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 - BenTheBiased

But it was fine because of the amazing ability of gut flora to adapt to whatever diet they happen to be given. Except those of humans, which apparently aren't capable of adapting to anything that isn't wild animal meat.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Trump won't take a cable car like other presidents.
He's such a pussy I'm surprised he's not grabbing himself.
Uh oh, questions like Why does it even matter? and Why does the one guy I've chosen to believe disagree?

Is it badger/reboot time?
Because if that's your goal, then Michael Denton has already beat you to it ... and he says that nested hierarchies support the idea of the artificiality of life ... just the opposite of what you say.
And you yourself have shown that he was wrong.
Dave, the page only rolled over for you you stupid fuck. I can still see everything just fine.

-----Human powered land vehicles / Motor powered land vehicles
Is this a split in your tree Dave? So everything on one side is human powered and everything on the other side is motorised?

If so nothing on one side can be motorised and nothing on the other can be human powered. So where does the Whizzer bike go? Because that's both human AND motor powered.

If your so confident you can get a set of items to nest fucking do it. Go on.
I didn't say I could get everything to nest "properly."  I doubt we can for inanimate objects (non-life) any more than we can for animate objects  (life).  My contention - contra Lizzie's - has been that we can get just as deep nesting for non-life as we can for life.  In other words, there's nothing special about Life wrt nesting.
Dave, if you can't get your inanimate objects to nest "properly," then you can't get them to nest. That's the fucking point. Life does nest. Inanimate objects don't.
Where do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?
I don't know.  I guess it would be tricky ... like a platypus.
And yet the platypus nests:,y-1521,w8.1394

So where does the electric bike go?
Where do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?
Also, any vehicles that aren't manufactured. Assuming "manufactured" means mass-produced by machinery, otherwise how is it a different category from "manmade products"? And for that matter, is there such a thing as a non-powered vehicle? Pretty sure that "powered" level of nesting is meaningless.
No if I choose an arbitrary set of a dozen items, then my tree will have a dozen leaves and each leaf will have it's own twig which joins into a small branch and then into a larger branch and so on, but everything I could possibly pick will feed into the single "trunk" called "Inanimate Objects" because that's what we set out to do ... create a NH for "Non-Life" ...

And my theory - contrary to Lizzie's theory - was that "Non-Life" could be nested just as deeply as "Life" ...

Seems like I'm being proven right.
Pretty amazing considering you haven't even tried yet.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
We have like 10 different threads about this shitshow, I dunno where to drop this so here it goes

Jesus Christ, what even is this? The Clinton campaign sent e-mails to the Department of Justice? Is that a crime? Is there any suggestion of a crime at all in any of that? Is this just empty base-playing? In any case, it seems like a weird turn for Graham. Wasn't he one of the ones taking the Russia stuff seriously?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
WTF is with "the Electoral College being slanted so much in [Democrats'] way?" He won it while losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes! That's a pretty clear slant against Democrats. Is there some right-wing talking point he's parroting/misunderstanding here that has anything behind it at all, however spurious? Or is it just the usual pulling shit out of his ass?

A lot of the talk during the campaign (that I bought into myself) was about the Democrats' unassailable 'Blue Wall.' A GOP candidate would have to run the table in every contestable state, and flip a few safe Blue states! It can never happen!

Oh, everyone is fleeing the Rust Belt and leaving only the MAGA's behind? Whoops.
Ah, yeah, that is probably what he was mangling. The Electoral College being "slanted" towards Democrats is a really stupid way to put it though. More like the electorate itself being slanted toward Democrats, but unfortunately not enough to overcome the Electoral College's slant toward Republicans in this case.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
WTF is with "the Electoral College being slanted so much in [Democrats'] way?" He won it while losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes! That's a pretty clear slant against Democrats. Is there some right-wing talking point he's parroting/misunderstanding here that has anything behind it at all, however spurious? Or is it just the usual pulling shit out of his ass?
Yeah, I missed out on that great deal you got on snake oil.
That first quote is such classic snake-oil salesman!
This is from a few months ago. Was it brought up here? Quite a read. I wonder if Dave has seen it...

Looks like even Savory doesn't think his crap is science:

The telephone rang, and Savory stood to take the call. I studied an informational sheet he had handed me when we met. It explained why he couldn't talk about the science behind his methodology. "Holistic management does not permit replication," said the document, which Savory had authored. "This point is critical to understanding the great difficulty reductionist scientists are experiencing trying to comprehend holistic planned grazing--because no two plans are ever the same even on the same property two years running." A stunning admission appeared a few lines lower: "Every study of holistic planned grazing that has been done has provided results that are rejected by range scientists because there was no replication!"

Experimental validation, of course, offers the best process for evaluating whether holistic management works. But Savory rejects that possibility. "You'll find the scientific method never discovers anything," he told a journalist for Range magazine, which profiled him in 1999. "Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me."


Also, hey, look at someone else explaining what we've been explaining to Dave this whole time...

An increase in carbon content is almost always associated with the beneficial things we want from soil: more porosity, more water penetration and retention, an increase in microbial biomass, and an overall increase in nutrient cycling, which means that fungi and bacteria are transforming nutrients back into plant-available forms while also gobbling up atmospheric CO2. But as a stand-alone strategy, animal grazing results in a metabolic gap in the nutrient cycle. The cycle becomes open instead of closed--especially in a market-based grazing model, which Savory advocates. The moment a rancher puts an animal onto rangeland, the animal is removing nutrients from the soil and converting them into muscle and fat. The moment the animal leaves the land to head to slaughter, those nutrients leave the system, and the net total productivity of the land decreases. A dead animal remaining in the system rots back into the soil, its carcass closing the nutrient loop. But that doesn't happen in the system advocated by Savory, whose sales pitch to ranchers includes the prospect of selling more cattle on the market.

This is exactly the complex analysis one doesn't hear from Savory. "And that's my point," Brewer said. "You can't be reductive. Savory's claims are so reductive. I study integrated crop-livestock systems, in which we have grazing coupled with co-management and the inputs of additional fertilizers, like nitrogen and phosphorus, and we do see increases in carbon. The problem is that very often animal grazing alone does not increase carbon. It's just not true what Savory says."

Oh, and this looks familiar too...

"I think claiming that you're going to reverse climate change by running cattle across the dry lands of the earth doesn't make sense," Bramble told the crowd. "And I would caution you all not to leap on the Savory bandwagon, especially in these parts. This is very dry country. And you need to consider some evolutionary history. There were no large ungulates grazing in this region. The grasses did not coevolve with grazing."
Yeah, he seems to think that organisms at some level (class, I think?) are just too darn different from each other to be related. It's such a baseless incredulity argument considering how much fossil and DNA evidence there is (and already was when he was making it). I guess that's why he reversed his position on it later, if he did. I gather his later arguments are in favor of intelligent design, but not against common descent?

It's kind of amazing to me how irrelevant any of what Denton ever said is to the subject of this thread, considering (a) none of it actually contradicts common descent, which is what the nested hierarchy is used to show, and (b) Denton's supposed example of a designed nested hierarchy has obvious errors. It's also kind of amazing how desperately Dave wanted it to be not only relevant but the key to winning from the very beginning all the way through. Like, he never even made any attempts to make his own arguments, or even to understand what was being talked about. He just regurgitated Denton the entire fucking time until he finally made a whining, not-my-fault-totally-Lizzie's-fault admission that Denton's argument was bullshit (and probably still doesn't even realize that was what he did).

I also never cease to be amazed at how, just in general, Dave never actually approaches any topic with the goal of learning anything or even of finding out the Truth, to which he pays occasional but fervent lip-service. He is always and solely focused on his side winning. To the point that he doesn't seem to have even the most basic understanding of what science is or what its purpose is. To the point that he thinks that when knowledge progresses, scientists of the past become losers. I never get over what a strange mindset this is, and I never stop wondering how it's even possible for someone to think this way.
Which makes no sense, since common descent obviously produces hierarchical patterns. What does he think family trees are? It's just such muddled thinking.
Oh, or that life is designed like the vehicles he gives a hierarchy of. I'm guessing it's that.

Which would still be kind of weird, since he started the chapter by giving biological examples of what he considers non-hierarchical organizational structure (sub-species, fossilized ancestor species), but those are examples of organisms that are clearly related. So I'm guessing his point will end up being that organisms are not related at some level (family? order? class?).

Except I thought he supported common descent? Or did he not at the time? Or is it an argument for common descent with intelligent design? But if that's the case, why would his "overlapping" structure not also apply?

I really would like to see the rest of the chapter now just to see if his thinking gets any clearer (although I kind of doubt it does).
I am curious now to see the rest of that Denton chapter. In those last two pages Dave posted, Denton is talking about how Aristotle and Linnaeus organized life into a hierarchical structure, exactly counter to the argument he had made in the previous pages, that natural phenomena could not be organized hierarchically. So presumably that was a prelude to arguing that Linnaeus was wrong?
Dave's been suspiciously quiet in this thread recently. How do you feel about the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, Dave? Think that makes it more or less likely that heads will roll? And which ones?
Also, by the way, Dave, vehicles are part of non-life. If you don't think vehicles-life is an apples-apples comparison, why not vehicles-mammals? Vehicles are part of non-life, mammals are part of life. Sounds like apples-apples to me. Mammals nest, vehicles don't.

But hey! After almost 130 pages, we finaly have a (half-hearted, under-the-table) admission from dave that:

"you can't do it very deeply for vehicles"

Yup, the guy who spent this entire thread insisting that vehicles could be deeply nested (though he could never manage to demonstrate it), finally now says:
The fact that you can't do it very deeply for vehicles simply means that you are not making an apples to apples comparison. 
I wonder why we don't see the actual words "I was wrong" in there. Pretty hypocritical for someone who just said:
Darwinists are slippery fish and they cannot ever admit to being wrong.
For Dave, a quick explanation of your misunderstandings of science, for all the good it will do....

Inb4 ...  "Wait! Wait! The modern synthesis includes so many more things than that!"

Yes, yes, I know. NOW it does because Darwinists are slippery fish and they cannot ever admit to being wrong.
You confuse science with religious belief.
Science includes the inherent admission of constant wrongness. Science, by definition, is the process of becoming continuously less wrong as we accumulate more knowledge about the world. It's not a religious belief where you have to be right or else bad things happen. On the contrary, in science, you are always wrong, and you always accept and admit it, even as you gradually become less wrong.

Adding new things under the heading of "modern synthesis" is called "moving the goalposts."
You confuse science with argument or debate.
One can argue about science, of course, but science itself is not an argument, where "moving the goalposts" is a fallacy. What you are describing here as "moving the goalposts" is what I described earlier as "becoming continuously less wrong." It's the accumulation of knowledge. It's the process that defines science.
Jesus. If anyone was still under the impression that Dave had even a basic understanding of what science is, this should be enough to rid them of that notion.
Interestingly, the biological examples Denton gives of his "overlapping" classification system, subspecies and transitional fossils, are themselves evidence of common descent. Exactly the same thing the nested hierarchy is evidence of. So whatever he's arguing against there, it clearly isn't that (or if it is, he's doing a terrible job of it).

It doesn't look like he's really considering the overall classification of organisms, at least not in those pages. To use the tree analogy, he's saying look at how the leaves are connected to each other through the branches, and look at how the smaller branches connect to the bigger branches. None of which of course contradicts in any way the idea that the tree forms a nested hierarchy.
You're capable of reading Dave
:unsure: He's capable of reading individual words and phrases, sometimes even sentences, but has he ever actually demonstrated the ability to read and comprehend an entire paragraph or more?