Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Ionus says

Quote:

Your xenophobia is showing again. Any measure of the relative forces at Midway makes very clear the Japanese should have won. The USA lucked through.

farmer is right.
The Japanese had four carriers. They thought the US only had one, after its losses in the Coral Sea, so the US should be easy to knock out. The US had in fact three, after reound the clock frantic repairs, plus the heavily fortified base at Midway, whcih the IJN wlould have to take, after all, so there was in fact a rough parity of forces. Plus the US had broken the IJN codes so knew pretty much exactly the disposition of the Japanese fleets and exactly when they planned to attack and how. In addition, to try to make a sneak attack on Midway, the IJN had split their fleet into four widely separated groups, so if some were spotted approaching it would seem like they were a much smaller force then they in fact were. What that meant is that the smaller groups were too far apart to reinforce each other when attackied.

If you count "luck" as overly complicated Japanese battle plans and rigid reliance on battle doctrine, which didn't work, plus egregious miscalculation of American strength, plus really poor reconnaisance and intelligence as to where Americans were, plus American skill at codebreaking and radar, plus forces that were in fact pretty comparable, plus bombing hits that took out two IJN carriers early on, then it was "luck"--but that's an extremely odd definition of luck.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Famerman is wrong.

Quote:

The Battle of Midway may be remembered as one of the most spectacular naval battles in history and one of the huge turning points in the Pacific theater, but it started out as a pure clusterfuck for the Americans.

Despite going into battle with most of Japan's game plan in their pocket thanks to American codebreakers/Bothan spies, the U.S. Navy had little to show for it in the early hours of June 4, 1942. Just about every aircraft that took on the Japanese that day was destroyed, and all without delivering any serious damage. In short, the Battle of Midway started off like the Battle of Endor, only with every fighter in the Rebel Fleet crashing into the Death Star's deflector shield.

Where it Gets Weird:

There was one squadron of American dive bombers lead by Lieutenant Commander C. Wade McClusky, Jr. that got lost on the way to the battle. So lost that they entirely missed out on the initial bloodbath that got all of their fellow planes killed. Nearly out of fuel and flying blind in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, commander McClusky nevertheless put his enormous balls to the walls and kept searching for the real life Imperial Fleet.

His squadron started dropping like flies until, in an act of sheer luck that would make even J.K. Rowling roll her eyes, McClusky stumbled across a Japanese destroyer. Once he lifted his eyes to scan the horizon, the bastard saw the Rising Sun of the Imperial Japanese Fleet staring back at him and realized, "Holy ****! Just the enemy navy I was looking for!" Of course, judging by what had been happening prior to that, this meant certain death.

Where it Gets Even Weirder:

While finding the ships at all was luck, by some kind of ridiculous freak luck McClusky's squadron arrived at the precise moment when all three Japanese carriers were reloading and rearming their aircraft.

In a matter of minutes, Japanese fleet carriers Kaga, Akagi, and Soryu--along with all their airplanes--were destroyed in an attack that cost the Imperial Navy some of its finest sailors and pilots. The fourth carrier Hiryu was sunk in a counterattack the next day, effectively wiping out the same Strike Force that made up the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This winning of the lottery twice in the same day dealt the Japanese Navy's first defeat in almost 300 years, and a lopsided victory for the Americans that the Imperials never recovered from.

Quote:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18421_6-insane-coincidences-you-wont-believe-actually-happened_p2.html

The Japanese had 4 fleet and 1 escort carriers, the USA had 3 fleet carriers, That is a substantial difference. The Japanese pilots were all experienced veterans of several years combat, the USA had all green pilots. USA torpedoes were crap, you were lucky if they didnt blow up the plane that dropped them, esp as it had to fly far lower than its Japanese equivalent to launch them. The Japanese zero was superior to the wildcat (fighter) and they had more of them. The Jap aircraft ALL (fighters, dive bombers and torpedoes) had long range strike capability, the USA torpedo planes had very short ranges, though the wildcat and dauntless (dive bomber) had good ranges, they were still not as long ranged as the Japs.

By any measure, the USA was lucky to win. Incidentally, the first kamikaze attack of the war was at Midway, by a USA marine pilot from Midway.

1 Reply

They were out there, they knew the japanese were somewhere, and they kept searching. You go into battle and the best laid plans immediately go out the window, on all sides. The American bombers and fighters that went down early on pkept the Japanese so busy they couldn't launch successive waves of bombers and retaliatory fighters and their flight decks had planes stacked up that they couldn't get rearmed and up, so they were easy prey for the bombers that attacked them. that's what battles are all about--neither side can tell what the enemy is going to do. If that's luck, then damned near every battle in every war is luck, and Midway is no different than every other battle. You might want to read the wikipedia article on it for the mainstream perspective.

And the fact remains that the Japanese split their forces into four--almost always a really bad idea- rather than one concerted attack, which left them far more vulnerable, as it turned out.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

They won by luck. They didnt plan to lose most of their aircraft and win at the last possible moment. Any comparison of the forces involved puts the winner of the battle squarely in the Japanese corner. Another indicator is if you were to run a simulation of it, how many times would the USA win and how many times would the Japanese win. The USA was inferior in almost every category and got off to a very bad start. To win from that position requires luck. It also required guts and determination, but that doesn't detract from the lucky break the USA had.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Excellent summaru MJ. Ive always liked the dismissal of logisttics in superior numbers and the role of tactics and strategic plans that US had counted on. AFter all, the DOolittle raid was sort of a set up to drawing the IJN out, and the US use of superior PBY's to run a 180 degree circle around their task force and Midway, spooted the IJN fleet early.
As far as inferior planes, I think the torpedoes were all crap and it took several more months before the US caught up and surpassed the Japanese in technology.

Ionus seems to grab onto ome wackos blog spot (theres lots of em out there and some are even pretty good but somehow Ionus always chooses blogs written by non scholars).
___________________________________________________________

HS, the placoderms reached a pinnacle , like dinosaurs but were so adapted to being a top predator and were so damned big , that any small change in environment that allowed the budding off of the faster bony fishes, put these fish in second place.
The specimen you posted is a Dunkelosteos(I think). Its my fav placoderm cause when I saw the specimen we took a class field trip to the Indiana basin limestones to do mapping of various units and as a side trip we visited several museums on the way back. The Cleveland Nat History mnuseum holds this big mother which you have to see in full size to appreciate. Its like a big carp , 35 feet long and a head as big as a MiniCooper.
Vera Kewl

4 Replies

@farmerman,

The American search planes based on Midway were a crucial factor in the battle. Another crucial factor which many people are not aware of is that the First Air Fleet was commanded by Admiral Nagumo, a battleship man who owed his command to seniority, and not experience or expertise in naval aviation. That was also a crucial factor during the attack on Hawaii, when Genda and Fuchiaa begged him to lauch another attack on Hawaii, but he refused.

You are correct about the inferior American torpedoes, and the Navy's Ordnance Bureau refused to recognize the deficiency of their torpedoes for literally years after it had first been reported. A great many American submarines has been based in the Philippines, so the information was out there that our topedoes were unreliable--but the Ordnanced Buureau refused testing until late in 1943, and new torpedoes did not reach the submarines until 1944.

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Devastor, the American torpedo bomber at that time, was an inferior aircraft. Our losses in torpodo bombers were appalling, precisely because the Devastor was too slow. It is true that the Navy got very lucky, but it is equally true that Nagumo made a spectacular error of judgment in refueling and rearming his aircraft while there was no combat air patrol aloft to protect the fleet. When the American dive bombers arrived over the First Air Fleet, shortly after the Devastors had been slaughtered, they were able to make their attacks almost unhindered. The Japanese fighter cover available when they arrived were only those planes which had not yet landed to refuel and rearm. Because the Japanese carriers' decks were filled with fuel and ordnance when the Dauntless dive bombers arrived, it only required a few bombs to turn three of Nagumo's carriers into infernoes.

EDIT: I have corrected the name of the Fleeti's tactical commander, Commander Fuchida.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I always like to hear from folks who have the evidence and facts at hand, and not someone who starts with a premise and then digs himself in deeper .
Corse Ill stick to placoderms Wink

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

HS, the placoderms reached a pinnacle , like dinosaurs but were so adapted to being a top predator and were so damned big , that any small change in environment that allowed the budding off of the faster bony fishes, put these fish in second place.
The specimen you posted is a Dunkelosteos(I think). Its my fav placoderm cause when I saw the specimen we took a class field trip to the Indiana basin limestones to do mapping of various units and as a side trip we visited several museums on the way back. The Cleveland Nat History mnuseum holds this big mother which you have to see in full size to appreciate. Its like a big carp , 35 feet long and a head as big as a MiniCooper.
Vera Kewl

Yes, that's the one: Dunkelosteos (dark-boned?) Wow - amazing you can classify them on sight. Looking for that picture I came across a comment by a paleontology professor to the effect that if you're looking for new classes of extinct creatures start by examining museum collections. Is that true?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You may recall an observation by Louis Pasteur: "Luck favors the prepared mind." Also quoted by Fleming, discoverer of penicillin, when asked how he guessed the green goop on his Petri dishes might have killed off whatever germs had previously been there. May have worked in Midway as well....

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

Yes, that's the one: Dunkelosteos (dark-boned?). Looking for that picture I came across a comment by a paleontology professor to the effect that if you're looking for new classes of extinct creatures start by examining museum collections. Is that true?

Nope, it was named after a guy with a name of DUNKEL. He found the thing and they honored him. (Dunkels bony thingy).
I always thought it should be Dunkelosteichthys but WTF , I like "Chainsaw big mouth" best. (One of my students came up with that.)

Always when comparing and seeking new information and species , most of the work starts in a museum collection. Thats one of the reasons I hated Paleo, too uch like stamp collecting and building model planes. Not enough problem solving.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Spendi has repeatedly made reference to the heart of the matter, it is just you either dont know his (sometimes obscure) reference or cant see his point due to intellectual limitations.

That is what I think too. I would never have stayed on the thread all this time otherwise. I'm prepared to debate whether it is the heart of the matter. In fact I have tried to do.

I don't think my references are obscure. I think they are discomfitting to certain parties--that's all. They go to the heart of the functions of Christianity which are self-evidently not understood by anti-IDers on here. Which is to say that there are crucial intellectual limitations on the part of people who seem to think that our lifestyle just happened rather than it having been engineered as is the case and as one would expect it to be.

Setanta knows no history worth bothering with. He just does extracts from the vast record of disconnected facts, hagiographies and distorted rumours selected to fit both the needs of the moment and to confirm his own viewpoint. Which is, like biology at the grade school level, easy. Hence the attraction and the fear of such a method being exposed as useless except for passing exams set by people of the same sort. Ignore being the safety net.

It is a bit like knowing how all the electrical appliances work but with no understanding of the political and strategic processes by which electricity is delivered at prices affordable to the voters and which are at the root of the instability in the Middle East and which may involve us eventually in ruin. And those who don't even know how electrical appliances work should stick to just using them and leave it at that.

It is an extremely complex picture in which energy, food and reproduction are the elements at the simple materialistic level. Extending life spans is irrelevant to the welfare of a species after a certain point and is probably detrimental to it. Such a thing is a mere sentimentality from a scientific point of view.

Obviously, if ruin is our fate, as many think, Christianity will be a failure. And then suck it and see theology will have to try again if there's anything left.

I know I'm the only intellectual on here because I'm the only one who has no position and anybody who has read a position into my posts should get some remedial comprehension lessons. Positions are anathema to intellectuals but not without a recognition that positions are essential on the grounds that we have to do something because, as Goethe said, we are incapable of sitting quietly in our rooms.

I'll go with atheism, and its shoehorn, evolution, if it is shown to be of value. And so we are back to where I began seven years ago on here--social consequences. Ignoring those and you're not in the debate. You're only pretending to be and that is the real attempt to draw attention to yourself.

Begin with the objective failure of Paganism. We are not in business to fail. We are Faustians. Accept that you are one of the ones "to whom it is done" and if you want to be one of the ones who "do" get your finger out and leave your ego in the bottom drawer.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

That's nothing Io. The Battle of Actium turned on Cleopatra having a panic attack. The Spanish Armada was defeated by a storm and its cannonballs being useless. The Battle for the Falklands turned on the trajectory of two or three cruise missiles.

The list is probably endless. Luck is a very large factor which the winners will always put on Ignore for obvious reasons.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Spendi has repeatedly made reference to the heart of the matter, it is just you either dont know his (sometimes obscure) reference or cant see his point due to intellectual limitations.

How can anyone miss any of his references. But it is true, they are obscure and mostly irrelevant.
If you feel that he is on topic, why not just abandon this thread and start one of your own. Im sure you will get on each others nerves within one page.

As far as this thread, it is what wandel has tried to maintain. Hes stated it in his opening remarks (which when you asked "WHERE DOES IT SAY THAQT"? I show you and then your rebuttal is "OH YEH? WHY CANT WE WANDER AROUND AIMLESSLY LIKE SPENDI WANTS?"
Ill respond to you regarding this topic (if you can understqnd simple declarative sentences).
As far as debating the ruffles of the counterpane herein, I reject that as worthless exercises in run-on subject-free cobbling of phrases . Its not worth my time, Ive been fair with you. but your incessant schizo references and addled positions are not worth any more time. Im not putting you back on ignore because, once in a while you do seem lucid. Im not sure why you go in such mental cycles but Ill stick in there. Ill just avoid any further responses to your racial slurs. Do you dislike me cause I challenge you/ (That seems to be the basis of spendis fear of me.) OR do you hate me because Im of another race?

2 Replies

OR do you hate me because Im of another race?

What are ya, one of them blue meanies?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Im actually one of those people that Ionus refers to in a pejorative. Smile

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Excellent summaru MJ.

Because he agrees with you.

Quote:

Ionus always chooses blogs written by non scholars).

You mean similar to you commenting on history ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I always like to hear from folks who have the evidence and facts at hand, and not someone who starts with a premise and then digs himself in deeper .

Why dont you say what you really mean ? You dont like someone and come up with all manner of excuses to discount facts. You had no idea what you were talking about with Midway, you threw it in as a red herring and went down in flames. In your words, you started with a premise.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The bottom line is they were very lucky to find the Japanese carriers. The determination of a brave young commander drove that luck by pushing on when most would have returned to the carrier. But it was luck, pure and simple.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ionus seems to grab onto ome wackos blog spot

You are free to criticise it as non-factual, providing you can prove it rather than address the peasants from your throne.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I don't think my references are obscure.

I said some....and by that I was referring to some of your literary references rather than the associations of ideas that you make.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know