not least because I’ve bred a high-maintenance species of Peruvian catfish in my kitchen before today, and I have the photos of the fry to show off to anyone who cares to ask.