Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

..Since then Hes been rude, intolerant, hes made libelous statements , hes tried unsuccsessully to slander my family and my education. ..

Yeah, very often on this thread for lots of posters it's been a case of "you see crossfire, duck!" - not limited to you and Ionus as warring parties either. Far as can tell we got no Sicilians posting here (for those who don't know, once started, Sicilian fights continue until the last combatant has been safely laid to rest in Palermo's cemetery) and the topic is far too important to be sidetracked - as I'm sure you will both agree Smile

0 Replies

@farmerman,

In my case, i saw a post by Ionus in which he referred to there being a lot of historical evidence for the putative Jesus. I don't really know or care if the boy existed, but there is no such historical evidence. So i responsed by writing: "Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit." He responded with a typical hysteria. He claimed that my having said bullshit was a personal attack--apparently because he finds it personally insulting to be contradicted. He asserted that there was reliable historical evidence in Flavius Josephus (he didn't mention several other alleged historical sources which i was also prepared to discuss). I listed the reasons that alleged passage can be considered an interpolation, and then provided as a source, the work of a Jewish historian (Josephus was a Jew) who is a professor at a university in Israel. Ionus then ramped up his hysteria, and included vicioius personal attacks on the character of the gentleman i had cited. Since that time he has been consistently vicious. It doesn't really matter to me, since i almost never read his posts. However, i consider it patently evident that he spams this thread, as i suspect he does most other threads in which he appears, although i can't say to a certainty, because i so rarely read his drivel. I did skim through this thread this morning, however, and we've got more than a full page of a bitch fight between c.i., Ionus and Spurious. That's a lot of bullshit to have to wade through to get to something worth reading.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

begun his favored appellation for Set as "**** for brains" mostly because set had totally overwhelmed ionus in a discussion dealing with history

He couldnt overwhelm a pre-schooler in history...he is more often wrong than right. He is proven wrong and slinks off without saying a word. Apparently that is the done thing on this forum. Never admit to being wrong or people will lose faith in your God-like infallibility.

Quote:

Then Ionus jumped in and asserted that T rex and chickens have the same DNA.

By jumped in, he means posted. By asserted, he means I said : "Thinking about it, who says they are extinct ? Ever eaten a chicken ? It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken ". Now you dont have to be a genius to see what was actually written is totally different from what he says.

This is a direct quote including the shouting :

Quote:

WHO THE HELL HAS T-rex DNA??

This is what he thinks he said

Quote:

"WHo the hell has any T rex DNA."

He then proceeded to ridicule and insult me.

I produced where I had read it, bearing in mind I only said "seems" and fully expected an interesting discussion on birds and dinosaurs and any possible connections. But all I got was mid-life crises abuse. I am not here for him to fluff up his ego, I dont care if other fools like him or not.

Quote:

If anyone here expects "apologies" I submit that he should first look into a mirror.

Apparently he expects me to look in a mirror to see who expects an apology.....this has been a problem all along...he doesnt make sense and his poor spelling doesnt help. He thinks there is a Pleicoene period and when I pointed out his error he just blithly ignored it. Wouldnt a real man have admitted a mistake ? I just admitted a mistake on a thread a couple of minutes ago. His posts reflect an unsound mind, either drunkeness, fatigue or depression.
Apparently according to him it is my fault he shouted, my fault I was quoting an expert who I thought was accurately represented and my fault he continued to abuse me. What he clearly doesnt like is I retaliate better then he gives. We would call him a sook. I will change slightly what he said about me in order to describe him : "Since then Hes been rude, intolerant, hes made libelous statements , hes tried unsuccsessully to slander me and my education. Despite him being ignorant of many things, hes consistently tried to suggest he is a scientist. I have no idea why " (spelling unchanged).
I have no proof of him being anything but a blowhard. This is the internet. Why would I believe him ? His performance doesnt suggest anything than another egotistical fool with a computer. And we already had Setanta for that.

I have been alarmed that he says he lectures at Uni....having been in that psoition myself, I doubt it very much. His explanations are nouns looking for verbs...he thinks if he abbreviates things he is seen as clever. In short, his explanations add considerable doubt to his self proclaimed ability.

Quote:

Ionus is dead to me (to quote Don Corleone), and I see no reson to have any direct dealings with him.

I will never ignore someone. I am not that good that I do not need to learn from others. To judge someones next post by their last is stupid, and there are many stupid people posting here. They brag about who they have on ignore.

Quote:

SHould someone like you post something by him, I cant help but read and pass my opinion on .

You see ? The man is guiltless in everything he does. A paragon of Godly virtue. Or is that a parody of human virtue ?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Notice how HS and fm have ceased questioning my memory after Imur found the post I was referring to.

Why does no-one on this forum admit to a mistake ? Will it be the end of their lives ? That attitude alone is a great challenge to the teaching of evolution. If people are convinced they are God and dont make mistakes I dont want them teaching anything. I wouldnt trust anyone near my kids if they cant admit to a mistake. They will stuff up sooner or later, and be too arrogant to repair the damage. At least in religious teaching humanity is emphasised, not denied.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Since the page turned, can I please re-post my Q to Farmerman - related to Wandel's topic here for a change...

High Seas wrote:

.... I hope you'll address the more general question: there is an obvious link (via many shared features visible to the naked eye) between dinosaurs and today's birds, so is there any residual doubt (even absent dino-DNA) that the evolutionary descent went something like this>

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/34.Cloning.Dinosaurs.HTML
> and if there's no doubt, how can anyone object to teaching that an evolutionary process was at work there?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Interestingly enough, as a geologist, Im less impressed with phylogenetic "trees" based upon fossil evidence. Its always been my contention that fossils represent "cousins" at best. The real "intermediates" of a phyla are those things which actually are alive at any particular point in time. I consider the polar bear to be an intermediate form because it still retains the mixed heritage of the brown bear and the derived "maritimus" attributes.

I am mostly impressed with linnage DNA and "fossil DNA" (as proposed by Carroll). This can only be done by looking at th complete genetic complements and epigenetic complements of unrelated species and doing the connections from DNA that is both "off" and "on"

The entire argument about SChweitzer and her crew was that there never was any DNA found (I told that to Ionus in a PM) it was merely a find of varuious types of amine compounds, nucleotides and proteins. The results were initially (falsely) reported as "chicken " myelin as an undeniably high percentage of the protein complement. There was a series of errors in the Mass Spec data because the macjhinery used was found to be contaminated by proteinaceous material from previous samples (which included a whole bunch of ostriches).
LAter Mass Spec /GC data was done on new equipment and the percentage complement of r"chickens" was about the same as for "lizards" so it became a game of statistics. Its an interesting story about , mostly, how sciemce can be self policing .

Like set implied, when we debate around here , we often use terms like "bullshit" to stop a proposal in its tracks. I didnt use bullshit, I used caps . SO maybe ionus got his bib in a twist by my flaming.
I dont know and I really dont give a rats ass. I like healthy debate and Im not immune from namecalling either. However, I try not to carry it on for too long because Id miss out on some good information .
I think set, georgeob, and I engage in super name calling alot. and it doesnt seem to affect any subsequent communications. However, Ionus has made it a personal mission to piss off as many people as he possibly can and so, Im not gonna stand in his firing line because all it does for me is to reduce any cred I may have by my engaging in debate at his hystrical level. It becomes a mere argument of who started calling names first.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

As far as your question, I recall the old prof at Brown in the geo dept and I always knew that phylogenetic trees based upon fossils was in big trouble when you look at the words in the linnean system

ORNITHISCHIAN dinosaurs are those with "bird hips" and include the lumbering bigass dinosaurs on four legs

SAURICHIANS-are the "lizard hipped" dinosaurs which include birds

In class I always asked the question and was given answers with what I considered was garbage. Only later did the DNA of linneages of living animals provide us clews to the systems or clades

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I recall that entire thread and I saw how you went from being set to becoming "CAPTAIN **** fer brains" . It was a subtle metamorphosis, but several of us noted.
Hence, when I became Gomer, I felt that I should reciprocate.

We are a bunch of kids really.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The real "intermediates" of a phyla are those things which actually are alive at any particular point in time.

Having looked up the more obscure (to me!) terms, now have follow-up question: is that because DNA is easily obtainable from living creatures? I understand the morphology part - brown bears being related to polar bears - but except for DNA what criterion can be used for "what came first"? E.g. excluding DNA, how do we know for sure we're descended from monkeys, not the other way around, except through the fossil record?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yeah, but my epistemological dick is bigger than his . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

i saw a post by Ionus in which he referred to there being a lot of historical evidence for the putative Jesus

I said there is evidence for an historical Jesus, just as much if not more than some readily accepted historical figures.

Quote:

He claimed that my having said bullshit was a personal attack--apparently because he finds it personally insulting to be contradicted.

You are either a liar or stupid.

Quote:

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit."

What he really said was "jesus, where do you get this ****?"

Apparently he likens my opinion to **** but cries himself to sleep if I call him **** for brains. He is a coward and a bully ( though a very successful coward he is rather unsuccessful bully - but he tries hard).

Quote:

Josephus was a Jew

So was Jesus.

Quote:

Ionus then ramped up his hysteria, and included vicioius personal attacks on the character of the gentleman i had cited.

Where do you get this **** ?

Quote:

Since that time he has been consistently vicious.

This is from someone widely known for his personal attacks. His first reaction is to insult. I chased him off a thread yesterday for telling a non-english speaker they lacked intelligence because they couldnt speak english.

Quote:

That's a lot of bullshit to have to wade through to get to something worth reading.

Pick any topic you have posted on. You will have googled and cut and pasted like a Forrest Gump. You will have insulted someone for the most trivial of reasons.

I move **** for brains be banned for life from this forum. All those in favour ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Here is a classic example of rubbish.

Quote:

Im less impressed with phylogenetic "trees"

He doesnt say less than what.

Quote:

The real "intermediates" of a phyla

He says A phyla...phyla is plural...what is A plural ? How does this tie in with real intermediates ? Are they imbetween phyla (plural) or internal to A phyla (singular?)

Quote:

I consider the polar bear to be an intermediate form because it still retains the mixed heritage of the brown bear and the derived "maritimus" attributes.

The Polar bear IS a brown bear. It has survived several Polar ice melts by breeding with the brown bear. A hybrid has been found. It seems to be happening again as pressure is put on their hunting territory.

Quote:

I am mostly impressed with linnage DNA and "fossil DNA" (as proposed by Carroll). This can only be done by looking at th complete genetic complements and epigenetic complements of unrelated species and doing the connections from DNA that is both "off" and "on"

Nothing wrong with this one if you can follow his unusual style.

Quote:

The entire argument about SChweitzer and her crew was that there never was any DNA found (I told that to Ionus in a PM) it was merely a find of varuious types of amine compounds, nucleotides and proteins. The results were initially (falsely) reported as "chicken " myelin as an undeniably high percentage of the protein complement. There was a series of errors in the Mass Spec data because the macjhinery used was found to be contaminated by proteinaceous material from previous samples (which included a whole bunch of ostriches).
LAter Mass Spec /GC data was done on new equipment and the percentage complement of r"chickens" was about the same as for "lizards" so it became a game of statistics. Its an interesting story about , mostly, how sciemce can be self policing .

His evidence was he said so. maybe it was a voice in his head.

Quote:

Like set implied, when we debate around here , we often use terms like "bullshit" to stop a proposal in its tracks.

And I use words like **** for brains and gomer the turd to let people know I am not impressed with their early dismissal of an argument.

Quote:

SO maybe ionus got his bib in a twist by my flaming.

Maybe they want to dish it out but cant take it.

Quote:

all it does for me is to reduce any cred I may have by my engaging in debate at his hystrical level.

Damn but you were quick to come up with that....

Quote:

However, Ionus has made it a personal mission to piss off as many people as he possibly can

Evidence ? And I take it you have never pissed off anyone ? Care to bet ?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I recall that entire thread

???? Given your record, that is very unconvincing.

Quote:

I saw how you went from being set to becoming "CAPTAIN **** fer brains" .

Brilliant recall. I never use the word captain.

Quote:

but several of us noted.

Is it us and them ? Would US be some people you have met so there is a cliche little club going ? That must promote healthy debate.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Here is a classic example of rubbish.

Quote:
Im less impressed with phylogenetic "trees"
He doesnt say less than what....

Well yes, he does - my Q to Farmerman concerned reliability of morphology in comparing living creatures to our reconstruction of long-extinct forms. Unless I misunderstood, his answer is that - even before analyzing DNA - it's easier to track relatives by sticking to the living; "trees" must necessarily be speculative. And I don't support booting out anybody - in fact the only poster I ever saw get banned is Pepijn Sweep, and I was sorry about it because I found him very entertaining: http://able2know.org/topic/163156-34#post-4397331

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

his answer is that - even before analyzing DNA - it's easier to track relatives by sticking to the living

Now how do you get all that from his abbreviated shorthand ?

Quote:

Im less impressed with phylogenetic "trees"

Why cant phylogenetic trees be expressed as "connective diagrams of the evolution of body structure as indicated by DNA sequencing" ? and where does he say "before analyzing DNA" and "by sticking to the living" ?

I just cant believe anyone would lecture like that. It is confusing to someone who can stop and read it and already knows the subject. God knows what it must do to a student. I have much anecdotal evidence of the cruelty and corruption of Uni's in the USA, and I fire up when I see Farmerman's trashy attempts to sound important.

And what about singular plurals ? He does this all the time. If he has had a stroke or something just PM me....but if he is getting paid as a healthy fully functioning lecturer, then he can take criticism.

Lets pretend these posts are for the fiurther education of others, and not just a chance to show off how many nouns we can string together to make it painfull and meaningless to read.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
]Why does no-one on this forum admit to a mistake ? ...

The search was for "re-education camps" (re-education spelled both with and without a hyphen) and "camps". No mistake occurred in that case: these terms did not originate with Farmerman. And most everyone posts corrections - except for "divinely inspired" fanatics.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Well, Dna or portions of genes are often included in anothers DNA strings but "farther down" or in incomplete forms. These then, appear as derived or later forms that evolved.

The compound statistics used in the reporting of clades is something Ive not looked into. (The actual assmmeblahges are often measured by Polymerase Chain Reaction, which takes chunks of DNA and repeats it over and over in fixed ratios to how it appareas on the strands.
The American ACademy of Forensic SCiences has some good pubs on tne techniques used and the stats used in "sorting out the flyshit from the pepper"

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Before analyzing DNA was in my original question. "Stick to the living" was my own abbreviation in my follow-up question. Farmerman's reply seemed clear to me, but as I said I may not have understood it correctly. Finally: I'm puzzled by the "corruption" allegation in that specific field (as opposed to the global warming scam where it does exist due to vast sums in grants available to researchers with an agenda). Are you thinking of patents on life-forms? There are certainly gigantic sums available for gene therapies and the like, but...paleontology?!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Tks - I understand DNA explains why we're descended from monkeys and not they from us. Makes Darwin's insight even more impressive.

1 Reply

One of things which really impresses me about Darwin's insights is that they were based on morphology, when he had no knowledge of genetics as we understand the science. Genetics studies have not only not falsified his theory, they have re-inforced it.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know