Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DaveGodfrey

So scientists thought they'd understood antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and other scientists did more research and found out that the ideas were wrong, and different models fit the data better.

Good to know.
Dave, when doctors and vets do science, they ARE scientists. Regardless of whether they have a university position or not.

Your point seems to be the opposite one you wanted to make about "octohatters in ivory towers".
Dave, doctors and vets are perfectly capable of being research scientists.
Your nested hierarchy of vehicles Dave. Hop to it.
What Dave can't see, and will never see, is that what a nested hierarchy represents is a very specific DISTRIBUTION of features over the set of living things.

Not all features have that distribution.  But there EXISTS a set that does. 

And that is what suggests a family tree.

But Dave can't see beyond his a priori groupings.  He can't see that what the rest of us are seeing is a pattern of features across groups.

And he never will.
What you're saying in layman's terms is essentially (for example) "birds have two arms and two legs  and two eyes just like humans so this suggests a common ancestor somewhere way back in time.

Theoretically possible.  I'll give you that.

But it's also theoretically possible that  they did not they never shared a common ancestor at all but rather that a single designer designed them both.
Only designers don't limit their designs by lineage.
They swap modules from one designed thing to another.
You find the same kind of computer circuitry in cars and phones and televisions.
Yes, but not exactly the same.  It's a bit different in different models.  Just like "modules" in living things - eyes for example.

You can't draw up nested hierarchies of those things that reflects their "ancestry".
Sure you can.  See Denton.
And they immediately get violated by characters and, and aren't anywhere near as deep as you can get with living things.
But you can with living things.
You can with either.
Show us your nested hierarchy of vehicles then.

Prove us octohatters wrong.
Because it is not possible to swap modules between lineages like that.
Sure it is.
How pray tell? Humans are not bacteria, we can't do HGT.
But we're not yet on to evidence of evolution. We're just looking at evidence of common descent. No mechanism has yet been proposed for how such changes could come about.

Try again Dave.
Arts and Entertainment / Re: Winds of Winter
I'm sure one will be a Dunc and Egg one, which will be based on a bunch of short stories Martin has already written.
OK so I think Lizzie agrees that at least the global sedimentary rocks and the global flood accounts are DATA.
She regards the flood stories as DATA in the same sense she regards Grimm's fairy tales as DATA. I.e. there are words. You could even digitize them, like similar DATA. Is this the sense of DATA that you are agreeing with?

Yes.  Stories are really valuable data, especially to anthropologists and philologists.  As with languages, they can tell us what was earlier and what was derived from what. 

And I do recommend Irving Finkel's wonderful book , about the Sumerian flood myth from which the Noah myth and others seem to have been derived, and in which the Ark was a gigantic ROUND coracle - of just the type still seen on the Tigris and Euphrates, used for transporting people and lifestock, and called a kuphar ("gopher"?)

Completely off-topic, but why the hell not, in light of the futility of trying to get Hawkins to acknowledge reality? ....

How do you (as a native of the British Isles) characterize Finkel's accent? 
From which corner of the UK do you guess he hails?

Bottom right corner. 

Specifically Bethnal Green, given that Yiddish overlay.
Possibly Tottenham/Stamford Hill or Golders Green too. Its mostly RP though.
And yet you're never able to explain why...

Yes, of course in certain areas farming animals makes sense as they eat plants you can't, and growing plants you can eat is difficult. Not so much in Missouri, though.

Did Steffansonn live his entire life on a meat-only diet (that includes lots of fish, which your diet doesn't)? Show us where Price says not to eat vegetables at all if you think we're "fractally wrong", because if you can't do that then it's you who is wrong at every level you look at.
Dave, do people living in the Amazon rainforest climb 100' up to prune the trees?

Dave, goats are browsers. Why do you think they prefer tree leaves to grass?
Translation: I like burgers and I won't eat my broccoli. I won't, I won't , I won't, you can't make me!

Dave there are millions of vegetarians and vegans out there who have a perfectly healthy diet that includes no meat, no dairy, and no, or very few, animal products. You are an idiot.
Every "vegan" I've ever met has at least some animal products in their diets.
Every vegan I've ever met is really a vegan and eats no animal products.
Same here, with minor lapses every couple of years due to consumption of alcohol, living in foreign parts where such would be. difficult, etc.
Translation: I like burgers and I won't eat my broccoli. I won't, I won't , I won't, you can't make me!

Dave there are millions of vegetarians and vegans out there who have a perfectly healthy diet that includes no meat, no dairy, and no, or very few, animal products. You are an idiot.
Every "vegan" I've ever met has at least some animal products in their diets.
Then you've never met a vegan, you fuckwit.
Translation: I like burgers and I won't eat my broccoli. I won't, I won't , I won't, you can't make me!

Dave there are millions of vegetarians and vegans out there who have a perfectly healthy diet that includes no meat, no dairy, and no, or very few, animal products. You are an idiot.
I liked the suggestion in the comments that this was a meta-troll by the editors of the original journal they submitted to. "Hey why don't you send your nonsense paper to this lot of clowns..."
Dave, do you think it possible that we might have learnt something more about human biology and diets since 1906? Bearing in mind that at this point in time we didn't know what Vitamin C was or how it actually worked.
Introductions / Re: Hello
Sucky, So-crates, addle-pated fuckwit?
And you have data to support any of this...?

Thought not.

Plus of course your refusal to believe in the existence of lactose intolerance.

Oh and let's not forget how happy your pig was.
Systems, like people wanting to make iphones and live in cities, and buy foods you can't grow in your country. The thing is Dave, you don't actually need that many people to grow food. You don't need an army of people with scythes when you have a guy with a combine harvester. What you do need is a bunch of guys doing all the thing's that allow you to make combine harvesters.
<  continues to make a fool of himself over an article he linked without reading  > 
You think that if an article about taxonomy doesn't mention nested hierarchies, that means that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy.

You are an idiot.

How many articles about chemistry mention the periodic table?
How many articles about the state, and possible future, of the US motor industry mention the internal combustion engine? How many articles about the state of the US steel industry discuss electric arc furnaces?
Well it's good to know that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy.  Good to know indeed.
Well its good to know you did not read the article you posted. Good to know indeed.
People that live in the high arctic forget that water exists.
The discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.
Man, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.
I doubt he read - or even read - any of it beyond the line he quoted.
Well, there's not much of a summary there and the only thing Bluffy cherry-picked was the title.
Ah - I guess it's my university wi-fi connections (one of the perks of octohattery!) 
When I click the link, I get the full article.
Needless to say, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that Hawkins has brought up in this discussion.
I don't have university WiFi, and I managed to google up a copy almost immediately. And I read it. It's an interesting article, and its certainly interesting to see what has, and hasn't, changed in the intervening years.

But no, it has nothing whatsoever to do with nested hierarchies. Congratulations Dave, on being an abject failure at everything you've attempted to do in this thread.
Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.
I can.  The way Denton does it.  But perhaps not the way YOU want it done ... which purportedly helps your cause of trying to say "Therefore Darwin" ... and I don't even think YOU can do it properly with "Life" as you think you can.
This isn't just a couple of people in an insignificant forum that nobody cares about, Dave. This has been done. Starting with Linnaeus. People, lots of people, have DISCOVERED, that life sorts into a nested hierarchy that extends thousand of layers deep.
Please look at that website. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've posted it.

Unless you think that's it's the result of trolls randomly ejaculating nonsense into a cool webpage design in a vast conspiracy that involves literally every biologist, living or dead,  you have to admit that there's an extraordinary difference between biological systems and man-made ones.
"THOUSANDS" of layers now.  Wow!  This is an awesome big fish story!
Each node connecting two species that are more closely related to each other than any other species is a layer Dave. Not that we give names to each one, that would be silly.
Where do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?
I don't know.  I guess it would be tricky ... like a platypus.

The platypus isn't tricky.  it nests perfectly, quite close to the echidna in fact.
Really??!!  I'm shocked!!

Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.
Dave, would you like to re-read that big thread you started about Popper? Because you got schooled on this nonsense then. Now, about the nested hierarchies you can't produce...