Dogmatic Evolutionists

[Dlx2]

So I've recently been posting at RD forums, and I've finally met a species I never knew existed.

The dogmatic evolutionist.

These fuckers are exactly like Dave and supersport. They rely heavily on arguments from incredulity, they attack scientific research without interacting with the literature, they attack entire fields of study without even knowing the methods and data used in those fields, they misuse terminology, they cling to popular uses of terminology rather than accepting that technical uses of the term might have different meanings, and they appeal to authority to an absolutely shameless extent (scientific findings are accepted or rejected according to how well they follow the writings of Richard Dawkins).

It's really a strange phenomenon. I'm used to this crowd, who actively seek out papers from the literature, who are interested in methodology, and so forth, and I'm used to scientists. I mean, I have friends who endnote personal correspondences (hell, I do the same). To come up against someone who claims to care about science but who refuses to even read an abstract for three pages while simultaneously speaking derrogatively about the results of this paper they have not read is something I expect from Robert Byers or Supersport.

I just felt that I'd share these observations. This is freaking weird.

[SteveF]

Any examples?

This isn't hugely surprising to me - I know people who work in carbon reduction who frankly haven't got a fucking clue about the science behind global warming.

[SteveF]

If they are Dawkins clones, maybe you should present this paper to them, just for kicks!

Nei, M. (2007) The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. PNAS, 104, 12235-12242.

Recent studies of developmental biology have shown that the genes controlling phenotypic characters expressed in the early stage of development are highly conserved and that recent evolutionary changes have occurred primarily in the characters expressed in later stages of development. Even the genes controlling the latter characters are generally conserved, but there is a large component of neutral or nearly neutral genetic variation within and between closely related species. Phenotypic evolution occurs primarily by mutation of genes that interact with one another in the developmental process. The enormous amount of phenotypic diversity among different phyla or classes of organisms is a product of accumulation of novel mutations and their conservation that have facilitated adaptation to different environments. Novel mutations may be incorporated into the genome by natural selection (elimination of preexisting genotypes) or by random processes such as genetic and genomic drift. However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.

[Dave Hawkins]

So I've recently been posting at RD forums, and I've finally met a species I never knew existed.

The dogmatic evolutionist.

These fuckers are exactly like Dave and supersport. They rely heavily on arguments from incredulity, they attack scientific research without interacting with the literature, they attack entire fields of study without even knowing the methods and data used in those fields, they misuse terminology, they cling to popular uses of terminology rather than accepting that technical uses of the term might have different meanings, and they appeal to authority to an absolutely shameless extent (scientific findings are accepted or rejected according to how well they follow the writings of Richard Dawkins).

It's really a strange phenomenon. I'm used to this crowd, who actively seek out papers from the literature, who are interested in methodology, and so forth, and I'm used to scientists. I mean, I have friends who endnote personal correspondences (hell, I do the same). To come up against someone who claims to care about science but who refuses to even read an abstract for three pages while simultaneously speaking derrogatively about the results of this paper they have not read is something I expect from Robert Byers or Supersport.

I just felt that I'd share these observations. This is freaking weird.Can you give some examples of people like this? I know some, but I'd like to hear your examples.

[Dlx2]

Can you give some examples of people like this? I know some, but I'd like to hear your examples.

I already told you I'm not responding to you.

[Dave Hawkins]

OK ... respond to Steve then ... he asked too!

[Dlx2]

If they are Dawkins clones, maybe you should present this paper to them, just for kicks!

Nei, M. (2007) The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. PNAS, 104, 12235-12242.

Recent studies of developmental biology have shown that the genes controlling phenotypic characters expressed in the early stage of development are highly conserved and that recent evolutionary changes have occurred primarily in the characters expressed in later stages of development. Even the genes controlling the latter characters are generally conserved, but there is a large component of neutral or nearly neutral genetic variation within and between closely related species. Phenotypic evolution occurs primarily by mutation of genes that interact with one another in the developmental process. The enormous amount of phenotypic diversity among different phyla or classes of organisms is a product of accumulation of novel mutations and their conservation that have facilitated adaptation to different environments. Novel mutations may be incorporated into the genome by natural selection (elimination of preexisting genotypes) or by random processes such as genetic and genomic drift. However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.

Someone posted that, but there were no responses. But, check this one out:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39285

[SteveF]

But, check this one out:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39285

Stupid scientists. What do they know. I, over-confident, internet messageboard poster shall school them.

Shades of Dave there.

[Dlx2]

But, check this one out:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39285

Stupid scientists. What do they know. I, over-confident, internet messageboard poster shall school them.

Shades of Dave there.

If you want a really good one, read this:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=38876&start=0

I'm thinking about inviting a few folks over here, though. I'm not sticking around after CJ's retardedness. If the mods live for "Dawk dawk dawk" then there's really no point in wasting my time over there.

[SteveF]

If you want a really good one, read this:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=38876&start=0

I'm thinking about inviting a few folks over here, though. I'm not sticking around after CJ's retardedness. If the mods live for "Dawk dawk dawk" then there's really no point in wasting my time over there.

I stopped reading after lbq said:

Dix2, you seem to have seen too many late-night 'mutant monster' movies - and believed them. As I explain above, adaptation, which is what evolution is all about, can be built only by a sustained process of favouring moves in the 'right', i.e. adaptative, direction, and disfavour those in the maladaptative direction, all this over many generations. And the only agent capable of consistently doing this is natural selection. No random process, like genetic drift, can build adaptation. What genetic drift does build is normally maladaption. And your 'fixation' does simply mean that the altered gene or genes have become dominant in the population. How, then, does it become dominant? All by itself? Because God wills it? No - because sustained selection has made it so.

[Dlx2]

It only gets worse. Lbq goes on a rant about how cladistics sucks, and I end up telling him to do something about his willful ignorance, at which point the mod steps in and settles it, because lbq and JimC have been reporting me for ages for hurting their feelings.

[ericmurphy]

Well, there are ignorant jerks of every stripe, I suppose. There are capitalist jerks, liberal jerks, communist jerks, religious jerks, atheist jerks, and scientist jerks, and among all those different groups there are ignorant jerks as well.

I think it's kind of amusing someone trying to school Dlx2 as to the nature of evolutionary change, though. It would almost be worth going back to rd.net just to read that one thread.

[SteveF]

Well, there are ignorant jerks of every stripe, I suppose. There are capitalist jerks, liberal jerks, communist jerks, religious jerks, atheist jerks, and scientist jerks, and among all those different groups there are ignorant jerks as well.

Some of the dumbest people I've ever met have been scientists.

[Faid]

If the first one had shades of dave, that one had shades of Guzman (and his "evolution = adaptive change = new organs outa nowhere with mind powah" claims).

Dogmatism is not restricted to fundies, and the D-K effect is spread in many diverse groups.

[supersport]

If the first one had shades of dave, that one had shades of Guzman (and his "evolution = adaptive change = new organs outa nowhere with mind powah" claims).

Dogmatism is not restricted to fundies, and the D-K effect is spread in many diverse groups.

who said new organs appear out of nowhere? Not me. You're the kook who believes things pop out of nowhere for no reason....for example: life itself.

[SteveF]

Ooooh good, another addition to my ignore list.

[Faid]

Speak of the devil! Are you lurking around, guz?

Wasn't your mind power that created all evolutionary change? Or not? It's not easy to keep up with your inanities.

[supersport]

Ooooh good, another addition to my ignore list.

your loss........you'll be missing out on some good doses of wisdom. :cool:

[Faid]

Guys, I say we let dave and guz have their own privy forum to battle it out.

We could call it "Ego Warz".

[Notta_skeptic]

Well, there are ignorant jerks of every stripe, I suppose. There are capitalist jerks, liberal jerks, communist jerks, religious jerks, atheist jerks, and scientist jerks, and among all those different groups there are ignorant jerks as well.

Some of the dumbest people I've ever met have been scientists.
In my case, substitute "engineers" for scientists. I met a NASA engineer who asked me why I didn't teach ID in school, since it made so much sense.....

[supersport]

Guys, I say we let dave and guz have their own privy forum to battle it out.

We could call it "Ego Warz".

why would I battle anything out with dave?

[Faid]

Guys, I say we let dave and guz have their own privy forum to battle it out.

We could call it "Ego Warz".

why would I battle anything out with dave?
Because this forum is too small for the two of you?

Don't get me wrong, I know you both agree completely in the ideology/religious part, but both your egos in the same thread might have disastrous effects for the time-space continuum.

[supersport]

Guys, I say we let dave and guz have their own privy forum to battle it out.

We could call it "Ego Warz".

why would I battle anything out with dave?
Because these forum is too small for the two of you?

DOn't get me wrong, I know you both agree completely in the ideology/religious part, but both your egos in the same thread might have disastrous effects for the time-space continuum.

I don't think I have a big ego at all....in fact I think I'm rather meek....and I always try to see other people's point of view.

[Faid]

why would I battle anything out with dave?
Because these forum is too small for the two of you?

DOn't get me wrong, I know you both agree completely in the ideology/religious part, but both your egos in the same thread might have disastrous effects for the time-space continuum.

I don't think I have a big ego at all....in fact I think I'm rather meek....and I always try to see other people's point of view.Really tempted to quote guz from R&R here... But I won't.

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

[nygreenguy]

So I've recently been posting at RD forums, and I've finally met a species I never knew existed.

The dogmatic evolutionist.

These fuckers are exactly like Dave and supersport. They rely heavily on arguments from incredulity, they attack scientific research without interacting with the literature, they attack entire fields of study without even knowing the methods and data used in those fields, they misuse terminology, they cling to popular uses of terminology rather than accepting that technical uses of the term might have different meanings, and they appeal to authority to an absolutely shameless extent (scientific findings are accepted or rejected according to how well they follow the writings of Richard Dawkins).

It's really a strange phenomenon. I'm used to this crowd, who actively seek out papers from the literature, who are interested in methodology, and so forth, and I'm used to scientists. I mean, I have friends who endnote personal correspondences (hell, I do the same). To come up against someone who claims to care about science but who refuses to even read an abstract for three pages while simultaneously speaking derrogatively about the results of this paper they have not read is something I expect from Robert Byers or Supersport.

I just felt that I'd share these observations. This is freaking weird.

I would concur. I also encounter this type a lot in the form of environmentalists. Now, im about as "green" a person as you'll find (im an ecologist by training) but there are many "green solutions" out there which are just bullshit (ie. corn based ethanol). And these fuckers try to tell me I dont know what Im talking about and Im "anti-science" when ALL the literature supports me!!!!

I dont get these people. :dunno:

[supersport]

Because these forum is too small for the two of you?

DOn't get me wrong, I know you both agree completely in the ideology/religious part, but both your egos in the same thread might have disastrous effects for the time-space continuum.

I don't think I have a big ego at all....in fact I think I'm rather meek....and I always try to see other people's point of view.Really tempted to quote guz from R&R here... But I won't.

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

well thank you......I'm actually quite reasonable and pleasant most of the time...unfortunately I sometimes let people push my buttons. I'm sure this forum will be different though. Everyone seems so friendly here.

[deadman_932]

Hmmm..that's too bad. I recall when I first got to RD forums, I got into a bit of a dust-up with *some* of the mods there over an entirely different matter. You, however, just seem to have hit some posters right in the ego. Naturally "regulars" can often get away with more shit and I assume you're like me and don't hit the "complaint" button as often as some do.

CJ (the mod in that thread) is a nice person, however (and a pretty darn good mod) , and simply seems interested in stemming the contretemps. I love that thread in terms of explanatory value and it'd be a shame not to continue the dialogue (at least with Susu) into other relevant cladistic-theory matters. Clearly, hit the fuckin' mod notification button as soon as you perceive an insult -- there's no shame in that, especially when "regulars" need to be taught manners as well.

Susu is familiar with the material, mjpam was supportive, ...and eversbane might be interested in these:

O'Brien, Michael J., John Darwent and R. Lee Lyman (2001) Cladistics Is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies: Palaeoindian Points from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science, v.28:10 October 2001, Pages 1115-1136

O'Brien, M. J. & Lyman, R. L. (2003) Cladistics and archaeology. University of Utah Press.

Which I'll point out to him/her when I log in next. I don't think it's so much of some people there being overly dogmatic in adherance to a particular "evolutionary party line" as simply ignorant and over-inflated...although...man, I'm amazed you held your temper as much as you did. There's little difference in effect when it's blind dogmatism or ignorance. Give it another go and see if you can't penetrate the density!

Edit: I think I got banned suspended...twice there, if I recall correctly, when I had a vaguely similar problem. It's short-lived and your points would carry the day if you just don't take their bait and instead report their asses. Mods may not know the material, but they sure know flaming and baiting when they see it and they can't avoid it because someone reports it. In fact, you may find that some of them thank you later. It's happened before.

[Constant Mews]

I don't think I have a big ego at all....in fact I think I'm rather meek....and I always try to see other people's point of view.Really tempted to quote guz from R&R here... But I won't.

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

well thank you......I'm actually quite reasonable and pleasant most of the time...unfortunately I sometimes let people push my buttons. I'm sure this forum will be different though. Everyone seems so friendly here.

The people here are much the same folks that posted at IIDB and RNR. And they will respond much the same way: if you make statements, back them up with sound reasoning and facts, then they will treat you with the utmost sincerity and discuss your statements in an honest and constructive fashion. If, however, you refuse to engage in rational discussion; make statements without support; fail to address challenges to your logic or your representation of the data, then very little compassion will be shown.

And that is the way it has always been in science. False statements must be countered. You, Guzman, could overturn modern scientific thinking - but to do so, you would have to present sound logic, genuine facts rather than personal opinions, and you would have to engage those who oppose you directly.

The same would be demanded of anyone - scientist or creationist.

[SAWells]

Does that Aquatic Ape guy, Kuliakis, still hang out there at RD? Once got into an argument with him that stole a couple of days of my life. He had the same hyper-adaptationist slant that the OP complains about. If humans swim better than chimps than by gum it must be because humans have been naturally selected to swim better than chimps! I asked if this was also true of ballroom dancing, and things went downhill from there.

[deadman_932]

Heh, SAW, I remember that and stayed the fark away from it. That was weird as hell, too.

[Dlx2]

Does that Aquatic Ape guy, Kuliakis, still hang out there at RD? Once got into an argument with him that stole a couple of days of my life. He had the same hyper-adaptationist slant that the OP complains about. If humans swim better than chimps than by gum it must be because humans have been naturally selected to swim better than chimps! I asked if this was also true of ballroom dancing, and things went downhill from there.

Yeah, there's a bunch of Aquatic Ape people over there, although I think a few of them have now accepted the Savannah hypothesis without any actual scientific reason besides the fact that everyone else is doing it.

[Constant Mews]

Most people just don't make good scientists; the ability to think clearly, rationally, and dispassionately is probably not a survival trait.

A pity.

[Jobar]

Wonder how old those guys are? I've seen atheists who openly professed belief in things like ghosts and telepathy; most all of that sort are usually no older than mid-twenties.

But hanging around forums like this, and also RD, stands a good chance of teaching them proper skepticism.

You're certainly right that that sort is rare as hen's teeth- but then, every once in a while there's a hen with teeth!

[Notta_skeptic]

Most people just don't make good scientists; the ability to think clearly, rationally, and dispassionately is probably not a survival trait.
This is why churches thrive.

[nygreenguy]

well thank you......I'm actually quite reasonable and pleasant most of the time...unfortunately I sometimes let people push my buttons. I'm sure this forum will be different though. Everyone seems so friendly here.

I think I can somewhat vouch for this. While some of the things you said on RnR were deplorable, it was quite clear you were provoked all the time.

I remember trying to stick up for you to no avail. This is also why I came here. The group is quite civil (most of the time ;) ) and pretty respectful.

[ck1]

well thank you......I'm actually quite reasonable and pleasant most of the time...unfortunately I sometimes let people push my buttons. I'm sure this forum will be different though. Everyone seems so friendly here.

I think I can somewhat vouch for this. While some of the things you said on RnR were deplorable, it was quite clear you were provoked all the time.

I remember trying to stick up for you to no avail. This is also why I came here. The group is quite civil (most of the time ;) ) and pretty respectful.

I agree with NYGG. Good to see you back here, SS.

[supersport]

well thank you......I'm actually quite reasonable and pleasant most of the time...unfortunately I sometimes let people push my buttons. I'm sure this forum will be different though. Everyone seems so friendly here.

I think I can somewhat vouch for this. While some of the things you said on RnR were deplorable, it was quite clear you were provoked all the time.

I remember trying to stick up for you to no avail. This is also why I came here. The group is quite civil (most of the time ;) ) and pretty respectful.

I agree with NYGG. Good to see you back here, SS.

thanks Ck1....I'll probably move over here to post...I don't know what's going over at RnR....I can't even find the science forum.

[ck1]

I think I can somewhat vouch for this. While some of the things you said on RnR were deplorable, it was quite clear you were provoked all the time.

I remember trying to stick up for you to no avail. This is also why I came here. The group is quite civil (most of the time ;) ) and pretty respectful.

I agree with NYGG. Good to see you back here, SS.

thanks Ck1....I'll probably move over here to post...I don't know what's going over at RnR....I can't even find the science forum.

They are apparently celebrating April Fools' Day.

[Notta_skeptic]

thanks Ck1....I'll probably move over here to post...I don't know what's going over at RnR....I can't even find the science forum.

They are apparently celebrating April Fools' Day.
I thought they did that every day......

[Steviepinhead]

I went and read both of the linked threads, although I may not have gotten beyond the first page of the first one (if there were more).

The second one did go in interesting directions, though. Including some excellent humor, as well as it becoming entirely clear to me that I've got to get a primer on phylogenetics (something I think eric figured out several months ago during his discussions with MartinB; but then I'm not only slow, I'm a pinhead...).

The thread did start off stupidly, with (as dlx2 suggested early on above) a bunch of people making the (category?) mistake of confusing what science journalists had to say about a science paper with the claims of the scientists themselves. I mean, that IS like what Guz and dave do all the time. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.

And then there was a long and even sillier digression on whether "natural selection" was THE awesomest and most beatifullest force of all evolution (with various excursions in which Richard Dawkins got hauled in from offstage to "play" the character of non-random natural selection, in which various of his proponents--and I'm ONE of them, for frick's sake, in many contexts!--managed to get author-ethologist confused with mechanism).

Which then morphed into a somewhat more interesting discussion on whether natural selection actually was or was not a "random" / "stochastic" mechanism. Here (at least one of) the confusion(s) was between the popular understandings of random and a much more-nuanced mathematical/statistical understanding of the same concept--except here there was the funny-yet-poignant twist whereby the amateur naturalists (of whom I might ordinarily be proud to number myself among) found themselves dogmatically defending the non-stochastic nature of selection against the professional scientists... Argghh!

And, in a case of deja vu all over again, someone made the very same dix/dlx mistake that I once did over at RnR (and probably going back to IIDB, though I can at least blame my "boomer-vision"), except they never acknowledged it...

And then we got into a discussion of cladistics and phylogenetics that seriously threatened the "armchair scholars." Funniest part of that was that dlx actually got a moderation ding for "insulting" someone by calling him an armchair scholar, only to have the same offended-by-proxy fellow then describe himself, several pages later, as an "amateur naturalist." Ahem!

And, for the moment, the thread is locked.

Which is a pity, because as one of his last comments, dlx gave a masterful--and entirely civil and "amateur"-friendly--tutorial on just what the scientists in the OP'd article were REALLY claiming in the first place, and how it all related to the methodologies of the genetic phylogenetics involved...

And, sandwiched into the last several pages was an interesting (though, admittedly for me, difficult-to-follow) discussion between a geopaleontologist ("susu" or something like that) and dlx that ought to have perfectly illustrated to the amateurs (bless their souls) exactly why they should have been politely asking for edification instead of firing off poorly-aimed potshots at science they really didn't understand from the get-go.

A great thread, all in all, amusing, illuminating, frustrating, and at the same time indicative of all that's wrong with excessive moderation.

And no "overt" creationists... Who'd a thunk?

Thanks to dlx for bringing this one to my attention.

[nygreenguy]

The people here are much the same folks that posted at IIDB and RNR. And they will respond much the same way: if you make statements, back them up with sound reasoning and facts, then they will treat you with the utmost sincerity and discuss your statements in an honest and constructive fashion. If, however, you refuse to engage in rational discussion; make statements without support; fail to address challenges to your logic or your representation of the data, then very little compassion will be shown.

I totally disagree. There are several people who would lash out simply by disagreeing with them. Many have their own pre-conceived biases about everybody on the board and will target anything that person says. Opposing views are simply not accepted, no matter how strong the argument. I witnessed this on iidb and RnR.

Obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, but there are a great many who act like this.

Also, if a bad argument IS presented, how is name calling solving anything? There ARE people out there who simply dont know HOW to form rational arguments. We shouldnt belittle them just because of this. We cant, and shouldnt assume that everyone who posts on a discussion board be experts in logic and science, and we certainly should be elitist assholes because we somehow think we are.

[ericmurphy]

If the first one had shades of dave, that one had shades of Guzman (and his "evolution = adaptive change = new organs outa nowhere with mind powah" claims).

Dogmatism is not restricted to fundies, and the D-K effect is spread in many diverse groups.

who said new organs appear out of nowhere? Not me. You're the kook who believes things pop out of nowhere for no reason....for example: life itself.

Is there a distinction between "goddidit" and "nowhere"?

Not that I've ever seen.

[DanB]

Most people just don't make good scientists; the ability to think clearly, rationally, and dispassionately is probably not a survival trait.

A pity.It requires discipline and humility. Those are not our strongest propensities.

[Jet Black]

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.

[Dlx2]

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.

I've been giving Dave a chance from the very start, figuring that he was approaching the whole issue from an honest but confused perspective. After several posts of his today, I can't help but notice that his approach truly is malicious. I've given him nothing but chances, and he's disappointed me.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ooooh good, another addition to my ignore list.

your loss........you'll be missing out on some good doses of wisdom. :cool:

I don't think I have a big ego at all....in fact I think I'm rather meek....

:rolleyes:

[VoxRat]

Everyone's allowed a clean start in this forum, guz. Dave blew it, and in a really bad way; Here's hoping you won't. Welcome.

I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.

I've been giving Dave a chance from the very start, figuring that he was approaching the whole issue from an honest but confused perspective. After several posts of his today, I can't help but notice that his approach truly is malicious. I've given him nothing but chances, and he's disappointed me.While Dave often writes stuff that I think is willfully ignorant, pugnacious, insulting, disingenuous, and generally not in the spirit of actually wanting to communicate anything, I try to avoid the swearing, ranting, vituperating replies. I try to make sure that every post has some actual substance, some content that I think worth considering.

And in return, I get "this post shows either great ignorance or great dishonesty" (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=19778#post19778) - with not so much as an attempt to back it up.


I can vouch for Dlx2. I recall posts (on other boards; sorry mods) where Dlx2 took people to task for being intolerant, dismissive and insulting to Dave. So when Dlx2 says I've given him nothing but chances, and he's disappointed me.I think it should give Dave pause.

[Barbarian]

Which then morphed into a somewhat more interesting discussion on whether natural selection actually was or was not a "random" / "stochastic" mechanism. Here (at least one of) the confusion(s) was between the popular understandings of random and a much more-nuanced mathematical/statistical understanding of the same concept--except here there was the funny-yet-poignant twist whereby the amateur naturalists (of whom I might ordinarily be proud to number myself among) found themselves dogmatically defending the non-stochastic nature of selection against the professional scientists... Argghh!Now you say!

Essentially, I had that kind of exchange on IIDB, me in favor of NS being random but not uniformly so, found myself set up pretty much against everyone, e.g. Oolon called my position "ersatz philosophizing" and other unkind names (at least he has reclused himself from the thread after I called his attention to the conflict between him being angry with a poster and a mod of that forum). Of course I am self-banned over there, so I can't search for the thread now.

Sorry, I know, clean page on TR for everyone and all that, but this still bothers me.

[Coleslaw]

e.g. Oolon called my position "ersatz philosophizing" and other unkind names (at least he has reclused himself from the thread after I called his attention to the conflict between him being angry with a poster and a mod of that forum)

Did you mean "recused" or did he actually become a recluse?

[Berthold]

And no "overt" creationists... Who'd a thunk?

They have another subforum for that.

[Barbarian]

e.g. Oolon called my position "ersatz philosophizing" and other unkind names (at least he has reclused himself from the thread after I called his attention to the conflict between him being angry with a poster and a mod of that forum)

Did you mean "recused" or did he actually become a recluse?Ooops. Usually, I look up stuff in the dictionary if there's any doubt, but there were no warning signs in this case. Well, one learns new things every day here. (Webster's Unabridged: to recluse = to seclude, to shut out (obsolete). I had no idea about the obsolete bit.)

What I meant is that about at the same time when (and perhaps because of) I drew his attention to what I thought to be an incompatibility of being a mod and essentially flaming a user, Oolon stopped posting in the thread.

[Constant Mews]

The people here are much the same folks that posted at IIDB and RNR. And they will respond much the same way: if you make statements, back them up with sound reasoning and facts, then they will treat you with the utmost sincerity and discuss your statements in an honest and constructive fashion. If, however, you refuse to engage in rational discussion; make statements without support; fail to address challenges to your logic or your representation of the data, then very little compassion will be shown.

I totally disagree. There are several people who would lash out simply by disagreeing with them. Many have their own pre-conceived biases about everybody on the board and will target anything that person says. Opposing views are simply not accepted, no matter how strong the argument. I witnessed this on iidb and RnR.Do you have any good examples? You should keep in mind that folks like Dave and Guzman/Supersport have very long histories of evasion, obfuscation, and error. Folks aren't necessarily responding to their posts as though it were the first time, they are responding to points that Dave, for example, has made dozens of times and has been shown to be wrong in every single case. After months or years or responding rationally to irrational posters, an immediate condemnation is quite a sensible policy.

Obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, but there are a great many who act like this.Again, examples? It's good to distinguish the automatically cantankerous from the folks I mentioned above.

Also, if a bad argument IS presented, how is name calling solving anything? There ARE people out there who simply dont know HOW to form rational arguments. We shouldnt belittle them just because of this. We cant, and shouldnt assume that everyone who posts on a discussion board be experts in logic and science, and we certainly should be elitist assholes because we somehow think we are.The name calling seems to be generated primarily by the evasion and unwillingness to discuss that many posters display, rather than by their failed arguments. Does name calling solve anything? Not usually. Is it an explicable emotional response to a continued pattern of evasion of adult responsibility? Absolutely.

[Constant Mews]

I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.

I've been giving Dave a chance from the very start, figuring that he was approaching the whole issue from an honest but confused perspective. After several posts of his today, I can't help but notice that his approach truly is malicious. I've given him nothing but chances, and he's disappointed me.While Dave often writes stuff that I think is willfully ignorant, pugnacious, insulting, disingenuous, and generally not in the spirit of actually wanting to communicate anything, I try to avoid the swearing, ranting, vituperating replies. I try to make sure that every post has some actual substance, some content that I think worth considering.

And in return, I get "this post shows either great ignorance or great dishonesty" (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=19778#post19778) - with not so much as an attempt to back it up.


I can vouch for Dlx2. I recall posts (on other boards; sorry mods) where Dlx2 took people to task for being intolerant, dismissive and insulting to Dave. So when Dlx2 says I've given him nothing but chances, and he's disappointed me.I think it should give Dave pause.

It certainly leads to speculation on a topic that has long been of interest to me: does Dave (and supersport, but then supersport has admitted being a troll) actually have any idea how he appears to other people? Does he actually understand that he is perceived to be ignorant, illogical, evasive, and dishonest? Or does Dave only see his own internal image of himself. Most creationists that I have dealt with are truly oblivious; grossly insensitive to the nuances of conversation and blind to the way their own actions are perceived. There are instructive portions of the autism spectrum that are applicable to this phenomenon.

[ck1]

It certainly leads to speculation on a topic that has long been of interest to me: does Dave (and supersport, but then supersport has admitted being a troll) actually have any idea how he appears to other people? Does he actually understand that he is perceived to be ignorant, illogical, evasive, and dishonest? Or does Dave only see his own internal image of himself. Most creationists that I have dealt with are truly oblivious; grossly insensitive to the nuances of conversation and blind to the way their own actions are perceived. There are instructive portions of the autism spectrum that are applicable to this phenomenon.

Dave and SS have chosen to bring their arguments to forums populated by scientists and atheists. They are completely outnumbered and surely expect to have their ideas dismissed and ridiculed.

[Constant Mews]

But that doesn't mean that they think they are perceived as being dishonest, evasive, and unable to carry on a rational discussion. Generally the creationists I have discussed this point with see themselves as brave, intelligent martyrs; they feel they are dismissed and ridiculed because their opponents are unable to refute their highly logical rational arguments. They generally assign fear to their opponents and they believe that their opponents see them (the creationists) as sane, rational, honest, and terrifying.

In other words, creationists generally don't have the ability to understand other's perceptions; they are blind to the very social cues that the rest of us respond to.

[nygreenguy]

Do you have any good examples? None that I care to bother to dig up. This is just from years of observation.


You should keep in mind that folks like Dave and Guzman/Supersport have very long histories of evasion, obfuscation, and error. Folks aren't necessarily responding to their posts as though it were the first time, they are responding to points that Dave, for example, has made dozens of times and has been shown to be wrong in every single case. After months or years or responding rationally to irrational posters, an immediate condemnation is quite a sensible policy. Immediate condemnation? Is that another way of saying an insult circle jerk? :D

However, this applies to even non-creos. Guz never even had a chance, from what I saw.

Again, examples? It's good to distinguish the automatically cantankerous from the folks I mentioned above. Once again, no. If you were there, you should have saw it as well. Im certainly not going to dig through 3 years of posts.

The name calling seems to be generated primarily by the evasion and unwillingness to discuss that many posters display, rather than by their failed arguments. Does name calling solve anything? Not usually. Is it an explicable emotional response to a continued pattern of evasion of adult responsibility? Absolutely. So when one evades "adult responsibility" its suddenly ok to ignore "adult responsibility" and call names?

Its ironic that the posters who demand "rationality" and "logic" end up being more irrational and illogical than those who they are debating.

If I find someone utterly unreasonable, I usually just walk away and end the conversation. It seems the reasonable thing to do.

[Constant Mews]

Do you have any good examples? None that I care to bother to dig up. This is just from years of observation.Substantiated cases are generally more persuasive.

You should keep in mind that folks like Dave and Guzman/Supersport have very long histories of evasion, obfuscation, and error. Folks aren't necessarily responding to their posts as though it were the first time, they are responding to points that Dave, for example, has made dozens of times and has been shown to be wrong in every single case. After months or years or responding rationally to irrational posters, an immediate condemnation is quite a sensible policy. Immediate condemnation? Is that another way of saying an insult circle jerk? :DNot at all. But when observation has established that the poster is incapable of rational discussion, then responding with rational discussion is not a viable choice.

However, this applies to even non-creos. Guz never even had a chance, from what I saw.Guzman/Supersport has a long, long internet history, and he was given many chances - and still is, quite frankly.

The name calling seems to be generated primarily by the evasion and unwillingness to discuss that many posters display, rather than by their failed arguments. Does name calling solve anything? Not usually. Is it an explicable emotional response to a continued pattern of evasion of adult responsibility? Absolutely. So when one evades "adult responsibility" its suddenly ok to ignore "adult responsibility" and call names?Not necessarily. But we have already established that rational discussion is impossible with many of these folks. What is left? Amusement, generally.

Its ironic that the posters who demand "rationality" and "logic" end up being more irrational and illogical than those who they are debating.

If I find someone utterly unreasonable, I usually just walk away and end the conversation. It seems the reasonable thing to do.To you, yes. But that is your choice of behavior. You seem to be condemning others because they do not behave the way you would choose to behave. This is not reasonable.

[nygreenguy]

Substantiated cases are generally more persuasive. Well I could say the same about your claim that everyone is given a change. Of course I know that would be impossible.

Not at all. But when observation has established that the poster is incapable of rational discussion, then responding with rational discussion is not a viable choice. Heres the way I see it, if you post and are treated with hostility then it does become hard to become rational. You automatically become defensive.

Even if someone says something COMPLETLY insane, automatically attacking them does nothing to further the discussion.

Unfortunatly, I cant access the first post by guzman to see if this is necessairly true, but, once again, its something ive seen a hundred times.

Guzman/Supersport has a long, long internet history, and he was given many chances - and still is, quite frankly. I know him only from RnR, and i still dont think he, and many others have been given the opportunities.

Not necessarily. But we have already established that rational discussion is impossible with many of these folks. What is left? Amusement, generally. I dont find anything amusing with insulting and putting down others. I find it to be the opposite of amusing. I find it immature and despicable.

To you, yes. But that is your choice of behavior. You seem to be condemning others because they do not behave the way you would choose to behave. This is not reasonable.

Actually they are failing to hold up their own standards. To them, reason and logic is only useful when the person you are dealing with is "up to standards". And instead of examining if this person is even aware of such standards, they are attacked.

Also, its perfectly reasonable to assume that its pretty universal that treating people with an iota of respect or civility is pretty reasonable. This is something most of us are taught even before we enter school. So who are these people to attack people like guz for not knowing "third grade biology" when they themselves cant even understand "pre-school etiquette"?

[Steviepinhead]

And no "overt" creationists... Who'd a thunk?

They have another subforum for that.
I've been a member there for a while and am aware of Debunking Creationism (which eric was modding, last I looked in!). But that's mainly for creationist-started threads that push an explicit creationist or explicitly anti-evo view. It doesn't necessarily prevent creos from wading into a "science-evo" thread, tho if they derail one too far, it does tend to get airmailed over to DeBC...

[Steviepinhead]

Barbarian:
Now you say!

Essentially, I had that kind of exchange on IIDB, me in favor of NS being random but not uniformly so, found myself set up pretty much against everyone, e.g. Oolon called my position "ersatz philosophizing" and other unkind names (at least he has reclused himself from the thread after I called his attention to the conflict between him being angry with a poster and a mod of that forum). Of course I am self-banned over there, so I can't search for the thread now.

Sorry, I know, clean page on TR for everyone and all that, but this still bothers me.

Well, there is a diff between "random" and "stochastic," as I'm (beginning) to understand it.

It's not clear from your post (unless "Now you say" is meant quite specifically) whether I was actually involved in what you're describing.

But I would be interested to revisit the exchange. If you don't want to dig it up again in public here, I'd still be interested in a PM of the link. Not to argue with you, but just to revisit my own behavior, if I was indeed involved...

[Steviepinhead]

And thanks to dlx2 for continuing to post in the Chimp Human thread after it got reopened. Good stuff!

[ck1]

Substantiated cases are generally more persuasive. Well I could say the same about your claim that everyone is given a change. Of course I know that would be impossible.

Not at all. But when observation has established that the poster is incapable of rational discussion, then responding with rational discussion is not a viable choice. Heres the way I see it, if you post and are treated with hostility then it does become hard to become rational. You automatically become defensive.

Even if someone says something COMPLETLY insane, automatically attacking them does nothing to further the discussion.

Unfortunatly, I cant access the first post by guzman to see if this is necessairly true, but, once again, its something ive seen a hundred times.

I know him only from RnR, and i still dont think he, and many others have been given the opportunities.

Not necessarily. But we have already established that rational discussion is impossible with many of these folks. What is left? Amusement, generally. I dont find anything amusing with insulting and putting down others. I find it to be the opposite of amusing. I find it immature and despicable.

To you, yes. But that is your choice of behavior. You seem to be condemning others because they do not behave the way you would choose to behave. This is not reasonable.

Actually they are failing to hold up their own standards. To them, reason and logic is only useful when the person you are dealing with is "up to standards". And instead of examining if this person is even aware of such standards, they are attacked.

Also, its perfectly reasonable to assume that its pretty universal that treating people with an iota of respect or civility is pretty reasonable. This is something most of us are taught even before we enter school. So who are these people to attack people like guz for not knowing "third grade biology" when they themselves cant even understand "pre-school etiquette"?

Where is that rep button?

[Barbarian]

Well, there is a diff between "random" and "stochastic," as I'm (beginning) to understand it.A stochastic process is a particular type of random variable, one taking its values from a set of functions mapping some sort of "time" onto another set. For that reason, the term "random process" is sometimes used instead of "stochastic process". In that context, stochastic is a proper subcategory of random, nothing more.

I know about other, layman meanings of random (which would be covered mostly by "uniformly distributed" and sometimes by "non-deterministic" in exact math language), but aren't we the ones preaching to the YECs about how layman's definitions of "theory" and "evolution" are to be disregarded? So be it with "random", then.

Also, this (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=318).It's not clear from your post (unless "Now you say" is meant quite specifically) whether I was actually involved in what you're describing.

But I would be interested to revisit the exchange. If you don't want to dig it up again in public here, I'd still be interested in a PM of the link. Not to argue with you, but just to revisit my own behavior, if I was indeed involved...I don't recall all posters, although three-letter usernames appear to have been involved a lot. I don't think you were there, but I have no reliable recollection - this was years ago. And as I said, I am self-banned since the TOM debacle, so I cannot search for my own posts.

[Steviepinhead]

Well, if it was years ago, it wasn't me, so that's some relief...!

Again, I am enjoying learning more about the particular flavors of non-random randomness that are involved with NS. Thanks for the further tips.

And everybody on that math thread is more of a scientist, and more of a mathematician, than me. Which may explain anything incomprehensible I let slip in the paragraph just above.

[mjpam]

If people are still interested in the phenomenon of "dogmatic evolutionists" here are some threads to check out at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forums:
What evidence is there for evolution being non-random? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82155)
Evolution Not Random (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104062)
Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109957)

Warning: These thread are truly epic in length

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am mijopaalmc on the JREF forums.

[Worldtraveller]

Also, if a bad argument IS presented, how is name calling solving anything?
It doesn't solve anything, but it makes me feel better. Guilty as charged. :D
I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.
I strongly disagree with this characterization. Dave's lies have been pointed out over and over, and as soon as he showed up here, he came in with both guns of lies blazing. When he seems incapable of telling the truth about even simple things (often shown by others simply linking to the posts where his actual claims are made), there is no reasoned or rational argument possible.

I just don't understand why you (and many others here) continue to feed his trollish ego.

[damitall]

I just don't understand why you (and many others here) continue to feed his trollish ego.

The ego-feeding is an unfortunate side-effect of the very proper and necesssary business of making sure the dishonest crap posted by these despicable shysters is constantly and consistently rebutted.

They will never know how wrong they are - they are incapable of rational and objective analysis. It's our job to ensure that as few people as possible are dragged into Yeckery.

[Jet Black]

Also, if a bad argument IS presented, how is name calling solving anything?
It doesn't solve anything, but it makes me feel better. Guilty as charged. :D
I don't think dave was even given a chance. if it wasn't for the name of the forum it almost looks like he's always treated from the get go.
I strongly disagree with this characterization. Dave's lies have been pointed out over and over, and as soon as he showed up here, he came in with both guns of lies blazing. When he seems incapable of telling the truth about even simple things (often shown by others simply linking to the posts where his actual claims are made), there is no reasoned or rational argument possible.

I just don't understand why you (and many others here) continue to feed his trollish ego.

04-02-2008, 06:26 AM