Evolution Fairy Tale site updated, finally!
Fred M. Williams
in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
who think natural selection drives evolution!
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
Fred Williams
Martin Smith
Congratulations on the update; welcome to the 19th century!
Martin Smith
Chris C.
It is a wonderfully well put together site. It is also very funny. My
favorite is the exploding giraffe head. I think Fred has a special dislike
for squirrels. He has them squash when they attempt to fly and flattens them
in they road. I'll give it an A on presentation but the content is a little
off.
Charles Dye
Williams) wrote:
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
Well, now I've seen everything. Just when I thought the creationists
had reached absolute nadir -- a new breakthrough in stupidity! Now
cited as an expert:
:1. Excerpted from The Flat Flounder Squirrel, written by Karl
:Crawford.
The blind lead the blind, and the new Dark Ages are at our doorstep.
Congratulations, Fred. You're on the road to Socratic wisdom; you
clearly have the *first* half down cold.
Trailer
> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Fred Williams
Ha ha! Yes, you're right. You're website is about fairy tales, namely
your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution! Ha ha! How cute!
Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
(hint: look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person; it'll be
fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
"evidence"! Whee!):
"Isaak tells us that creationists “misinterpret the 2nd law to say
that things invariably progress
from order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has
published this
“misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the
“creationists” to whom he would
credit this quotation. However, it is commonly understood by not only
by creationists, but
by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or
processes left to
themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider
what Isaac Asimov
(a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to
say:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is
constantly
getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second
law all
about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to
itself it
becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we
never enter it, it
becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and
machinery,
and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them
deteriorate. In
fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates,
collapses,
breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the
second law is all
about.”
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what
Isaak claims is a
“creationist misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. Lest there be any
doubts, a typical
college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with
matters of origins and
therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says:
“Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of
randomness in a
system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or
more randomness
the system has. We could say that the direction of change in
diffusion or
evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.”
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth
Publishers,
1980, p. 157]
It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed
require that a natural
process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or
randomness, and therefore
decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses,
breaks down, wears
out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice
that Asimov applies this law to
“the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is
... universal (applying to all
processes and systems).
Open vs. Closed Systems
Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has
really become a
classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the
creationists’ error is
that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”
The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is
inviolate in an isolated system
(i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave
the system—often
erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the
law can exist in an open
system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added).
Isaak tells us “life [is]
irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every
living systems is an
exception to the 2nd law.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to
be a “closed” (isolated)
system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is
increasing. In other
words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized,
less complex, more
random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov
above) is a scientifically
observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory."
Ha, ha! How cute. Now, here's what Isaac Asimov really has to say about
this topic (this is an excerpt from an essay written by Isaac Asimov in
June of 1981 titled "The Threat of Creationism"; it is published in its
entirety in the book, _Science & Creationism_, by Ashley Montegu et al,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984)
(This quote is preceded by an evaluation of many of the tactics used by
Creationists to attack science. This is the fourth general tactic
evaluated by Asimov in the essay; this section is presented in its
entirety from pp. 187-188 in _Science & Creationism_, cited above)
"The argument from distored science:
Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in
their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but
the most common example, at least in the mail I receive, is the repeated
assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the
evolutionary process to be impossible.
In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all
spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder--that is, in
a 'downhill' direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the
complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving
'uphill.' According to the creationist argument, since, by the
evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that
process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow
invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the
second law through sheer perversity.
Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not
blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable
only for kindergartens.
To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second
law of thermodynamics applies to a 'closed system,'--that is, to a system
that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside.
The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity
spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another
interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in
line with the dictates of the second law.
Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus
moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another
interlocking part of the system--the sun, which delivers energy to the
earth continually--moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than
evolution moves uphill.
If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so,
eventually, would life.
Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people
are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy
in the creationist distortion.
There are many other 'scientific' arguments used by creationists,
some taking quite clever advantage of present areas of dispute in
evolutionary theory, but every one of them is as disingenuous as the
second-law argument.
The 'scientific' arguments are organized in to special creationist
textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and
which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are
written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while
they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific
terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the
legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking
on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible
alternative.
Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of
course, because none exists other than the word of the Bible, which it is
current creationist strategy not to use."
So we see that creationist arguments have not improved significantly since
1981 and that they continue to misuse and distort science and to misquote
scientists for their own purposes. What are those purposes? To prevent
you from ever questioning the LITERAL TRUTH of the words of the Bible!
Why? I really don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me. But, maybe
they feel that science is a threat to the Bible, even though many, many,
many scientists are Christian or Jewish. I can't say, because the feeble
attempts to discredit scientists using disingenuous, deliberate
distortions of facts (which, of course, equate to lies since they are
deliberately trying to deceive their audience) call into question their
rationality.
But it is certainly entertaining to read their arguments and "fables,"
just like it's entertaining to read Aesop's fables!
Dan
Dave Woetzel
Fred M. Williams wrote in message <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>...
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
Cool graphics, Fred. Nice irreverence. The regulars won't be happy.
Dave
Ken Cox
> Fred M. Williams wrote:
> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
> Cool graphics, Fred. Nice irreverence. The regulars won't be happy.
We haven't been before, but it's not because of "irreverence".
You see, Fred doesn't mean the above site as a joke. He actually
believes that the stuff he puts up is an accurate reflection of
what science says.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Christopher Sharp
Fred M. Williams wrote:
> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Fred Williams
Hello Fred,
I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
still havn't provided any theory of creation which
refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
of science, these are currently the best explanations.
Christopher M. Sharp http://www.csharp.com/csharp
in...@csharp.com
Wade Hines
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
From therein:
Perhaps the crown jewel of "just-so stories" dreamed up by
evolutionists is the idea that mud-to-man evolution is driven
by natural selection. Creationists have long pointed out the
logical fallacies of this argument. First, natural selection can
only work with pre-existing genes, so to expect this process alone
to create new information is preposterous. Second,
survival of the fittest describes the fittest as those who will
leave the most offspring, so since we are left with only the
most fit, natural selection as an explanation becomes a tautology!
It seems to me that the above quote misses a key point.
"Survival of the fittest" is an observation as is the fact
that creatures reproduce with mistakes to create variation. In
that respect, what observation is not a tautology?
"I see that thing that I see."
The key to natural selection is that because of the observed
skewing of populations due to selection, new variation will
be expressed on a background that is not random with respect
to the genotype. This means that the probability of two mutations
occuring together is not determined by the multiplication of
the independent probabilities of each.
If one reads the first footnote on the web site, I believe one can
understand what I think is meant by "create" in the Gould quote
in terms of this effect that selection has in producing a
genetic environment for an accumulated genetic change.
But I expect I am wasting my effort with the author I am replying to.
John Savard
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
Well, this may make you feel good: a few months ago, I read a column
by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
Darwin*.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Mark Koebbe
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> Fred M. Williams wrote in message <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>...
> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >
> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Cool graphics, Fred.
They're called cartoons.
> Nice irreverence.
No evidence.
> The regulars won't be happy.
Regulars meaning any person with common sense and rational thinking.
Indeed.
MJK
>
>
> Dave
hrgr...@my-deja.com
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
Gee, so that we can read some more of your fairy tales about evolution ?
HRG.
> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Fred Williams
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dick C.
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
In the past it has been pointed out that if you spent as much time
learning about science as you have in doing your graphics you would
actually have something valid to say. Did you do that yet, or is this just
another one of your great graphics combined with no thinking?
>
>Fred Williams
>
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Fred M. Williams
wrote:
>> In article <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>,
>> Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>> >
>> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
>> >
>> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>> >
>> >Fred Williams
>> >
>>
>>
>> Congratulations on the update; welcome to the 19th century!
>>
>> Martin Smith
>
>It is a wonderfully well put together site. It is also very funny. My
>favorite is the exploding giraffe head. I think Fred has a special dislike
>for squirrels. He has them squash when they attempt to fly and flattens them
>in they road. I'll give it an A on presentation but the content is a little
>off.
>
Thanks Chris. I never thought about it before, but maybe subconciously
I do have a dislike for squirrels!
---
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
There are 3 kinds of people in the world:
those who can count, and those who can't!
Charles Dye
>In the past it has been pointed out that if you spent as much time
>learning about science as you have in doing your graphics you would
>actually have something valid to say. Did you do that yet, or is this just
>another one of your great graphics combined with no thinking?
Well, now. They really aren't all *that* great!
Fred M. Williams
>"Fred M. Williams" wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>
>> Fred Williams
>
>Ha ha! Yes, you're right. You're website is about fairy tales, namely
>your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution! Ha ha! How cute!
>
>Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
>(hint: look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
>science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
>misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person; it'll be
>fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
>"evidence"! Whee!):
Dear Danbulb,
Since I do not discuss the 2nd Law at my site, and in fact do not use
it as an argument against synthetic evolution, your entire post is a
strawman. Your post could be the poster boy for "The Evolution
Handbook- How to respond to a Creationist". In this case you have
picked perhaps the most popular "1. Tell them they are quoting out of
context!"
So, you diligently search my site for this infraction, but can't find
one, so in desperation you use a quote that is at a site in my links
section!
Perhaps next time you can think on your own instead of blindly
following the Evo Handbook and parroting T.O. FAQs. It would make you
more credible.
Your Pal,
Fred
Fred M. Williams
>fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) writes:
>
>>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
>From therein:
>Perhaps the crown jewel of "just-so stories" dreamed up by
>evolutionists is the idea that mud-to-man evolution is driven
>by natural selection. Creationists have long pointed out the
>logical fallacies of this argument. First, natural selection can
>only work with pre-existing genes, so to expect this process alone
>to create new information is preposterous. Second,
>survival of the fittest describes the fittest as those who will
>leave the most offspring, so since we are left with only the
>most fit, natural selection as an explanation becomes a tautology!
>
>It seems to me that the above quote misses a key point.
>"Survival of the fittest" is an observation as is the fact
>that creatures reproduce with mistakes to create variation. In
>that respect, what observation is not a tautology?
>"I see that thing that I see."
When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
anything cannot produce new information.
>
>The key to natural selection is that because of the observed
>skewing of populations due to selection, new variation will
>be expressed on a background that is not random with respect
>to the genotype. This means that the probability of two mutations
>occuring together is not determined by the multiplication of
>the independent probabilities of each.
So what's your point? This does not remove it as a tautology if argued
as a driving *mechanism* of evolution beyond the family level.
>If one reads the first footnote on the web site, I believe one can
>understand what I think is meant by "create" in the Gould quote
>in terms of this effect that selection has in producing a
>genetic environment for an accumulated genetic change.
>
>But I expect I am wasting my effort with the author I am replying to.
>
Well, you didn't since you made a post with some intelligent content,
instead of the usual "liar", or "cites please" or "that guy's really
dumb, man, cus I know evolution is true."
Fred Williams
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/bibleevidences/
Andre G Isaak
Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
>shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
>this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
>anything cannot produce new information.
Natural Selection has never been described as a 'shuffling process'
by scientists. I think you are thinking of sex here, and should therefore
be ashamed of yourself :-)
Mutation provides 'new information'. Natural selection determines which
information is worthwhile and which isn't.
Andre
--
Andre G Isaak agi...@linguist.umass.edu
Department of Linguistics (413) 586-8949 (Res)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Fred M. Williams
<csh...@as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Fred M. Williams wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>
>> Fred Williams
>
>Hello Fred,
>
>I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
>still havn't provided any theory of creation which
>refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
>Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
>at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
>"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
>of science, these are currently the best explanations.
Howdy Chris,
I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
time since then studying information theory, which I have found
utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
with a new theory.
Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
implementation of various protocols, including design of new
proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
this.
So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random
activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
place.
George Tirebiter
>evolutionists
as inaccurately characterized by Fred Williams (whoever that is). First,
evolution is not "dreamed up" like the story of creation. Here's my
response....
Try these for fairy tales.....a talking snake in an apple tree, a talking
burning bush, a woman who turns into salt for looking at the wrong thing at
the wrong time (sort of like the Gorgon turning people into stone?), a
realm in which demons torture people forever (hell), a realm of winged
beings where people go after death (heaven), a guy who miraculously dies
and then rises from the dead.......well, the list goes on and on. Possibly
the most ludicrous imaginary scenario is the idea that everything poofed
into existence 6000 years ago (like your frog into a prince). Luckily
nobody of consequence takes any of this seriously.
When I was growing up, I knew a kid who craved attention so much he would
fake all sorts of mental disabilities, blindness, retardation, insanity,
etc. It is my opinion that many creation "science" proponents are just like
him.
Talk all you want about science being based on faith, then contemplate why
your refrigerator, automobile, vaccines, nuclear power, etc etc etc all
function. They function because of scientific theory. Not on faith.
Your misrepresentation of what science is and how it works is all too
typical of creationist tactics. When I watch my wife slaving over a
scientific paper which will be attacked in every possible way by her peers
and thesis committee members in order to test its viability, I am reminded
that evolutionary theory is always under such testing and continues
unscathed. Pretty good compared to the fairy tale of creationism.
Bob Mitchell
Fred M. Williams
Isaak) wrote:
>In article <3799cea7...@news.polnow.net>,
>Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>
>>When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
>>shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
>>this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
>>anything cannot produce new information.
>
>
>Natural Selection has never been described as a 'shuffling process'
>by scientists. I think you are thinking of sex here, and should therefore
>be ashamed of yourself :-)
You're right, I mispoke here. I meant from what I originaly wrote
regarding selection from a pre-existing set.
>
>Mutation provides 'new information'. Natural selection determines which
>information is worthwhile and which isn't.
Too many evos and some "scientists" think natural selection can add
information. I'm sure you've read Dick Dawkins "Information
Challenge". Perhaps you guys need a better press secretary for
evolution.
ZeldaG
>From: fredmw...@polnow.net
>I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
>time since then studying information theory, which I have found
>utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
>with a new theory.
And your reasoning is?
>Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
>engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
>implementation of various protocols, including design of new
>proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
>the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
>important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
>this.
Invalid (non) argument by authority.
I've met plenty of Christians who've had their critical thinking powers
castrated by their faith.
>how do you explain how random
>activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
>create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
>information?
What part of gene duplication, mutation and natural selection don't you
understand?
Try reading up on how the immune system works to generate 10,000,000 antigenic
receptors. Then come back and tell us all how mutation is incapable of
generating new information. While you're at it, take a gander at the current
literature on P450 liver enzyme system. And don't forget to tell us all why
sequence homology just happens to precisely mirror the phylogenetic tree(since
all the "kinds" were created independently de novo).
Christopher Sharp
Fred M. Williams wrote:
> On 23 Jul 1999 12:07:43 -0400, Christopher Sharp
> <csh...@as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Fred M. Williams wrote:
> >
> >> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >>
> >> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >> who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >>
> >> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
> >>
> >> Fred Williams
> >
> >Hello Fred,
> >
> >I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
> >still havn't provided any theory of creation which
> >refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
> >Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
> >at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
> >"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
> >of science, these are currently the best explanations.
>
> Howdy Chris,
>
> I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
> time since then studying information theory, which I have found
> utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
> with a new theory.
>
> Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
> engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
> implementation of various protocols, including design of new
> proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
> the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
> important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
> this.
>
> So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random
> activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
> create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
> information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
> tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
> place.
>
> Fred Williams
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/bibleevidences/
Howdy Fred,
Thanks for your response, but I'm not an engineer, I'm a
scientist, though I do some software engineering. There is
a big difference between scientists and engineers, and it's
usually engineers who are creationists not scientists.
People like ZeldaG are more qualified than me to talk about
genetics and related subjects, so I leave these sort of
arguments to them, as unlike creationsist who "know"
everything, I prefer to stick to astrophysics, theoretical
physics and related subjects.
Christopher Sharp
George Tirebiter
something. Typical.
Andre G Isaak
Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>Too many evos and some "scientists" think natural selection can add
>information. I'm sure you've read Dick Dawkins "Information
>Challenge". Perhaps you guys need a better press secretary for
>evolution.
I don't really think science is about having good press secretaries.
Perhaps you should learn more about it before you try to attack it.
This will prevent you from setting up straw-man arguments which make
you look foolish.
ZeldaG
>Date: Sat, 24 July 1999 01:31 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01bed5fc$09909de0$3902ebd0@-1>
>
>Obviously this guy has digital storage systems confused with DNA or
>something. Typical.
What is really funny is that if anything resembles the genes of DNA, it's the
Bible. The four Gospels are obviously mutated versions of the same story,
written, copied, mutated, selected, enhanced, and deleted from a single
original hundreds of years earlier. Who says evolution can't produce "new"
information?
CMB
jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote, in part:
>
> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-
babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
> Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
> describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
> Darwin*.
>
> John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
>
Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
evolutionary thinkers. It is not unusual for scientists to actually do
an about face, turn their backs to him in public and refuse to speak to
him. They don't do this because he is considered to be controversial.
They do this because he is widely perceived to be some kind of
polemical village idiot in the field of evolutionary science. At many
conventions you can see the pudgy, bearded somewhat grungy looking
Gould shambling idly about on the floor sipping at a diet coke being
ignored by his colleagues who fear being seen even speaking to him.
This has not affected his status with the unwashed masses, who sop it
up mindlessly because they don't have any idea to the contrary. On the
other hand, books about crystal power and the ancient kingdoms of
Lemuria's kirlian technology sell a lot more copies than his do.
Stephen is an openly confessed Marxist who has admitted he writes these
populist books (which sell well to the ignorant public) to reintroduce
socialist political control over science into the U.S. ... but like
Lysenko before him (Gould is often called the "American Lysenko") he
has become primarily a laughingstock except with people who have firm
convictions they have been abducted by UFOs.
This has not stopped his populist books from selling millions of copies
or kept Stephen Gould from often writing for the popular press. He
really has a strong attraction for low cognitive ability types and
appeals to their convictions that he, Gould, is the only honest voice
... when in fact he is merely a buffoon, charlatan and cagliostro. He
is a bit like those guys who have press meetings at the Holiday Inn to
announce they have a perpetual motion machine they cannot make public
because the CIA is after them.
In a rare moment of attention (for Gould), a serious scientific pair of
respected experts tore him a new asshole in this letter published in
the NY Times:
<http://cogweb.english.ucsb.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html>
To imagine Gould paired off with creationists is truly an odd teamup to
say the least ... pseudoscientists pretending to do science to shore up
religious myths referring to another pseudoscientist pretending to do
science to shore up Karl Marx. I think it represents just how far down
in the gutter the sophistry and preposterous gobbledegook of Gould has
taken him.
Boikat
Charles Dye <ras...@highfiber.com> wrote in article
<37987e64...@ediacara.org>...
> On 23 Jul 1999 09:23:13 -0400, fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M.
> Williams) wrote:
>
> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >
> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Well, now I've seen everything. Just when I thought the creationists
> had reached absolute nadir -- a new breakthrough in stupidity! Now
> cited as an expert:
>
> :1. Excerpted from The Flat Flounder Squirrel, written by Karl
> :Crawford.
I've just discovered that when I laugh *really* hard, I get a headache.
Boikat
Trailer
On 23 Jul 1999 10:51:15 -0400, Trailer <tra...@erols.com> wrote:
>"Fred M. Williams" wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>
>> Fred Williams
>
>Ha ha! Yes, you're right. You're website is about fairy tales, namely
>your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution! Ha ha! How cute!
>
>Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
>(hint: look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
>science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
>misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person; it'll be
>fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
>"evidence"! Whee!):
Dear Danbulb,
Since I do not discuss the 2nd Law at my site, and in fact do not use
it as an argument against synthetic evolution, your entire post is a
strawman. Your post could be the poster boy for "The Evolution
Handbook- How to respond to a Creationist". In this case you have
picked perhaps the most popular "1. Tell them they are quoting out of
context!"
I owe you an apology, Fred, since you're right in saying that you don't discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at your site. I followed a link from your site and arrived at the True.Origins website. This is the site which should be the recipient of my previous posting:
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/to_home.htm
So, you were NOT the one who was quoting out of context, but the site above is, in fact, quoting out of context. Perhaps before you rant any further about my error, you'll investigate your own.
So, you diligently search my site for this infraction, but can't find
one, so in desperation you use a quote that is at a site in my links
section!
No, I was looking at your website and followed that link, mistakenly believing it to be part of your site. This was an oversight on my part, but certainly not an act of desperation. Did you read my posting and the corresponding discussion of the 2nd Law on the True.Origins website? Since my posting must have seemed to you to have appeared out of nowhere, I can suppose that you have not. However, it would seem odd for you to link to a site without having reviewed its contents. No matter, though, since this entire thread is due to my error, not yours.
Perhaps next time you can think on your own instead of blindly
following the Evo Handbook and parroting T.O. FAQs. It would make you more credible.
Well, I don't have an "Evo Handbook" and I didn't parrot any Talk.Origins FAQ. I looked up the Asimov reference (which I cited) on my own in a book which I own. It's there for all to see and is as valid as it was before I ever read it. Perhaps you'd like us to conveniently ignore it, though.
Again, I publicly apologize for crediting you with an argument you didn't make. I'll go back to your site now to see what it has to offer on its own.
Your Pal,Dan
Fred
(P.S. What is "Danbulb"?)
Gordon Davisson
>Howdy Chris,
>
>I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
>time since then studying information theory, which I have found
>utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
>with a new theory.
>
>Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
>engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
>implementation of various protocols, including design of new
>proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
>the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
>important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
>this.
>
>So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random
>activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
>create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
>information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
>tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
>place.
If you understand information theory, you must be aware that it implies
that random processes produce information. (Or, more precisely, all
stochastic processes are information sources, and any information source
may, for the purposes of information theory, be treated as a stochastic
process.) Information theory, at least the version of it used in the
communications industry, does not support your claim at all.
Now, you used the phrase "specified complex information" in your posting
above; this suggests that you are not talking about standard information
theory (developed primarily by Claude Shannon), but William Dembski's
theory of complex specified information (as described in http://www.-
dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html).
Is this what you're basing your claims on? If so, you should be aware
that you are relying on a theory that is not widely used or accepted in
any scientific or technical community; indeed, I have not even been able
to find a proper technical description of the theory, only nontechnical
summaries (such as the one I cited above).
I've been looking at Dembski's theory to see if he's right about its
implications, but I've been stymied by ambiguities in his definitions and
examples. If you're willing to claim to understand the theory well,
could I ask you to calculate the amount of complex specified information
in a couple of situations I find troublesome? If you want to take a
shot, here they are:
a) I use a random number generator to pick an integer between 1 and one
million. The number generated is 141,376; this happens to be a perfect
square (the square of 376), and thus is (or at least would appear to be)
a specified result. According to standard information theory, this result
carries about 20 bits (the probability of picking that particular integer
is 1/1,000,000, so the associated information is I = -log2 (1/1,000,000)
= 19.93 bits); in Dembski's terminology this corresponds to the amount of
complex information. But, there are a thousand perfect squares between
one and a million, so the probability of getting _some_ perfect square is
1/1,000. My question is, how much complex specified information does the
result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of getting that
particular specified result (P=1/1,000,000), or the probability of getting
any of the specified results (P=1/1,000)?
b) Suppose I paint a target on the side of a barn, big enough to cover
one thousandth of the barn's area. Suppose further that I'm a mediocre
enough archer that, even with that big a target, I can only hit it half
the time. Suppose I fire an arrow at the target, and manage to hit it.
Again, my question is how much complex specified information does this
result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of the arrow
hitting the target if it had been fired at random (P=1/1,000), or the
probability of _me_ hitting the target (P=1/2)?
If you can calculate these examples out and give me the answers (or point
me to where Dembski give a complete enough definition to let me figure
out the answers), I'd appreciate it.
--
Human: Gordon Davisson ><todd>
HASA: Member, S division. o o
Internet: davi...@saul.u.washington.edu
Felipe
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7ndao8$oev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3798b85e...@news.prosurfr.com>,
> jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> > fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote, in part:
> >
> > >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> > >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-
> babblers
> > >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >
> > by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
> > Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
> > describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
> > Darwin*.
> >
> > John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
> >
> >
>
> Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
> openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
> evolutionary thinkers. It is not unusual for scientists to actually do
> an about face, turn their backs to him in public and refuse to speak to
> him. They don't do this because he is considered to be controversial.
> They do this because he is widely perceived to be some kind of
> polemical village idiot in the field of evolutionary science. At many
> conventions you can see the pudgy, bearded somewhat grungy looking
> Gould shambling idly about on the floor sipping at a diet coke being
> ignored by his colleagues who fear being seen even speaking to him.
[snip]
Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if pudge
and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS? Or am I
thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their villiage
idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality, which is
certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
representation than "villiage idiot".
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
pudge
> and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
Or am I
> thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
villiage
> idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
>
> I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
which is
> certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> representation than "villiage idiot".
>
No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in
real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken. How on earth did Igor
Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
gobbledegook. That isn't science.
Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with
average IQs who are themselves laymen. Anybody who knows what they are
doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ... and this
doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
said with passion.
Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.
Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
evolutionary sciences.
I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
a lot of flaws in this argument."
The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an
outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
college.
Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
all science, period. These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but
they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
evolutionary science and especially brain development.
Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
Communist Revolutionary writing.
This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.
Felipe
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7njfpn$ikp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
> pudge
> > and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> > succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
> Or am I
> > thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
> villiage
> > idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
I notice you didn't address this point. And the people in AAAS are rarely
considered "lay" people.
> > I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
> which is
> > certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> > representation than "villiage idiot".
> >
>
> No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
> despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in
> real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken.
While Gould (and 99% of all academics) may well be pushy and even
manipulative, I think this has little to do with his Marxist leanings. Or
for that matter, having followed Gould's professional writings for years
(and not always agreeing with them), I'm not sure that any putative Marxist
leanings has actually affected his science one iota. (The same claim,
however, might be difficult to support for Lewontin.)
How on earth did Igor
> Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
> of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
> literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
> careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
> gobbledegook. That isn't science.
Are you claiming by extension that Gould has been elected by AAAS by the
threat of ruined science careers? And somehow you also claim that he weilds
so little influence that he is ignored and considered a "villiage idiot" at
scinece meetings. What an interesting assertion. And yet some of the most
outspoken anti-Gould evolutionary biologists (at least anti-PE types) are
the likes of Russ Lande, Jerry Coyne, Brian Charlesworth. These folks have
hardly had their careers ruined.
> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
> elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with
> average IQs who are themselves laymen.
Yes, the members of the general paleontology community and AAAS are rather
known for their paucity in IQ.
Anybody who knows what they are
> doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ...
Including, evidently, the recent editorial boards of Science, PNAS, Linnean
Society, Journal of Paleontology, etc. (Although I'll readily agree that
Gould isn't nearly as productive recently as he could be.)
and this
> doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
> said with passion.
>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
> degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.
The relationship between Reich and Gould seems to have more to do with your
own disagreement with Gould's (and Reich's) political views than Gould's
view of Science.
> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
> where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
> really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
> evolutionary sciences.
Were you dismissing someone's writing as polemical recently?
[snip] But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.
Perhaps, what I can't see is why your rhetoric or content would impress
anyone.
> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
> all science, period.
Bwah-hah-hah-hah. Wow. That was a pretty good belly laugh. For that I
thank you. You might be interested to know that "Spandrels" was an essay
that, directly or indirectly, saved a lot of evolutionary biology from
itself. His argument may have been overstated, but it has kept a lot of us
in line.
These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but
> they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
> talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
> and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
> evolutionary science and especially brain development.
Yawn.
> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
> no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
> Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
> goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
> array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
> Communist Revolutionary writing.
>
> This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
> because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
> to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
> abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
> accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
> keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
> face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
> power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.
Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is amusing
hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad hominem
attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
political views.)
Omega
CMB wrote:
> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
> pudge
> > and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> > succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
> Or am I
> > thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
> villiage
> > idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
> >
> > I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
> which is
> > certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> > representation than "villiage idiot".
> >
>
> No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
> despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in
> real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken. How on earth did Igor
> Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
> of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
> literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
> careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
> gobbledegook. That isn't science.
>
> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
> elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with
> average IQs who are themselves laymen. Anybody who knows what they are
> doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ... and this
> doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
> said with passion.
>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
> degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.
>
> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
> where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
> really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
> evolutionary sciences.
>
> I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
> be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
> from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
> a lot of flaws in this argument."
>
> The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an
> outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.
>
> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
> all science, period. These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but
> they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
> talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
> and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
> evolutionary science and especially brain development.
>
> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
> no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
> Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
> goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
> array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
> Communist Revolutionary writing.
>
> This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
> because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
> to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
> abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
> accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
> keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
> face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
> power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.
>
>
> Well put! I've read some of Gould's alleged rebuttals to creation
> scientists' arguments, and they are shallow and contrived. In fact, a
> book was recently published which gathered together the "arguments" of
> the noteworthy evolutionists called "Creation Scientists Answer Their
> Critics". I suggest you get a copy. Enlightening reading.
Louann Miller
Omega wrote in message <379C8C55...@hotmail.com>...
(93 lines quoted entirely from someone called CMB, with no additions of
his/her own)
I take it this was a misfire? Or are you the one who changed the title to
"Gould the Shyster," and that was the only comment you intended to make?
David Kellogg
On 24 Jul 1999, CMB wrote:
[snip]
> Stephen is an openly confessed Marxist who has admitted he writes these
> populist books (which sell well to the ignorant public) to reintroduce
> socialist political control over science into the U.S. ... but like
> Lysenko before him (Gould is often called the "American Lysenko") he
> has become primarily a laughingstock except with people who have firm
> convictions they have been abducted by UFOs.
Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist, and
(b) admits that he writes "to reintroduce socialist political control over
science in the U.S."? Is there evidence for these assertions?
[more snippage]
> In a rare moment of attention (for Gould), a serious scientific pair of
> respected experts tore him a new asshole in this letter published in
> the NY Times:
Wrong! It was in the New York Review of Books. John Maynard Smith
published an article critical of Gould. Gould then published two
articles in response (one responded to Maynard Smith and one to Daniel
Dennett).
The "serious scientific pair of respected experts" consists of John Tooby
and Leda Cosmides, whose work Gould has critiqued. They disagree with
that critique and agree with Maynard Smith. Surprise!
I haven't evaluated the critique or the response, but the context of the
debate is worth mentioning, is it not?
> <http://cogweb.english.ucsb.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html>
>
> To imagine Gould paired off with creationists is truly an odd teamup to
> say the least ... pseudoscientists pretending to do science to shore up
> religious myths referring to another pseudoscientist pretending to do
> science to shore up Karl Marx. I think it represents just how far down
> in the gutter the sophistry and preposterous gobbledegook of Gould has
> taken him.
As I said, I'd like to see the evidence for Gould's "Marxism."
Cheers,
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg Duke University
kel...@acpub.duke.edu Program in Writing and Rhetoric
(919) 660-4357 Durham, NC 27708
FAX (919) 660-4381 http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg/
Galen A. Tripp
Apparently you added the paragraph above, but it is marked as if it were
also a quote. Why is that?
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
Sherilyn
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> writes:
[I left in the more sober parts of the rant, and I have a question of
my own.]
> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person
...
>
> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes
...
>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics.
...
> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section
...
> I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
> be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
> from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
> a lot of flaws in this argument."
>
> The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an
> outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.
Did Gould in fact ever say anything like the above?
>
> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
> all science, period.
...
>
> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.2, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN54bNdSR8rI01qX9AQFXHgP/Q6RPHjdFBHsP/unZyLh3gfhErO9ivRF1
rl9f4F/S2muy+pNN7FyjIbPlCpHkhWNRurm6O7jbK8h6nZKAeUAlUmi+IvEpTkIB
UUB96fM/zWeijLXM95POJNzU+Va+N8QMOQcorfWJYVKHzxXds0CAJ8BHxc2XVA13
DkSOxTlPr8w=
=+scG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Savard
>Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
instead of a follower of Karl Marx.
John Savard
But he didn't look all that carefully at the site. He was spending the
time waiting for someone *else* to do the graphics.
John Savard
>Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
>openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
>evolutionary thinkers.
I'm quite astounded to hear that.
As Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have pointed out important
considerations - not contradicting evolution through natural selection
at all, but merely sometimes overlooked - such as the limitations of
what is genetically available to an organism,
I'd say that if the scientists *aren't* listening to Gould, they're
going to be wasting time on the wrong track.
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
> entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
amusing
> hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
hominem
> attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> political views.)
>
A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.
You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
propaganda. I suspect you are lying about having read him widely. Gould
belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this day a
direct branch of the international communist party. Gould has made no
attempt to conceal this at all.
Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE
KGB by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the
KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
didn't believe them.
The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.
Felipe
> > entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
> amusing
> > hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
> hominem
> > attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> > political views.)
> A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
> publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.
Wheee. I see we've been watching our old Senator McCarthy tapes. Tell me:
does the phrase "ad hominem" mean anything to you? (You'll pardon my
spelling, being the openminded kinda guy that you are.) Or, to put it
another way, why should I care what SJG's putative political leanings are,
if all I'm interested in is his science? And, what do my putative political
leanings have to do with my ability make hash of your arguments, such as
they are?
(Speaking of freemasons, ever think about what they do? From what I can
tell, they eat really fatty food and give money to *brrrr* hospitals. Quel
conspiracy.)
> You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
> are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
> what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
> propaganda.
Hmmm. I'd like to see a quote of that, in context. I think you'd be hard
pressed to show how Gould's science furthers the socialist cause (whatever
that means). And you'll understand, I'm sure, if his peer reviewed articles
rarely include interviews.
> I suspect you are lying about having read him widely.
Suspect away! No skin off my nose.
Gould
> belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this day a
> direct branch of the international communist party.
Woo-hoo! Tinfoil helmets all around! Now, granted Lewontin is a Marxist.
To my knowledge, he is not a Leninist. His marxism, as far as I can tell,
takes its form in his giving all his students the same grade (while being an
extremely critical reviewer) and making absolutely scathing arguments agains
eugenics. Hmmm. Come to think of it, Gould has done the latter, too.
Gould has made no
> attempt to conceal this at all.
And tell me, supposing you're right, how does this affect his science one
bit? For that matter, why should I (or anyone) care? Why do you care?
What bearing does Gould's or anyone else's putative political leanings have
on you? Last time I checked, Gould's homeland was a free country -- exactly
with respect to the thing that you so strongly disagree with, Senator Joe.
> Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
> worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
> communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
> no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
> were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE
> KGB
You know, I'd have a lot more respect for you if you cited science
references more and spy novels less ... Color me pinko.
by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the
> KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
> single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
> good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
> would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
> here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
> didn't believe them.
(In my college, I would march in lock step with my comrades and at the
instructor's prompting, would shout in unison leftist slogans, never
questioning ... No, no, wait, that was someone else ...)
But clever you. And now you've seen through the conspiracy of Gould,
Eldridge, Lewontin, and others. Why, their science, their peer reviewed
papers, their shaping of evolutionary biology -- both micro and macro --
especially with respect to the testability of hypotheses (e.g. the science
portion of it), is all a big front for their REAL agenda. How better to
subvert the masses than by studying snails? And despite Gould, according to
you, being the butt of jokes among scientists, his company spurned by Right
(and I do mean Right) Thinking Biologists everywhere, he has managed to
continue an active career and somehow pull the wool over the eyes of the
AAAS and the editorial boards of several major journals. Those boards
consist of the same people who you claim shun his company at meetings.
(After all, he is pudgy and drinks *shudder* diet sodas.) And having lulled
these bodies into complacency with his dulcet tones (for which he is famous)
and easily swallowed and non-confrontational ideas (you'll notice no
discrepancy in this n.g. or elsewhere about the TRUTH of PE), he can now
reveal his True Identity.
> The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
> sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
> the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.
Yes, the U.S. is a shambles, isn't it? Median income on the rise,
joblessness down, violent crime to levels of the early 70's (although one
might argue that's nothing to brag about, it beats levels of the mid/late
80's.) And all attributed to Gould, no doubt. In fact, it is the only
place in the world (including, I think, Canada) not to go into a major
economic crisis in the last 8 years. (Well, that may be an exaggeration,
but only a minor one.) This, incidentally, is some of the strongest
evidence I know that the prosperity of the US is actually a function of its
policies, and not the byproduct of some global economic environment.
What amazes me -- well, not really, it seems to be the theme of this
newsgroup -- is that you state that Gould is a bad scientist and an
embarrassment to the scientific community. Yet your reason for this seems
to have more to do with his political views than anything having to do with
his science. But it is your political views, and your rhetorical tricks,
your ad hominem attacks, and your implications of guilt by association,
which seems to stoop to even lower levels than those of which you accuse
Gould. (I'm shocked, shocked to find hypocrisy on t.o.)
Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is starting to
seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we know who
starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society? Another
of Matt Neunke's friends? I hope I'm wrong -- and I have accidentally
accused innocents of being eugenicists before -- but when I read your posts
(after the laughter) I hear the distant tread of jackboots.
Keep the faith, baby.
Felipe
Felipe <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:7nln93$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu...
> CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message
news:7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> > "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
> > > entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
> > amusing
> > > hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
> > hominem
> > > attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> > > political views.)
>
> > A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
> > publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.
[snip]
> Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is starting to
> seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
> eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
> less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we know
who
> starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society? Another
> of Matt Neunke's friends? I hope I'm wrong -- and I have accidentally
> accused innocents of being eugenicists before -- but when I read your
posts
> (after the laughter) I hear the distant tread of jackboots.
>
> Keep the faith, baby.
You know, when I wrote this, I was half joking. But I just read some of
your posts on deja.com, e.g.
http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=380009217&CONTEXT=933126796.2122
514535&hitnum=6
and you're a pretty frightening guy. What I find most remarkable are
statements like the following:
"There is a gap because the other "ethnic
groups" are radically biologically different.
Research has shown time and time again
that the way that whites and blacks react
to stress, incentive, reward and novelty
constitute fundamental differences in
innate biology.
[snip]
"Black and white children have been put into
rooms with a wide variety of toys available to
them. The black children go for the weapons
and begin enacting mock tribal combats as
soon as they are left alone. White children
tend to pick up toys that appear visually
interesting or challenging, including technological
tools like computers or video games. If or when
black children approach computers, it is not
out of curiosity but out of a desire to destroy
them or vandalize them."
What's most amazing about this is that, along with 29 posts to
alt.rush-limbaugh (some titled applauding JFK, Jr's fall), one of which has
the following quote:
"Why don't you let me know where I can find you,
tiny man, and we'll split two ginsu knives and see
who hits the pavement first. I confess I'm not exactly
a newcomer to that game so if you need some
practice first you get all you want before you
contact me. I'm sort of the Carl Lewis of the
sport, in fact if they gave away Olympic medals
I'd probably take home a gold in that event."
Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest that
people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of computers.
Yeesh.
This just stopped being fun.
Trailer
> Felipe <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote in message
> news:7nln93$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu...
> > CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> > > "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
Hmm. An apparent anti-black, alarmist, reactionary bigot claiming himself to be
as great as Carl Lewis. Am I the only one to see the irony?
> Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
> I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest that
> people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
> ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of computers.
>
> Yeesh.
>
> This just stopped being fun.
Indeed.
Dan
Sherilyn
jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:
> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
>
> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
>
> I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
> referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
> probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
> instead of a follower of Karl Marx.
>
I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.2, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN5562NSR8rI01qX9AQFn7QP/VGniLMrEgW2qxaltmvXS25qtXocsLijm
gBt5qU3eicT7cxmQR49u+5FRYYi0JhrtBE6xbDOubWbZhvdj507UGzFGh6MF7Y9G
tJR+1faUZfxwmrhIR2xXhcV8gL5ahTnYmqhF1nDb6rCTv24hDUUx888TN0b4GDgs
UhSkOgtzVqA=
=R1il
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fred M. Williams
Davisson) wrote:
>
>If you understand information theory, you must be aware that it implies
>that random processes produce information. (Or, more precisely, all
>stochastic processes are information sources, and any information source
>may, for the purposes of information theory, be treated as a stochastic
>process.) Information theory, at least the version of it used in the
>communications industry, does not support your claim at all.
I agree that Shannon's version deal specifically with commuication
efficiency. But nevertheless, even with his version you have an
immpossible sell to make a convincing argument for randomness creating
information. The problem you are making is very common in that you are
equating uncertainty with information. The more random a file, the
larger delta opportunity for information gain, but that does not mean
that gain will be realized. Shannon' s version of info theory clealry
shows that randomizing a file while on the medium clearly destroys
information, I think you would agree with that. So what is different
between randomizing the medium as opposed to randomizing the file on
the harddisk before it is sent? By your logic you are saying a random
file has more information that a non-random file of like size.
>
>Now, you used the phrase "specified complex information" in your posting
>above; this suggests that you are not talking about standard information
>theory (developed primarily by Claude Shannon), but William Dembski's
>theory of complex specified information (as described in http://www.-
>dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html).
>Is this what you're basing your claims on?
Dembski quite eloquently expounds on info theory. He provides good
analogies for problems such as password or encyrpted files by
describing specified and unspecified info. Here's a cleaner link than
the one you provided:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html
>If so, you should be aware
>that you are relying on a theory that is not widely used or accepted in
>any scientific or technical community; indeed, I have not even been able
>to find a proper technical description of the theory, only nontechnical
>summaries (such as the one I cited above).
It is a working theory. But nothing within this theory supports a
position of randomness producing information. Common sense alone tells
us that randomization will destroy, not create information.
>
>I've been looking at Dembski's theory to see if he's right about its
>implications, but I've been stymied by ambiguities in his definitions and
>examples. If you're willing to claim to understand the theory well,
>could I ask you to calculate the amount of complex specified information
>in a couple of situations I find troublesome? If you want to take a
>shot, here they are:
>
>a) I use a random number generator to pick an integer between 1 and one
>million. The number generated is 141,376; this happens to be a perfect
>square (the square of 376), and thus is (or at least would appear to be)
>a specified result. According to standard information theory, this result
>carries about 20 bits (the probability of picking that particular integer
>is 1/1,000,000, so the associated information is I = -log2 (1/1,000,000)
>= 19.93 bits); in Dembski's terminology this corresponds to the amount of
>complex information.
No it doesn't. Dembski does not make this claim. Once again you are
making the classic mistake of equating uncertainty (Shannon's H) to
information. Perhaps you need to give a clearer definition of the
example. It seems you are essentially drawing the circle around the
arrow after it has been shot at the wall. Heck, why not declare 114231
divisible by 1313 as specified information?
So, in reality you are saying that receiving any number from a pool of
1mil numbers represents a large gain in information (19.93 bits). This
is of course false as information is the *decrease* in uncertainty, so
-log2(1/1000000) - -log2(1/999999) = .000001 bit of info. Essentially
your example is not valid.
<rest snipped>
>b) Suppose I paint a target on the side of a barn, big enough to cover
>one thousandth of the barn's area. Suppose further that I'm a mediocre
>enough archer that, even with that big a target, I can only hit it half
>the time. Suppose I fire an arrow at the target, and manage to hit it.
>Again, my question is how much complex specified information does this
>result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of the arrow
>hitting the target if it had been fired at random (P=1/1,000), or the
>probability of _me_ hitting the target (P=1/2)?
The probability of you hitting the traget. This is no different than
the amount of information conveyed when flipping a coin. Uncertainty
will decrease by -log2(.5), or 1 bit of info.
---
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
There are 3 kinds of people in the world:
those who can count, and those who can't!
David Kellogg
: jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:
:> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
:>
:> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
:>
:> I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
:> referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
:> probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
:> instead of a follower of Karl Marx.
:>
: I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
: collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
: Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
: reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
: suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
: days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.
Probably Gould gets tarred with the Marxist label because of his
association with Richard Lewontin (I'm guessing that's the coauthor you
mention). I'm still waiting for the proof from the original poster, but
I'd lay odds it won't be forthcoming.
Felipe
David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:7nm79a$dbc$1...@news.duke.edu...
> Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:
>
> :> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
> :>
> :> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
> :>
>
> Probably Gould gets tarred with the Marxist label because of his
> association with Richard Lewontin (I'm guessing that's the coauthor you
> mention). I'm still waiting for the proof from the original poster, but
> I'd lay odds it won't be forthcoming.
The original poster turns out to be a major racist with violent leanings. I
don't expect his arguments against Gould have much to do with science, per
se. Rahter, I think they have more to do with Gould's treatment of human
morphometrics with respect to race.
Felipe
Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote in message
news:379dc22e...@news.polnow.net...
[snip]
You know, Fred, I don't think you and I agree on much, but I'm refreshed to
see your intelligent and sincere posts after reading various things from
CMB. I'll take a sincere creationists over a bigot any day.
Felipe
Laurence A. Moran
>In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>>
>> entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
>> amusing hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and
>> ad hominem attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by
>> his putative political views.)
Right on.
>A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
>publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.
I confess to being a "lefty" with strong socialist leanings. Those of you
who buy into the vast left-wing conspiracy theory can stop reading here.
>You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
>are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
>what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
>propaganda.
Gould deplores the misuse of science to support political, social or
religious causes. He has said this many times. He would never advocate
using science as propaganda and anyone who thinks this is an idiot.
A recurring theme in much of Gould's writings is that scientists have the
same kind of biases and prejudices as everybody else but they have a
special obligation to try and rise above these biases when presenting
science. He wrote a whole book about the relationship of science and
religion (Rock of Ages) and how these two subjects should not conflict if
each one sticks to its own domain (magisterium). He criticizes
Creationists for twisting science to fit their religious views and he
criticizes militant atheists as well.
Gould admires scientists who state their prejudices up front instead of
trying to hide them. He has no use for those who pretend to be objective
when they clearly have an agenda. A good example of the kinds of people
Gould hates would be bigoted anti-Communists who see everything as a
conspiracy against the one true way of life but are unwilling to admit
that they have a bias.
Here, in Gould's own words, is the essence of his position,
"But we scientists are no different from anyone else. We
are passionate human beings, enmeshed in a web of personal
and social circumstances. Our field does recognize cannons
of procedure designed to give nature the long shot of
asserting herself in the face of such biases, but unless
scientists understand their hopes and engage in vigorous
self-scrutiny, they will not be able to sort unacknowledged
preference from nature's weak and imperfect message."
S.J. Gould URCHIN IN A STORM p.150
>I suspect you are lying about having read him widely.
This registered 32 HOLDENS on the Irony-O-Meter. CMB's hypocrisy is
remarkable, even for talk.origins.
>Gould belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this
>day a direct branch of the international communist party. Gould has made
>no attempt to conceal this at all.
I suppose it would be appropriate to ask for documentation to support
such a ridiculous claim but somehow I feel it would be a waste of time.
The idea that Gould is taking orders from the international communist
party is so silly that one wonders whether CMB is sane.
>Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
>worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
>communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
>no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
>were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE
>KGB by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the
>KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
>single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
>good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
>would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
>here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
>didn't believe them.
Can you say "paranoia"? I thought these ideas died in the 1950's.
Gould is not a Marxist but even if he were it doesn't follow that he would
be a supporter of Lenin or the late Soviet Union. Why do so many people
have trouble with this simple concept?
>The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
>sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
>the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.
There's a lot of absurdity here.
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
>collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
>Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
>reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
>suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
>days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.
The reference is to the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibria.
"Nonetheless, Darwin was influenced by the climate of social
and political thinking of his day. Making that point, we added
that no one is immune from such influence, noting that 'it
might also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that
one of us learned his Marxism, literally his daddy's knee.'
... I am no Marxist, and neither for that matter is Steve;
learning and adoption are two different things."
N. Eldredge REINVENTING DARWINISM pp. 101-102
Larry Moran
CMB
jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote, in part:
>
> >Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
> >openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any
serious
> >evolutionary thinkers.
>
> I'm quite astounded to hear that.
>
> As Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have pointed out important
> considerations - not contradicting evolution through natural selection
> at all, but merely sometimes overlooked - such as the limitations of
> what is genetically available to an organism,
>
> I'd say that if the scientists *aren't* listening to Gould, they're
> going to be wasting time on the wrong track.
You'd think so - listening to Gould.
Richard Dawkins could eat a fat little pedant like Gould for breakfast
and still have room for two other complete charlatans for dessert.
Gould needs to get a real day job and stop pretending to be a
scientist. He's a pudgy little drama queen, his books stink.
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is
starting to
> seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
> eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
> less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we
know who
> starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society?
Right! It was a "witch hunt!"
They taught me the same thing in school. Did you ever think to question
that idea? Ever examine it? Learn any more about the McCarthy Era? Was
it really a paranoid overreaction to an imagined conspiracy?
I would guess you have read little of the confessions of former KGB
agents or the former reps of the U.S.S.R. ... it cracks them up and
brings tears to their eyes when they heard robots in the U.S. repeat
this gibberish, because that was their exact intent.
Find out a little more about Marx, especially his lesser known writings.
<http://teaminfinity.com/~ralph/marx.antisemite.extraordinaire.txt>
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> and you're a pretty frightening guy. What I find most remarkable are
> statements like the following:
>
> "There is a gap because the other "ethnic
> groups" are radically biologically different.
> Research has shown time and time again
> that the way that whites and blacks react
> to stress, incentive, reward and novelty
> constitute fundamental differences in
> innate biology.
You think this isn't accurate or researched out the gazoo?
> [snip]
>
> "Black and white children have been put into
> rooms with a wide variety of toys available to
> them. The black children go for the weapons
> and begin enacting mock tribal combats as
> soon as they are left alone. White children
> tend to pick up toys that appear visually
> interesting or challenging, including technological
> tools like computers or video games. If or when
> black children approach computers, it is not
> out of curiosity but out of a desire to destroy
> them or vandalize them."
What's your point? Are you saying these studies have no validity, or
are you saying like many modern people who have completely lost touch
with the real world, that science itself has no validity?
> What's most amazing about this is that, along with 29 posts to
> alt.rush-limbaugh (some titled applauding JFK, Jr's fall), one of
which has
> the following quote:
>
> "Why don't you let me know where I can find you,
> tiny man, and we'll split two ginsu knives and see
> who hits the pavement first. I confess I'm not exactly
> a newcomer to that game so if you need some
> practice first you get all you want before you
> contact me. I'm sort of the Carl Lewis of the
> sport, in fact if they gave away Olympic medals
> I'd probably take home a gold in that event."
You cut this out without mentioning this poster threatened me.
> Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
> I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest
that
> people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
> ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of
computers.
>
You're SUCH a liberal sissie, it is astonishing. You can barely stop
your wrists from spinning around your elbows.
> This just stopped being fun.
>
This is why we need to privatize education. This guy thinks he has one.
Actually, he has what rushes in to fill a vaccuum. He thinks because he
is a very effective playback device for his received ideas, he must
know something. Hit the "stop" button for me, blah blah blah I know the
whole spiel already ... ZZZZZzzzz you're a dullard. No wonder you love
Gould.
Ken Cox
> They taught me the same thing in school. Did you ever think to question
> that idea? Ever examine it? Learn any more about the McCarthy Era? Was
> it really a paranoid overreaction to an imagined conspiracy?
No. It was a cynical publicity stunt, which eventually backfired
and destroyed the career of the man who started it. Unfortunately
along the way it destroyed a lot of other people's careers as well.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Felipe
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7nnlhn$b4j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7nlorq$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> > and you're a pretty frightening guy. What I find most remarkable are
> > statements like the following:
> >
> > "There is a gap because the other "ethnic
> > groups" are radically biologically different.
> > Research has shown time and time again
> > that the way that whites and blacks react
> > to stress, incentive, reward and novelty
> > constitute fundamental differences in
> > innate biology.
>
> You think this isn't accurate or researched out the gazoo?
Yes. I think there is very little evidence of any kind about the "innate",
i.e. genetic, differences between whites and blacks with respect to things
like intelligence, mental capacity, and emotional reaction. I'd be happy to
review sources that you suggest. I've done so before.
> > [snip]
> >
> > "Black and white children have been put into
> > rooms with a wide variety of toys available to
> > them. The black children go for the weapons
> > and begin enacting mock tribal combats as
> > soon as they are left alone. White children
> > tend to pick up toys that appear visually
> > interesting or challenging, including technological
> > tools like computers or video games. If or when
> > black children approach computers, it is not
> > out of curiosity but out of a desire to destroy
> > them or vandalize them."
>
> What's your point? Are you saying these studies have no validity, or
> are you saying like many modern people who have completely lost touch
> with the real world, that science itself has no validity?
My point was multiple. First, I chose this quote to show your attitude
toward race. This was to test a hypothesis of mine, namely that what
offends you so much about Gould was not his science (which you have hardly
mentioned, except to say that he is out to discredit all of it) but his
public dismissal of things like eugenics. Second, I chose this quote
because I found it ironic that an avid a gamer as you, and one who makes
threatening comments to people on the web, should find fault in anyone's
"mock tribal combat". I'd laugh, but actually I'm too disgusted. Finally,
I chose this quote because of your representation of a study, the details
(i.e. citation) of which you do not include. Finally, with respect to your
previous point, there is nothing in the scant and biased review of this
putative study that suggests an "innate" element of children's actions.
[snip]
> You cut this out without mentioning this poster threatened me.
If I did, I apologize. As I recall, the poster did not actually threaten
you, although he did suggest what he felt was an appropriate fate for you
due to your (and I'm pulling this from memory) views on JFK, Jr.'s, demise.
You were less than sympathetic. Regardless, your reply seemed less than,
um, reasoned.
[snip]
> You're SUCH a liberal sissie, it is astonishing. You can barely stop
> your wrists from spinning around your elbows.
Is this where I say, "do not"?
Tell me, do you find anything about the following phrase especially liberal:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"?
I know your email address is in Australia, but you talk like a Yank, and I
don't see why anyone from Oz would care about things like JFK, Jr., or the
social plight of Fargo. I assume your an ex pat.
[small snip]
> This is why we need to privatize education. This guy thinks he has one.
> Actually, he has what rushes in to fill a vaccuum. He thinks because he
> is a very effective playback device for his received ideas, he must
> know something. Hit the "stop" button for me, blah blah blah I know the
> whole spiel already ... ZZZZZzzzz you're a dullard. No wonder you love
> Gould.
Yes, you've demonstrated that you are my intellectual superior with your
razor wit and your ability to disassemble arguments. And, you've fully
supported your claim about my political beliefs, and have (from your
twirling wrist comment) even been able to infer my sexual preferences, all
from my comments about Gould's science. You've even been able to figure out
my complete educational history. You are a clever one, indeed. Oh, why
can't I be as smart as you? [Hint: when you read this, you might want to
impart some sarcasm into the tone of my comments.]
You know, it's people like you who give Julie Thomas something to write
about.
Jason Fritz
In the words of the all-knowledgable Dr. Evil:
"Riiiiiiiiiighttt....."
.
charlie...@my-deja.com
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote:
> In article <7nlorq$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> > and you're a pretty frightening guy. What I find most remarkable
are
> > statements like the following:
> >
> > "There is a gap because the other "ethnic
> > groups" are radically biologically different.
> > Research has shown time and time again
> > that the way that whites and blacks react
> > to stress, incentive, reward and novelty
> > constitute fundamental differences in
> > innate biology.
>
> You think this isn't accurate or researched out the gazoo?
Cite the research.
> > [snip]
> >
> > "Black and white children have been put into
> > rooms with a wide variety of toys available to
> > them. The black children go for the weapons
> > and begin enacting mock tribal combats as
> > soon as they are left alone. White children
> > tend to pick up toys that appear visually
> > interesting or challenging, including technological
> > tools like computers or video games. If or when
> > black children approach computers, it is not
> > out of curiosity but out of a desire to destroy
> > them or vandalize them."
>
> What's your point? Are you saying these studies have no validity, or
> are you saying like many modern people who have completely lost touch
> with the real world, that science itself has no validity?
You haven't mentioned any studies, you've just made an assertion.
Perhaps you could make it clear when & where these studies were carried
out & by whom. What was the methodology? Where were the results
published?
> > Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
> > I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest
> that
> > people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
> > ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of
> computers.
> >
> You're SUCH a liberal sissie, it is astonishing. You can barely stop
> your wrists from spinning around your elbows.
It's good to know that you're arguments are so strong that you don't
have to resort to name calling.
Charlie Chester
Manchester - England
CMB
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
> Can you say "paranoia"? I thought these ideas died in the 1950's.
>
(Cut to gray haired former KGB man laughing hysterically in his pension
flat)
"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to give
impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another largely
subliterate TV watching stooge.
CC
<snip KGB impersonation>
>I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another largely
>subliterate TV watching stooge.
Still no sources for those studies, huh?
Are the insults an attempt to change the subject?
CC
Felipe
news:7nq23b$lpr$2...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
Insults, bullying, and red-baiting seem to be Cleve's m.o. On other groups
he resorts to chest-thumping, bragging about his size (he is evidently
impressed enough that he thinks others should be swayed to his line of
thought by the force of his bulk alone), and occasional threats of violence.
Even folks at alt.rush-limbaugh have scolded him. This is an individual
who, by all appearances, has some serious issues of self-worth to deal with.
To his credit, he usually uses correct spelling and grammar.
I've spent far too much time reading his posts in other n.g.'s, and I
suspect it is bad form to cite those (I've already cited him once, and I
feel faintly unclean for it). However, I'll indulge once more. Looking
over his various posts about IQ, I found the following on rec.org.mensa:
http://x39.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=468370762
Peruse the final paragraph. In it, Cleve tacitly admits that: 1) he tried
to become a member of mensa, 2) he evidently failed, and 3) he has shit for
brains (literally). I'm not sure which of these three is the worst.
When he starts giving reasoned arguments, and is willing to provide support
for his assertions in the form of logic or references to even moderately
learned sources, I'll read his posts with interest. Until then, I don't
think responses are in order. I advocate others adopt a similar tactic. He
is at best a form of entertainment, an immature and incredibly insecure
racist buffoon. At worst he is a dangerous character who is thankfully on
the other side of the world (sorry to folks in Oz).
Laurence A. Moran
>In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>
>>
>
>flat)
>
>"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to give
>impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
>Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
>alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
>you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
>sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
>Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
>
>subliterate TV watching stooge.
Definitely paranoia.
And stupidity.
Larry Moran
Sherilyn
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) writes:
> In article <7nppgc$mlh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote:
> >In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you say "paranoia"? I thought these ideas died in the 1950's.
> >>
> >
> >(Cut to gray haired former KGB man laughing hysterically in his pension
> >flat)
> >
> >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to give
> >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
> >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
> >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
> >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
> >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
> >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
> >
> >I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another largely
> >subliterate TV watching stooge.
>
> Definitely paranoia.
>
>
> And stupidity.
>
I don't know that you're right. My troll-o-meter is banging the post
like a golden retriever on a chair-leg.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.3, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN6D3G9SR8rI01qX9AQEo8gP/UhV3si9Dp4pUKHRFwIAIAIvUJb+rzTwA
yQGd8n8pw9zwLSHFb8BhWJ7mFujM+CFNXOoszx41C7tSBArz2qWWVEy0ZV4dqm8E
6+QWrqFJured7F8JDZKNJXdF5BcvsEeEQuaGaEfJs66RiNuhDWnoLFzEOaSpL8Ec
QULeWEgo/1Q=
=B1yV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sherilyn
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> writes:
...
>
> Richard Dawkins could eat a fat little pedant like Gould for breakfast
> and still have room for two other complete charlatans for dessert.
Interesting. In a recent posting, you just excoriated on Gould's
"pinko" leanings, and yet here you are warmly praising that notorious
old leftie, Richard Dawkins!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.3, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN6D4pdSR8rI01qX9AQGytQP/UZJlC4fsQgXXBxb12tKh9rRkhLoaGgA3
faUmEyVPtNUQkIm7nXc0LLqOVYJp1ULNQKO8zIPZ6Tggl0a1+K30rlGwQKbH7t4a
BLoJOWO+dOdEhPX4KKEm+oWNJjwaUCiICXs8EQsv6ix3DdMS5Ze3wpIduZT1eCNK
XwdVRM/ls9Q=
=WXV2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CMB
> >subliterate TV watching stooge.
>
> Are the insults an attempt to change the subject?
>
You're a fool. Start with Levin's "Race Matters" on amazon.com, there
is an entire chapter on behavioural studies of black and white
children. Of course you won't read it, liberals never read anything,
that is just one of their ugly secrets.
Tell me your general location in the United States, I'll give you an
accurate prediction telling you when you can expect to be overrun,
possible escape routes and what you can expect when the country cracks
along racial fault lines in all-out Civil War. I expect to have an
accuracy within 12 months of the correct date.
Do me a favor, don't reply to this post? You have nothing to say.
Especially, don't post a reply telling me what you'd think of the book
if you did read it and how it is all invalid anyway because it relies
on Western conceits of scientific inquiry which are all subjective
anyway, okay?
I had a liberal coworker in New York city named Edward J. Adams, he
actually wrote some freelance stuff for the New York Times and other
newspapers. He was a writer for a while at a magazine I worked on. He
used to sneer (you know that thing liberals do, kind of an
overconfident jackass smirky thing) when I mentioned that blacks commit
crimes against whites at 300 times that of whites against blacks
according to the U.S. Justice dept. I once offered him a book with
these figures at work, he turned his head away and told me he didn't
need to read any books, he knew what I was saying was incorrect just
from common sense.
One night when he was walking up W. 74th to his apartment from the
subway he was whipped so badly by two black guys he was disabled for
the rest of his life and his skull was crushed in on one side where he
hit his head on a steel rail. The last time I saw him he was working in
the Civil Service in a wheelchair. They caught these two black guys and
gave them 3 years for assault and battery, they had previous records a
mile long. Both of them probably used early parole and overcrowding
quotas to end up doing under 12 months in jail, but I don't know for
certain, I just know sentences in NY are usually 30% of the stated
duration.
They robbed him for roughly $70 and a cheap digital watch that was
worth about $20.
I hate to tell you this, but honestly we did have quite a few guilty
laughs about this guy later on, he really was a raging liberal and his
fate was just too poetic. It was of course far too late for him to
learn anything at that point, all he could do was just kind of dribble
out of the corner of his mouth and sort of rock in his chair.
Maybe some day when you're stuck in a wheelchair you'll actually have
enough free time to sit down and read something like "Race Matters."
But I know perfectly well you'll never read it now. Liberals are all
jabber and no work, reading and thinking is work and they avoid it like
the plague.
(I should mention in all fairness that Edward was a bit light framed
and a typical victim profile, he had a sort of earnest whitebread face
that practically said come bash my ass in a city like New York. I
walked that same street he did at any hour and nobody ever even came
near me, but Edward was the kind of swayback liberal transfer in from
New Hampshire you just could tell would be a statistic sooner or later
in NY. He had this little coiffed moustache and a real goofy pampered
schizoid oversocialized whiteboy look to him. I told him many times he
should carry a pistol but he was a big opponent of gun ownership as
well and he used to give me that smirk I was talking about when I told
him NY could go from 0 to 60 in 1 second and become a very scary place.
Edward thought society was a safe sandbox to play in where all the
rules were right up front where you could see them.)
CC
>(I should mention in all fairness that Edward was a bit light framed
>and a typical victim profile, he had a sort of earnest whitebread face
>that practically said come bash my ass in a city like New York. I
>walked that same street he did at any hour and nobody ever even came
>near me)
I see what you mean about this guy bragging about his size
in newsgroups. Fascinating.
CC
hrgr...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> >In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
pension
> >flat)
> >
> >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to
give
> >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
> >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
> >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
> >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
> >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
> >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
> >
> >subliterate TV watching stooge.
>
>
> And stupidity.
>
> Larry Moran
>
HRG.
CMB
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> wrote:
> > >In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> > > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> pension
> > >flat)
> > >
> > >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to
> give
> > >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of
Der
> > >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid
after
> > >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told
dem,
> > >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
> > >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
> > >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
> > >
> > >I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another
largely
> > >subliterate TV watching stooge.
> >
> > Definitely paranoia.
> >
> > And stupidity.
> >
> > Larry Moran
> >
> In addition, he has his KGB agent speaking with a German accent :-)
>
> HRG.
>
You're both a pair of morons who've frittered away the most important
years of your life watching FAMILY FEUD. When was the last time either
of you airheads read anything?
THE VERONA PAPERS released by the FBI a couple years ago coincided with
the publication of several books from former KGB people who now told
the truth with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There was no "conspiracy paranoia." 3 men at highest positions in the
state department (including U.S. treasurer), 400 confessions from
agents in Hollywood, academia and entertainment, plus several 1000's
implicated in the formerly top secret Verona papers is not "paranoia."
It is a full fledged attempt to infiltrate the United States. There
were 4 more at Los Alamos in the highest positions there, 2 of them
have come forward and admitted to all of it. Only somebody completely
brainwashed would believe that this was all "hysteria."
The most ironic thing about all of it is your own attitudes ... it is
easy to see who won the propaganda war just by listening to the average
American. The Cold War is over ... the U.S. won it militarily, the
Soviets kicked our asses by converting most of our population to closet
Marxism irregardless of its consistency or rational foundation in
anything. The Soviets won the Cold War because they infected our minds,
even if not by physical invasion.
Political correctness is Marxism, just with a little smear of Freud and
Christianity on it. The idea that the genders or races are biologically
equal is insane, it is sick full blown schizophrenic gibberish. There
was never any reason to think such a crazy thing, period. It is a lie
created out of whole cloth with no substance in reality, ever.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
: lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
:> Definitely paranoia.
:>
:> And stupidity.
:In addition, he has his KGB agent speaking with a German accent :-)
Didn't you know? The Germans are in on it too.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
PZ Myers
>In article <7nrb5p$p5m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>> > In article <7nppgc$mlh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
>> wrote:
>> > >In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>> > > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Can you say "paranoia"? I thought these ideas died in the 1950's.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >(Cut to gray haired former KGB man laughing hysterically in his
>> pension
>> > >flat)
>> > >
>> > >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to
>> give
>> > >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of
>Der
>> > >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid
>after
>> > >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told
>dem,
>> > >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
>> > >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
>> > >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
>> > >
>> > >I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another
>largely
>> > >subliterate TV watching stooge.
>> >
>> > Definitely paranoia.
>> >
>> > And stupidity.
>> >
>> > Larry Moran
>> >
>> In addition, he has his KGB agent speaking with a German accent :-)
>>
It's insane? Dang, I'm glad you're here to cut through all the nonsense
and give us the clean, straight, obvious answer. I mean, in my biological
bias, I'd always thought that genders and races were *different*, just
as individuals are different, but that since we couldn't assign any kind
of value to those differences, we had to regard them as equal.
I guess I was wrong. Chalk it up to an overexposure to academic marxism.
So, which gender is better? Which race? I suppose it's a little too late
for me to change (maybe this is another justification for genetic
engineering...), but I suppose I could start pressuring the kids to marry
into the superior race so my grandkids would have an advantage. They should
be grateful that they won't have to fuss over that dating business and trying
to get to know anything about individuals before making a commitment, we
can just pick out spouses by color. If you could tell me what color is
fashionable, that is.
--
PZ Myers
David Iain Greig
>In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>wrote:
>> >In article <7nn4j4$vlk$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>pension
>> >flat)
>> >
>> >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to
>give
>> >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
>> >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
>> >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
>> >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
>> >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
>> >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
>> >
>> >I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another largely
>> >subliterate TV watching stooge.
>>
>> Definitely paranoia.
>>
>> And stupidity.
>>
>> Larry Moran
>>
>In addition, he has his KGB agent speaking with a German accent :-)
Must be a Stasi agent from the GDR.
--D.
David Iain Greig
>hrgr...@my-deja.com <hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>: lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>:> Definitely paranoia.
>:>
>:> And stupidity.
>
>:In addition, he has his KGB agent speaking with a German accent :-)
>
>Didn't you know? The Germans are in on it too.
Maybe it's a Yiddish accent. That way he could tarnish Commies and Joos
at once.
--D.
Andre G Isaak
>Political correctness is Marxism, just with a little smear of Freud and
>Christianity on it. The idea that the genders or races are biologically
>equal is insane, it is sick full blown schizophrenic gibberish. There
>was never any reason to think such a crazy thing, period. It is a lie
>created out of whole cloth with no substance in reality, ever.
Such a social progressive...
No one seriously believes that the races (to the extent that there are
such things) and the sexes are 'equal' -- at least not in the mathematical
sense.
But, are you suggesting here that we should afford different legal and
political rights and economic opportunities based on such considerations?
If so, please do provide some explanation of the rational behind this
belief. It could be entertaining in a sick sort of way.
Andre
--
Andre G Isaak #include <stddisclaimer>
Department of Linguistics / Language Studies Program
University of Massachusetts, Amherst Wellesley College
Andre G Isaak
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>can just pick out spouses by color. If you could tell me what color is
>fashionable, that is.
You definitely have the right idea, but you're approaching it from the
wrong direction. Getting married is like buying artwork. You can't
really decide on the colours until you've picked out the furniture and
carpeting that they are supposed to match.
CMB
Please hit the "STOP" button on your playback of your received ideas. I
already know the spiel by heart, blah blah blah. They taught me the
same thing in high school and college ... but in time I came to believe
something else.
Read "HOLLYWOOD PARTY" out now on Amazon.com. Hollywood was so red it
was practically a sister city to Leningrad. It was really a 3 ring
circus of espionage at one point.
The "Hollywood Ten" never really denied being Communist party members
or arguing whether or not this was a bad thing, being subversives who
took their marching orders from Moscow ... their sophistry and denial
usually concerned their 1st Amendment rights, which they considered to
be get-out-of-jail-free tickets for direct collusion with a foreign
government bent on altering U.S. culture and ideology.
If this was a reverse situation and occurred in Russia, they'd have had
no problem frying the whole lot of them for treason.
Remember, Hollywood owns the means of communication, they can rewrite
history to be anything they say it was if that is your only source of
information - for 99% of Americans it is. But well informed people
don't buy this crap, it is just Hollywood giving itself a pat on the
back and turning treason into "heroism" in their uniquely perverse
fashion.
Bernd Pichulik
David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:slrn7q4233...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> hrgr...@my-deja.com <hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <7nq5ov$j50$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >(Cut to gray haired former KGB man laughing hysterically in his
> >pension
> >> >flat)
> >> >
> >> >"Hehehe! Dat vas my idee! I vas da vun whoo said vee shood try to
> >give
> >> >impression dat der hole ting vas like Orson Wells and Der Vor of Der
> >> >Vorlds, mere hysterics! Dey said dat nobody vood be dat stoopid after
> >> >alreadu securing der confessions of over 400 peeple, bot I told dem,
> >> >you don know deese Americans!! Heeehehehe! Dey bot dat line hook n
> >> >sinker after vee had our academic plants start spreading dis lie!
> >> >Heehee! Oh, dose ver der days! It vas all so simple back den."
> >> >
> >> >I advise you to speak less and read more, you're just another largely
> >> >subliterate TV watching stooge.
> >>
> >> Definitely paranoia.
> >>
> >> And stupidity.
> >>
> >> Larry Moran
> >>
>
>
> --D.
And he would also be an imposter, as the GDR (DDR) was only nominally German
and certainly neither democratic nor a republic.
Bernd Pichulik
CMB
agi...@linguist.umass.edu (Andre G Isaak) wrote:
> In article <7nssl4$sb0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
wrote:
>
> >Political correctness is Marxism, just with a little smear of Freud
and
> >Christianity on it. The idea that the genders or races are
biologically
> >equal is insane, it is sick full blown schizophrenic gibberish. There
> >was never any reason to think such a crazy thing, period. It is a lie
> >created out of whole cloth with no substance in reality, ever.
>
> Such a social progressive...
>
> No one seriously believes that the races (to the extent that there are
> such things) and the sexes are 'equal' -- at least not in the
mathematical
> sense.
>
> But, are you suggesting here that we should afford different legal and
> political rights and economic opportunities based on such
considerations?
> If so, please do provide some explanation of the rational behind this
> belief. It could be entertaining in a sick sort of way.
>
> Andre
Quite the deep thinker, aren't you? A regular rocket scientist!
We already provide anti-constitutional advantages, preferences and
economic opportunities based on such considerations, you poor
intellectual cripple. Affirmative action, quota systems, grading curves
and racial preferences are a part of American life, clearly a violation
of the 14th Amendment. I guess such things don't bother you in the
least as long as they are geared for non-whites. I'm sure a cerebral
titan like yourself is unaware of the inherent contradictions.
These closet commies really are a riot, they all insist that the
Marxist system of group based preferences that now exists in the United
States is completely compatible with the individual rights that are the
focus of the Bill of Rights and the original Constitution. No such luck.
The only thing I want in life is NO special preferences, NO special
group based opportunities based on race or origin, NO penalties against
the Anglo Saxon population and NO ongoing systematic extortion of tax
revenues from the white middle class to pay for large scale social
engineering programs to redress unnamed supposed "sins" in the past. In
addition, in observation of the 4th amendment I believe in freedom of
association in business and in private education wherever a parent
wants to send their children. ALL of these "requests" are in fact
merely the original Constitution of the United States, only 40
unrelenting years of commie propaganda turned them into "special
demands."
What is really ironic is that many black separatist groups and black
thinkers, including Malcolm X, want exactly the same thing. It is soft
spoken lispy whitebread boys with "liberal educations" who created the
irrational, tense and unrealistic forced "integregation" we have today.
The government is not supposed to be involved in social engineering
busing your children into strange neighborhoods in order to satisfy
sick, twisted disturbed white liberals who want to see the world
resemble the "It's a small world" exhibit at Disneyland so that reality
will be compelled to conform to their own unwholesome, schizoid notions
about "what other people should do."
Of course, the purpose of a liberal education nowadays is to cultivate
the korrect attitudes towards minorities according to insular Marxist
academics, then to grant the financial means to graduates of the
reeducation camps to live as far away as possible from said minorities.
In other words, if you prove yourself completely malleable to the will
of Big Brother, you'll be given the means to escape forcible
integration with minorities, obviously a fate worse than death if so
many Americans are willing to aqquire the equivalent of progressive
brain damage in order to avoid it.
It is estimated that over 20 million Americans minimum this year will
be forced to relocate themselves in white flight to new areas in order
to escape the open expanding cesspools of government conclaves for the
welfare state and "minorities." With the Clinton administration having
admitted more than 30 million illegal aliens in 8 years in their
defacto policy of "open borders," what you have in the southern states
is no longer a "demographic shift," it's a fugging ROUT. There is no
more orderly withdrawal, there are just terrified whites piling onto
buses and planes in order to get farther north as soon as possible by
any means necessary. Strange behaviour indeed for a class of white
colonial imperialist oppressors. Considering they are also working up
to 5 months out of the year to support the people who are displacing
them, it behooves me to ask you, commie-boy ... What's wrong with this
picture?
Dick C.
snip
>Please hit the "STOP" button on your playback of your received ideas. I
>already know the spiel by heart, blah blah blah. They taught me the
>same thing in high school and college ... but in time I came to believe
>something else.
There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A huge difference.
You can believe whatever you want, but the rest of us will use knowledge.
Knowledge such as McCarthy was on a political witch hunt, destroying
careers and people for no more reason than to further his own political
agenda. An agenda which was decidedly unAmerican.
>
>Read "HOLLYWOOD PARTY" out now on Amazon.com. Hollywood was so red it
>was practically a sister city to Leningrad. It was really a 3 ring
>circus of espionage at one point.
First of all, so what? This is America, where people have the right to have
different political opinions. Not you, not McCarthy, nor even Kenneth Starr
have the right to deny someone their choice of politics.
It is quite un American to act as McCarthy did.
Second point, Hollywood has their fair share of right wing lunatics, and they
have been far more successful in politics than the left wingers.
do you forget about people like Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne.
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Felipe
Andre G Isaak <agi...@linguist.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:7ntah9$h...@lessing.oit.umass.edu...
> In article <myers-30079...@ppp135.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
> >can just pick out spouses by color. If you could tell me what color is
> >fashionable, that is.
>
> You definitely have the right idea, but you're approaching it from the
> wrong direction. Getting married is like buying artwork. You can't
> really decide on the colours until you've picked out the furniture and
> carpeting that they are supposed to match.
I advocate picking a white spouse only after Easter but before Labor Day --
matches the shoes that way. I had a friend who picked a white spouse in
November, and it was so embarrassing ...
(Oh, oh, wait, I said "Labor Day"; I must be an illiterate closet communist
brainwashed by the academic establishment ... Would someone remind when
Family Feud is on?)
CMB
foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
> In article <7nucs4$src$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
wrote:
> snip
>
> >Please hit the "STOP" button on your playback of your received
ideas. I
> >already know the spiel by heart, blah blah blah. They taught me the
> >same thing in high school and college ... but in time I came to
believe
> >something else.
>
> There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A huge difference.
> You can believe whatever you want, but the rest of us will use
knowledge.
> Knowledge such as McCarthy was on a political witch hunt, destroying
> careers and people for no more reason than to further his own
political
> agenda. An agenda which was decidedly unAmerican.
Once again you seem to misunderstand the difference between "your
knowledge" and the real world. To continue believing what Ted Koppel
and many of the directors themselves who were implicated say about
their guilt or innocence runs counter to the facts themselves. Like any
Inquisitor, you don't need to read any books or examine any facts, your
"knowledge" precedes any contradictions by actual reality.
There is a cognitive dissonance between what you claim you know and
what the real world says. If you cared you'd examine further ... but
your life is based on religious faith, not critical analysis of the
facts. You're an atypical, dopey middle class zombie raised on
television who could no more question the mass media than he could
sprout wings and fly. You think what you are told to think and "know"
what you are told to know, just as the inhabitants of Orwell's "1984."
Good doublethink means to be capable of readily accepting propaganda
and gibberish that adheres to no rational rules at all no matter how
much your own six senses tell you different. We are at war with
Oceania. We are at war with Eurasia. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
The McCarthy hearings were a witch hunt. Communism is democracy.
Democracy is diversity. E PLURIBUS UNUM means "Out of one, many."
Weakness and division is strength. Strength is weakness.
Tell me where you live, I'll tell you how soon that part of the country
will be embroiled in all-out civil war based on race.
> >
> >Read "HOLLYWOOD PARTY" out now on Amazon.com. Hollywood was so red it
> >was practically a sister city to Leningrad. It was really a 3 ring
> >circus of espionage at one point.
>
> First of all, so what? This is America, where people have the right
to have
> different political opinions. Not you, not McCarthy, nor even Kenneth
Starr
> have the right to deny someone their choice of politics.
> It is quite un American to act as McCarthy did.
> Second point, Hollywood has their fair share of right wing lunatics,
and they
> have been far more successful in politics than the left wingers.
> do you forget about people like Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, John
Wayne.
Remember to keep going north as far as you can, the farther north the
better. If you stay too long in one area it is possible or even likely
you'll be surrounded and cut off, possibly executed as a European
criminal guilty of inherited sin or even eaten for food by advancing
hordes.
> Dick, Atheist #1349
> email: dic...@uswest.net
> Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
>
Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world is no
more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on seeds,
guns and food.
John Monrad
> Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world is no
> more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on seeds,
> guns and food.
But it looks like there'll be plenty of nuts and fruitcake, Dick.
--
John Monrad (aka Not Ed Conrad)
PZ Myers
(Andre G Isaak) wrote:
>In article <myers-30079...@ppp135.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>>can just pick out spouses by color. If you could tell me what color is
>>fashionable, that is.
>
>You definitely have the right idea, but you're approaching it from the
>wrong direction. Getting married is like buying artwork. You can't
>really decide on the colours until you've picked out the furniture and
>carpeting that they are supposed to match.
But doesn't white go with everything? Actually, most people are nice
neutral colors, with the only variation being in the intensity. This might
be a problem if spouses came in reds, greens, blues, and purples (or
patterns! Plaid people would have very limited choices), but otherwise,
I can't quite see any difficulty.
Although actually, after 20 years of marriage, even if there was a
clash, I suspect it might be easier to repaint the trim or trade in the
sofa anyways.
--
PZ Myers
Dick C.
>In article <pXEo3.1180$424.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>> In article <7nucs4$src$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
>wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> >Please hit the "STOP" button on your playback of your received
>ideas. I
>> >already know the spiel by heart, blah blah blah. They taught me the
>> >same thing in high school and college ... but in time I came to
>believe
>> >something else.
>>
>> There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A huge difference.
>> You can believe whatever you want, but the rest of us will use
>knowledge.
>> Knowledge such as McCarthy was on a political witch hunt, destroying
>> careers and people for no more reason than to further his own
>political
>> agenda. An agenda which was decidedly unAmerican.
>
>Once again you seem to misunderstand the difference between "your
>knowledge" and the real world.
To late to save the irony meters.
To continue believing what Ted Koppel
>and many of the directors themselves who were implicated say about
>their guilt or innocence runs counter to the facts themselves. Like any
>Inquisitor, you don't need to read any books or examine any facts, your
>"knowledge" precedes any contradictions by actual reality.
Geez, are you going to post any facts to support your assertions?
>
>There is a cognitive dissonance between what you claim you know and
>what the real world says. If you cared you'd examine further ... but
>your life is based on religious faith, not critical analysis of the
>facts. You're an atypical, dopey middle class zombie raised on
>television who could no more question the mass media than he could
>sprout wings and fly. You think what you are told to think and "know"
>what you are told to know, just as the inhabitants of Orwell's "1984."
>Good doublethink means to be capable of readily accepting propaganda
>and gibberish that adheres to no rational rules at all no matter how
>much your own six senses tell you different. We are at war with
>Oceania. We are at war with Eurasia. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
>The McCarthy hearings were a witch hunt. Communism is democracy.
>Democracy is diversity. E PLURIBUS UNUM means "Out of one, many."
>Weakness and division is strength. Strength is weakness.
and so far your strange ramblings are pointless. Only underscoring your
lack of connection with reality.
>
>Tell me where you live, I'll tell you how soon that part of the country
>will be embroiled in all-out civil war based on race.
>
>> >
>> >Read "HOLLYWOOD PARTY" out now on Amazon.com. Hollywood was so red it
>> >was practically a sister city to Leningrad. It was really a 3 ring
>> >circus of espionage at one point.
>>
>> First of all, so what? This is America, where people have the right
>to have
>> different political opinions. Not you, not McCarthy, nor even Kenneth
>Starr
>> have the right to deny someone their choice of politics.
>> It is quite un American to act as McCarthy did.
>> Second point, Hollywood has their fair share of right wing lunatics,
>and they
>> have been far more successful in politics than the left wingers.
>> do you forget about people like Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, John
>Wayne.
>
>Remember to keep going north as far as you can, the farther north the
>better. If you stay too long in one area it is possible or even likely
>you'll be surrounded and cut off, possibly executed as a European
>criminal guilty of inherited sin or even eaten for food by advancing
>hordes.
Remember, the shiny side of the foil hat goes out.
Oh, by the way. What race am I? do you have any idea?
>Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world is no
>more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on seeds,
>guns and food.
I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
Andre G Isaak
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>But doesn't white go with everything? Actually, most people are nice
>neutral colors, with the only variation being in the intensity. This might
>be a problem if spouses came in reds, greens, blues, and purples (or
>patterns! Plaid people would have very limited choices), but otherwise,
>I can't quite see any difficulty.
Well, plaid people definitely pose a challenge, but not an insurmountable
one. You would simply have to decorate your house in tartan.
However, it isn't *quite* true that white people go with everything.
Against a dark background, they tend to stick out quite a bit. I
suppose, then, that you also have to determine whether you want your
spouse to be a foreground or background fixture before selecting the
colours.
>Although actually, after 20 years of marriage, even if there was a
>clash, I suspect it might be easier to repaint the trim or trade in the
>sofa anyways.
An alternative would be to simply incorporate them into the upholstery.
You could cover your couch with the shroud of turin. Alternately, I'm
sure there are mailorder firms which specialise in linens, etc.
with incorporate virtual-spouse prints.
Andre G Isaak
>group based opportunities based on race or origin, NO penalties against
>the Anglo Saxon population and NO ongoing systematic extortion of tax
>revenues from the white middle class to pay for large scale social
>engineering programs to redress unnamed supposed "sins" in the past. In
What penalties are currently imposed against the Anglo-Saxon population?
Incidentally, this strange distinction you seem to draw between your
ideas and 'Marxism' is somewhat of a false dichotomy.
Felipe
Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
[snip]
> >Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world is no
> >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on seeds,
> >guns and food.
>
> I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
> But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on computer
games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
Dick C.
And to think he wanted to know where I lived.
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > >Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world
is no
> > >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on
seeds,
> > >guns and food.
> >
> > I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
> > But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
>
> Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
computer
> games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
>
Your problem is not ideological, Felipe, it's biological. You're
effeminate and juvenile, you never quite grew to your full stature.
These ideas (hoplophobia, submissiveness to authority, failure to grasp
nature of adult power balances socially) speak of a personality that
was sort of stunted in a preadolescent phase with a kind of girlish
perspective that seems completely out of place in an adult male.
You think government is your little buddy, your little confidant, your
little overseer and protector. If you were an adult male you'd know
instinctively that the worst psychopath with a gun you should fear is
always the government itself.
If you added up all the crimes against property and personal liberty in
the United States, you'd find it to be less than 1% of the crimes
committed now in the U.S. by the central government against it's
citizens in any given working day.
This desire to bend over for the dominant male and be ceremonially
mounted, to be stripped of your weapons for self-defense, to passively
aqquiesce to government assaults on your private liberty ... tell me
that you are far more female than male. You're thin boned, limp wristed
and a bit of a seriously contrived, posturing pussy.
Sad that relatively soon in the United States you're going to find
yourself between a pack of criminal insurgents with guns and an evil
government with guns, whereas middle class whitebread like yourself
were willingly disarmed with ease. You're going to be everybody's
bitch, count on it. Maybe if you're lucky they'll castrate you and make
you into a "comfort girl" in one of the government recreation camps.
Bigdakine
>From: CMB cl...@ans.com.au
>Date: Sat, 31 July 1999 07:10 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <pXEo3.1180$424.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>> In article <7nucs4$src$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
>wrote:
>Tell me where you live, I'll tell you how soon that part of the country
>will be embroiled in all-out civil war based on race.
Were you toilet trained at gunpoint? Which militia do you belong to? I need a
laugh.
>
>> >
>> >Read "HOLLYWOOD PARTY" out now on Amazon.com. Hollywood was so red it
>> >was practically a sister city to Leningrad. It was really a 3 ring
>> >circus of espionage at one point.
>>
>> First of all, so what? This is America, where people have the right
>to have
>> different political opinions. Not you, not McCarthy, nor even Kenneth
>Starr
>> have the right to deny someone their choice of politics.
>> It is quite un American to act as McCarthy did.
>> Second point, Hollywood has their fair share of right wing lunatics,
>and they
>> have been far more successful in politics than the left wingers.
>> do you forget about people like Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, John
>Wayne.
>
>Remember to keep going north as far as you can, the farther north the
>better. If you stay too long in one area it is possible or even likely
>you'll be surrounded and cut off, possibly executed as a European
>criminal guilty of inherited sin or even eaten for food by advancing
>hordes.
Time to get back on your medication.
>
>> Dick, Atheist #1349
>> email: dic...@uswest.net
>> Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
>>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to realy foul things up
requires a creationist"
CMB
foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
> In article <7o1d26$g...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>, "Felipe"
<pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> >news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
> >> In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
wrote:
> >
is no
> >> >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on
seeds,
> >> >guns and food.
> >>
> >> I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
> >> But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
> >
> >Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
computer
> >games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
>
>
> Dick, Atheist #1349
Dick, I doubt if your beloved authority figures have told you this, but
following up any form of cancer with superantioxidants like OPC's
(Pycogenol) is becoming de rigeur for progressive doctors who actually
know what they are doing nowadays. Also shark liver oil will stimulate
your immune system to ferret out any misbehaving cells from now on.
This stuff (in my humble opinion) is about ten times as effective as
any prescription cancer medication, 100% non toxic, has no known side
effects and is dirt cheap compared to the poison those baby killing
quacks will try to sell you.
They have growth inhibitors they prescribe nowadays that basically
encourage the entire body to perform suboptimally, in the hopes the
cancers cell will become weak and sickly as well. This is the exact
opposite of a sane approach. They should try to supe up the body so it
can properly identify and destroy aberrant cells rather than cut, burn
n' weaken the body so nothing grows.
A wide range of regular vitamins A, E, C, Zinc, Chromium and Mg plus K
even for healing are essential too. After big trauma like you have been
through I'd hit my body in the morning and night with a saturation dose
of all the good reinforcement vitamins plus OPCs and shark liver oil.
A lot of HIV patients stave off AIDs indefinitely with shark and OPC or
so I have heard.
I had a chronic lung infection about a year ago from a generally run
down immune system that I cleared up in less than 24 hours with OPCs
despite 3 courses of mega antibiotics that had no effect whatsoever of
course. Modern bugs actually eat this stuff as a dessert after they
fill up on you.
I guess this thread is pretty far off topic at this point ...
Morat
CMB wrote:
> In article <7o1d26$g...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world
> is no
> > > >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on
> seeds,
> > > >guns and food.
> > >
> > > I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
> > > But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
> >
> > Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
> computer
> > games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Wow. And until today, I thought the NRA was a tad extreme.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind must without a doubt be the most conceited race
in the universe, for who else believes that God has
nothing better to do than sit around all day and help
him out of tight spots? ---Alan Dean Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------
PZ Myers
Yeah. And I considered that maybe I was misreading things when I thought I saw
a lot of homoerotic imagery in the gun nuts' literature. Sometimes a cigar
is just a cigar, but sometimes a gun *is* a penis substitute for someone with
serious doubts about his masculinity.
--
PZ Myers
Felipe
> In article <7o1d26$g...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
> wrote:
[snip]
> > > I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
> > > But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
> >
> > Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
> computer
> > games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
> Your problem is not ideological, Felipe, it's biological. You're
> effeminate and juvenile, you never quite grew to your full stature.
Oh, fooey. I'm effeminate. Whatever will I do? On the other hand, you and
I are about the same height, although I weigh somewhat less than you. If I
haven't grown to my full stature, then we are loving brothers in our
midgetry. (hugs)
> These ideas (hoplophobia, submissiveness to authority, failure to grasp
> nature of adult power balances socially) speak of a personality that
> was sort of stunted in a preadolescent phase with a kind of girlish
> perspective that seems completely out of place in an adult male.
You know, Cleve, I really don't want to respond to this.
But let me float another hypothesis about racists and eugenecists by you,
anyway. Remember, before I hypothesized that you were anti-Gould because of
his anti-racist views, and I found ample support. Ever notice how there is
a huge sexual component to the history of racism in America? For example,
during the lynching spree before World War II, black men were almost
invariably lynched for false accusations of having raped, or having tried to
rape, white women. (It was the combined forces of white and black church
women, along with various economic pressures, that put an end to this, by
the way. That is, women knew that the charges were without merit.) When
Harold Washington was elected mayor of Chicago, both he and his police cheif
were recipients of mounds of hate mail, much of which took the form of
interracial porn (according to interviews in Studs Terkel's book, "Race").
Ever wonder why that is? My hypothesis is that, for some reason, American
racists feel sexually inadequate around black men. Or more accurately, one
of the contributing factors to American racism is white male sexual
inadequacy. Is this true of you, too? How might we test this hypothesis?
Maybe checking to see if you're preoccupied with the male effeminacy, low
sperm counts, etc? Why, look:
http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=506172137
Clearly this is something you think about a lot. And why would someone
continue to brag about his manly stature at every turn, e.g.,
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=506883103
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=506529118
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=506159331
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
> You think government is your little buddy, your little confidant, your
> little overseer and protector. If you were an adult male you'd know
> instinctively that the worst psychopath with a gun you should fear is
> always the government itself.
Funny, the ones I worry about are disillusioned highschool kids and coked up
gang bangers (when I lived in DC and on the south side), both of whom have
have historically been able to get guns due in part to lax gun control .
Didn't you once say something like we'd expect the lowest crime rates where
most citizens are armed? And yet, I remember being rockabyed to sleep by
the pop-pop-pop of nines the first year I lived in Chi. The very well armed
citizenry there was hardly crime free. (The crime rate got much better over
the next few years, though, largely due to better economic circumstances.)
Next on the list of my armed fears is half-witted political zealots. (I
just read "Balkan Ghosts". You'd like it, Cleve; it's a pretty well written
work by a Reaganite who treats the hundreds of thousands of ethnic and
racial killings in the Balkans in a pretty matter of fact manner.)
> This desire to bend over for the dominant male and be ceremonially
> mounted,
Weren't you accusing me of homophobia just now? (My mistake; hoplophobia.)
Or are you speaking of your own desires? (Not that there's anything wrong
with it ...)
to be stripped of your weapons for self-defense, to passively
> aqquiesce to government assaults on your private liberty ... tell me
> that you are far more female than male. You're thin boned, limp wristed
> and a bit of a seriously contrived, posturing pussy.
Oh, rats. You've got me bang to the rights, gov. Actually, what impresses
me most about your bragging of size -- and pointlessly ignorant assertions
about other people's -- is that you're not that big. I mean, sure, you're
heavy (280 lbs), but even you admit that you'd have to lose 40 lbs to get to
12% body fat. I have two students who just top 200 and they have bigger
arms and legs than you. And they don't even consider themselves serious
muscle heads. I had a coworker about your weight but four inches taller who
could squat, ass to ankles, half again what you can. For that matter, I
know endurance athletes -- you know, the limp-wristed kind of guys who think
a good moderate work-out is a half marathon with a 2000 ft. elevation
gain -- who can squat about what you could in your salad days.
And you know what, Cleve? My size or putative lack thereof has not one
thing to do with my ability to reason (nor, for that matter, do my putative
political views). I was serious when I said you'd gain more respect here
for citing science papers than spy novels. Even "Why Race Matters" was an
okay starting point (although it's only a review written by a philo prof,
and an expensive one at that -- $65). The only reason I'm taking the time
that I am to point out your own posturing silliness is because it has so
goddamned little to do with which line of reasoning is or is not correct,
and if nothing else I hope to get that into your thimble-sized cranium.
> Sad that relatively soon in the United States you're going to find
> yourself between a pack of criminal insurgents with guns and an evil
> government with guns, whereas middle class whitebread
Moi? Whitebread? Damn.
like yourself
> were willingly disarmed with ease.
Who said I'm disarmed? I just don't think guns equal freedom, and my
experience has been that exactly the sort of people who repeat such slogans
ad nauseum are the ones who aren't fit to carry weapons.
You're going to be everybody's
> bitch, count on it. Maybe if you're lucky they'll castrate you and make
> you into a "comfort girl" in one of the government recreation camps.
You have experience with this, do you? Pointers? It would fit with my
hypothesis of your general racist paranoia.
Son, you're out of your league. Among some of the funnier quips you've
offered up these last few days have been when, despite your frequent crowing
in other n.g.'s about your verbal aptitude, you used "irregardless" without
a trace of irony. And then you mockingly called someone here a rocket
scientist. There are rocket scientists on this n.g., Cleve, along with more
mathematicians and statisticians than you'd like to know. While I assume
your comments about snake oil, er, I mean shark oil, to Dick C. were offered
up in good faith (and I don't doubt that on some level you are good
hearted -- you seem to be sincere, and I value that almost as much as I
despise your pointless bullying and racism), the logic behind the argument
"sharks don't get cancer so if I eat shark products I won't get cancer
either" speaks reams about a person's intelligence. As does, for that
matter, the idea that taking unregulated products is always better than
taking regulated ones. I doubt you'll find anyone (except maybe Julie
Thomas) making a post-modern argument here, but you might find more than a
couple folks willing to school you on probability and statistics. And I
doubt many people here would agree with your assertion that reading and
thinking constitute "work". Might I suggest that the portion of you that
most closely resembles T-Rex isn't your overall bulk?
Now go home to your people, boy. Go use your superior white genes to get
skin cancer. Go flex in the bathroom mirror and play with your, um, little
gun. I'm tired of your rants and insults and ad hominem arguments. If it
weren't for these, I might even enjoy something like a reasonable discussion
with you. It's beyond me to be nasty to anyone this long. I have work to
do.
maff91
[snip]
>You're both a pair of morons who've frittered away the most important
>years of your life watching FAMILY FEUD. When was the last time either
>of you airheads read anything?
>
>THE VERONA PAPERS released by the FBI a couple years ago coincided with
>the publication of several books from former KGB people who now told
>the truth with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>
>There was no "conspiracy paranoia." 3 men at highest positions in the
>state department (including U.S. treasurer), 400 confessions from
>agents in Hollywood, academia and entertainment, plus several 1000's
>implicated in the formerly top secret Verona papers is not "paranoia."
>It is a full fledged attempt to infiltrate the United States. There
>were 4 more at Los Alamos in the highest positions there, 2 of them
>have come forward and admitted to all of it. Only somebody completely
>brainwashed would believe that this was all "hysteria."
>
>The most ironic thing about all of it is your own attitudes ... it is
>easy to see who won the propaganda war just by listening to the average
>American. The Cold War is over ... the U.S. won it militarily, the
>Soviets kicked our asses by converting most of our population to closet
>Marxism irregardless of its consistency or rational foundation in
>anything. The Soviets won the Cold War because they infected our minds,
>even if not by physical invasion.
>
>Political correctness is Marxism, just with a little smear of Freud and
>Christianity on it. The idea that the genders or races are biologically
>equal is insane, it is sick full blown schizophrenic gibberish. There
>was never any reason to think such a crazy thing, period. It is a lie
>created out of whole cloth with no substance in reality, ever.
Why don't take your own life like your hero Hitler in a bunker?
--
L.P.#0000000001
Gordon Davisson
Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 1999 00:05:57 -0400, davi...@u.washington.edu (Gordon
>Davisson) wrote:
>>If you understand information theory, you must be aware that it
>>implies that random processes produce information. (Or, more
>>precisely, all stochastic processes are information sources, and
>>any information source may, for the purposes of information theory,
>>be treated as a stochastic process.) Information theory, at least
>>the version of it used in the communications industry, does not
>>support your claim at all.
>I agree that Shannon's version deal specifically with commuication
>efficiency. But nevertheless, even with his version you have an
>immpossible sell to make a convincing argument for randomness creating
>information.
Not really, I can just quote Shannon on the subject:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of
reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a
message selected at another point. Frequently the messages
have *meaning*; that is they refer to or are correlated
according to some system with certain physical or conceptual
entities. These semantic aspects of communication are
irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant
aspect is that the actual message is one *selected from a
set* of possible messages. [Shannon, Claude E. and Warren
Weaver, _The Mathematical Theory of Communication_,The
University of Illinois Press, 1949, page 3. Emphasis in
original]
...and randomness is one way that particular messages can be chosen.
If you want a more explicit statement, let me skip ahead a few pages:
We now consider the information source. How is an
information source to be described mathematically, and how
much information in bits per second is produced in a given
source? The main point at issue is the effect of statistical
knowledge about the source in reducing the required capacity
of the [communication] channel, by the use of proper encoding
of the information. In telegraphy, for example, the messages
to be transmitted consist of sequences of letters. These
sequences, however, are not completely random. In general,
they form sentences and have the statistical structure of,
say, English. The letter E occurs more frequently than Q,
the sequence TH more frequently than XP, etc.
....
We can think of a discrete source as generating the message,
symbol by symbol. It will choose successive symbols
according to certain probabilities depending, in general, on
preceding choices as well as the particular symbols in
question. A physical system, or a mathematical model of a
system which produces such a sequence of symbols governed by
a set of probabilities, is known as a stochastic [i.e. random
-GD] process. We may consider a discrete source, therefore,
to be represented by a stochastic process. Conversely, any
stochastic process which produces a discrete sequence of
symbols chosen from a finite set may be considered a discrete
source. [ibid, page 10]
Seems pretty clear to me. One could also simply look at the
definitions and work out their consequences for random processes.
>The problem you are making is very common in that you are
>equating uncertainty with information.
Sort of. Beforehand, the outcome of a random process is uncertain;
afterward, it is certain. That (by the description you give later)
is information. (I should perhaps note that I don't think that's the
best way to define information, but my objections aren't relevant
here, so I won't go into it.)
>The more random a file, the
>larger delta opportunity for information gain, but that does not mean
>that gain will be realized. Shannon' s version of info theory clealry
>shows that randomizing a file while on the medium clearly destroys
>information, I think you would agree with that.
Randomizing a file destroys the information that was there to begin
with, but it replaces it with new information. In general, there'll
more new information added than old information destroyed, so there
will be a net increase in information.
Now, I'm aware that this is completely counterintuitive. Let me try
to explain it in a way that makes sense: statistical information
theory considers both signal and noise to be information (a bit of an
oversimplication, but let me run with it...). The real distinction
between signal and noise is that signal is information you are
interested in, and noise is information that you aren't interested
in. For instance, if we randomize the contents of a disk, we're
replacing the information that was there (which we were presumeably
interested in, or we wouldn't have put it there) with random
gibberish, which is completely uninformative and uninteresting. So
we're replacing signal with noise, but they're both (at least by
Shannon's definition) information.
Under certain circumstances, it's possible to make the signal/noise
distinction objective. For example, in applying information theory
to communications, it is conventional to assume that the transmitted
information is what we're interested in (i.e. is the signal), and
we're not interested in any other information (i.e. it's noise); but
this is not an inherent distinction, it just defines the goal for a
communication system.
If you want to apply information theory to analyse the amount of
signal in a genome (or gene pool, or...), you need to specify what
information you're interested in. Otherwise, there's no signal/noise
distinction, just undistinguished information; and random mutation
can easily generate lots of that. (Or, you could follow Dembski's
approach, and distinguish between specified and unspecified
information; but I'll get to that...)
>So what is different
>between randomizing the medium as opposed to randomizing the file on the
>harddisk before it is sent?
If I understand the question, there's no significant difference.
>By your logic you are saying a random file
>has more information that a non-random file of like size.
Yes, according to Shannon's definition of information. This is why
an optimal data compression algorithm will produce compressed files
that are statistically identical to maximally random noise. Maximum
statistical randomness is the same as maximum information density.
>>Now, you used the phrase "specified complex information" in your
>>posting above; this suggests that you are not talking about
>>standard information theory (developed primarily by Claude Shannon),
>>but William Dembski's theory of complex specified information (as
>>described in http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/-
>>koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html). Is this what you're basing your
>>claims on?
>Dembski quite eloquently expounds on info theory. He provides good
>analogies for problems such as password or encyrpted files by describing
>specified and unspecified info. Here's a cleaner link than the one you
>provided:
>
>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html
Thanks. By the way, have you read Dembski's book _The Design
Inference_? I got the impression it didn't go into any great detail
on his variant of information theory, so I haven't gotten a copy
(yet). But if it does flesh out the mathematical details enough to
answer my questions, I should track down a copy. Do you know if it
does?
>>If so, you should be aware that you are relying on a theory that
>>is not widely used or accepted in any scientific or technical
>>community; indeed, I have not even been able to find a proper
>>technical description of the theory, only nontechnical summaries
>>(such as the one I cited above).
>It is a working theory. But nothing within this theory supports a
>position of randomness producing information. Common sense alone tells
>us that randomization will destroy, not create information.
Allow me to quote him (this is taken from the link you gave):
Alice and Bob together toss a coin five times. Alice observes
the first four tosses but is distracted, and so misses the
fifth toss. On the other hand, Bob misses the first toss, but
observes the last four tosses. Let's say the actual sequence
of tosses is 11001 (1 = heads, 0 = tails). Thus Alice
observes 1100* and Bob observes *1001. Let A denote the first
observation, B the second. It follows that the amount of
information in A&B is the amount of information in the
completed sequence 11001, namely, 5 bits. On the other
hand, the amount of information in A alone is the amount of
information in the incomplete sequence 1100*, namely 4 bits.
Similarly, the amount of information in B alone is the amount
of information in the incomplete sequence *1001, also 4 bits.
This time information doesn't add up: 5 = I(A&B) _ I(A)+I(B)
= 4+4 = 8. [William A. Dembski, "Intelligent Design as a
Theory of Information", section 2 ("Complex Information")]
Alice and Bob flipped a coin five times, and wound up with 5 bits of
information. If it didn't come from randomness, where did it come
from? Indeed, I would say that the entire point of Dembski's paper
is to draw a distinction between information produced by randomness
and information produced by intelligent choice.
>>I've been looking at Dembski's theory to see if he's right about
>>its implications, but I've been stymied by ambiguities in his
>>definitions and examples. If you're willing to claim to understand
>>the theory well, could I ask you to calculate the amount of complex
>>specified information in a couple of situations I find troublesome?
>>If you want to take a shot, here they are:
>>
>>a) I use a random number generator to pick an integer between 1 and
>>one million. The number generated is 141,376; this happens to be
>>a perfect square (the square of 376), and thus is (or at least
>>would appear to be) a specified result. According to standard
>>information theory, this result carries about 20 bits (the
>>probability of picking that particular integer is 1/1,000,000,
>>so the associated information is I = -log2 (1/1,000,000) = 19.93
>>bits); in Dembski's terminology this corresponds to the amount of
>>complex information.
>No it doesn't. Dembski does not make this claim. Once again you are
>making the classic mistake of equating uncertainty (Shannon's H) to
>information.
Actually, Shannon introduced H explicitly as a measure of information.
The relevant section is too long to quote here, but I recommend
reading at least the first few sections of his original paper on the
subject. It's available in book form (that's what I was quoting from
above), and online in various forms at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/-
what/shannonday/paper.html. (At least it used to be... I just checked
the link, and that server seems to be completely empty. Hopefully,
it'll reappear later.)
>Perhaps you need to give a clearer definition of the
>example. It seems you are essentially drawing the circle around the
>arrow after it has been shot at the wall. Heck, why not declare 114231
>divisible by 1313 as specified information?
>
>So, in reality you are saying that receiving any number from a pool of
>1mil numbers represents a large gain in information (19.93 bits). This
>is of course false as information is the *decrease* in uncertainty, so
>-log2(1/1000000) - -log2(1/999999) = .000001 bit of info. Essentially
>your example is not valid.
I disagree, but I don't think the source of our disagreement is
relevant to what I'm trying to get at here. Let me back up a bit and
explain what I'm worried about, and then recast the question in a
different (hopefully clearer) situation.
What I'm trying to sort out is how Dembski's theory handles partial
specifications; that is, specifications that can be met more than one
way. Take one of Dembski's examples: a rat negotiating a maze. My
intuition is that if there is more than one way out of the maze, the
CSI generated by a successful run should be lower than if there was
only one way through. (Would you agree with that?) The problem is
that it's not clear how Dembski's definition applies in a case like
this; there's one way of interpreting it that (IMHO) gives the correct
result, and another interpretation that gives (again IMHO) nonsensical
results in situations like this.
Take, for example, a variation on the coin-flipping scenario I quoted
earlier. Suppose that Alice and Bob had decided to flip a coin 5
times and see if they got an odd number of heads (thus defining a
specification before the fact), and then flipped the coin and gotten
HHTTH (3 heads, which meets the specification). According to Dembski,
this result carries 5 bits of (complex) information. And it fits the
relevant specification. Does that mean it carries 5 bits of complex
specified information? Dembski's description can be read as implying
so, although it's far from clear on the subject.
I think, in cases like the above, that it is best to regard the
information in the result as partly specified, and partly unspecified.
In particular, I would define the amount of complex specified
information as the negative logarithm of the probability of getting
_any_ result that fits the specification; the remainder would be
defined as complex _un_specified information. In the coin-flipping
example, the probability of getting an odd number of heads is 0.5,
so the amount of complex specified information is 1 bit, and the
amount of complex unspecified information is 5-1 = 4 bits.
So, my (new & improved) question is: would you agree with this way of
handling partial specifications?
Oh, and if you're wondering why I'm spending my time worrying about
what is basically a technicality, and not directly relevant to any
of the interesting questions under discussion: it's because I think
there's a problem with Dembski's argument, but the form the problem
takes depends greatly on how this ambiguity is resolved. Which means
that I can't point out the problem until the ambiguity is resolved.
That's all.
>>b) Suppose I paint a target on the side of a barn, big enough to
>>cover one thousandth of the barn's area. Suppose further that I'm
>>a mediocre enough archer that, even with that big a target, I can
>>only hit it half the time. Suppose I fire an arrow at the target,
>>and manage to hit it. Again, my question is how much complex
>>specified information does this result carry? Is it calculated
>>based on the probability of the arrow hitting the target if it
>>had been fired at random (P=1/1,000), or the probability of _me_
>>hitting the target (P=1/2)?
>The probability of you hitting the traget. This is no different than the
>amount of information conveyed when flipping a coin. Uncertainty will
>decrease by -log2(.5), or 1 bit of info.
I agree; I think that this is the only reasonable way to do the
calculation. But if this is the correct way to calculate the CSI
produced by an intelligent agent, it seems to me that intelligent
agents will be just as unlikely to produce large quantities of CSI
as chance processes are. In the above example, I'm not doing any
better than a coin flip with one outcome specified. If you take any
of Dembski's other examples of CSI production, assign probabilities,
and calculate out the CSI produced, there just isn't much there
(either that, or the intelligent agent has a very small probability
of choosing the specified result).
Take Dembski's example of a trained rat navigating a maze that
requires the rat to make 100 turns, following the correct sequence of
lefts and rights. Let's pick some probabilities, plug them in, and
see what happens.
- Suppose the probability of the rat goofing (i.e. making a wrong
turn) at any intersection is 0.5%; then it has a 99.5% probability
of making a correct turn, which carries 0.0072 bits of CSI. A
successful run through the maze (which the rat has a 60% chance of
accomplishing) produces .72 bits of CSI.
- Suppose the rat goofs 1% of the time. Then each correct turn
produces 0.014 bits of CSI. A successful run (which occurs 36% of
the time) produces 1.4 bits of CSI.
- Suppose the rat goofs 5% of the time. Then each correct turn
produces 0.074 bits of CSI. A successful run produces 7.4 bits of
CSI, but only occurs 0.59% of the time.
In none of the above cases is the rat doing any better at producing
CSI than a random process with the same probability of selecting the
specified outcome. Dembski claims that CSI is characteristic of
intelligent choice, but I don't see how this can be. Can you
think of any examples where an intelligent agent will have a high
probability of producing large quantities of CSI (i.e. of doing any
better than a comparable random process)?
--
Human: Gordon Davisson ><todd>
HASA: Member, S division. o o
Internet: davi...@saul.u.washington.edu
Dick C.
>In article <2g_o3.2713$424.2...@news.uswest.net>,
> foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
><pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>> >news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> >> In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
>wrote:
>> >
>is no
>> >> >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on
>seeds,
>> >> >guns and food.
>> >>
>> >> But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
>computer
>> >games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
>>
>>
>> Dick, Atheist #1349
>
>Dick, I doubt if your beloved authority figures have told you this, but
>following up any form of cancer with superantioxidants like OPC's
What the fuck are you talking about now, moron?
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
Dick, Atheist #1349
Dick C.
>In article <2g_o3.2713$424.2...@news.uswest.net>,
> foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>> In article <7o1d26$g...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>, "Felipe"
><pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>> >news:_YMo3.1946$424.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> >> In article <7o00fk$t3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Dick, forget about your "knowledge," it is all a lie. Your world
>is no
>> >> >more real than that of Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Stock up on
>seeds,
>> >> >guns and food.
>> >>
>> >> I hope, I sincerely hope, that you are not allowed access to guns.
>> >> But I am afraid that is probably a false hope.:-(.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, about half of his posts (not counting the ones on
>computer
>> >games) are about how, to him, "guns = freedom".
>>
>> And to think he wanted to know where I lived.
snip rambling about cancer cures and some such.
Hey, I noticed you shut up about race wars when I pointed out
that you have no idea what my race is. :-).
Is there a problem? Do you want to tell me where You live?
CMB
bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >Tell me where you live, I'll tell you how soon that part of the
country
> >will be embroiled in all-out civil war based on race.
>
> Were you toilet trained at gunpoint? Which militia do you belong to?
I need a
> laugh.
>
"California is going to be a Hispanic state, and anyone doesn't like it
should leave."
Mario Obledo, co-founder of the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund,
MALDEF, backed by the Ford Foundation
"I tell my White friends they'd better hold on to affirmative action
because they're going to need it."
"Remember, Proposition 187 is the last gasp of White America in
California and maybe the country."
Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party
(In other words, when the Mexicans take over, they're going to
discriminate against you.)
"In the near future people will look at California and Mexico as one
magnificent region."
Governor Gray Davis of California
(That's the governor of California. It's a violation of the
Constitution of the United States for any state to enter into a treaty
or alliance with another country. And that's what he's doing.)
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the
territory enclosed by its borders."
"Mexicans are preparing to reclaim what was taken from them a century
ago."
Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo
"The United States of the 21st Century will be undeniably ours again.
It is Manifest Destino."
Angel Gomez, publisher of 'Latina' magazine
"You whites are too weak to keep it and too weak to stop us."
Ernest Villenzo of the Mexican "Browns" army dedicated to forceful
extermination of whites in the Southwest for hispanic living space
Mexican Terms For you gringos, you'll need to master spanish as soon as
possible in order to plead for your lives with Reconquista guerillas
shortly :
"La Raza" = "The Race", as in, "The Hispanic Race"
"Aztlan" = New hispanic racial territory of California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas and who knows where else, already in popular use by all
hispanics as a given
"La ReConquista" = "The Reconquest" of North America as a territory
that rightfully belongs to a nation of IQ 85 Burrito Monkeys and
gangsters who prefer socialism over free market economics, which
explains why mexico is a stinking 3rd world hellhole they want to escape
You better pull your head out of your ass, junior ... but it's your
problem, not mine. I'll read about your sorry ass in the headlines ...
maybe catch your public execution by Reconquista forces on CNN. I'll
pour myself a tall glass of lemonade and toast you on my TV set,
standing there chattering against a wall with a couple of hundred goofy
whites with a blindfold on ...
White Prisoner : "Is this ... this real? Is this some kind of gameshow
or something ... like a television drama or something? I mean ... like
this is odd and I'm not having much fun now, I'm scared. Can somebody
hand me the remote so I can change channels?"
(Mexicans riddle poor feebleminded asshole with hundreds of bullets)
CMB
"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7o24a8
$7ii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
there is
> a huge sexual component to the history of racism in America? For
example,
> during the lynching spree before World War II, black men were almost
> invariably lynched for false accusations of having raped, or having
tried to
> rape, white women. (It was the combined forces of white and black
church
> women, along with various economic pressures, that put an end to
this, by
> the way. That is, women knew that the charges were without merit.)
When
There is a rape every 7 seconds in South Africa now that apartheid has
been dismantled. Last year in South Africa there were at least 40
million rapes by estimating how many rapes go unreported altogether
because law and order has ceased to function there. Although black
people consist of only 12% of the population of the U.S., they commit
64% of all forcible rapes in the United States. A black man is 300
times more likely to rape a white woman than a white man a black woman.
These figures are from the U.S. Justice Dept, go to the site and see
for yourself. In South Africa it is estimated that more than 18% of all
white females who have remained after apartheid have been raped at some
point by black men. Recently in South Africa, a UN Envoy was abducted
by a gang of black home invaders and raped over 100 times. There was a
two hour break and then she was gang raped again.
In the new "liberated" territories under the DNC in Africa, hundreds of
white farmers have been killed (usually by slow garrote) and their
daughters and wives gang raped before also dying by slow garrote.
In Haiti, an all black island nation, the penalty for rape is $20 and
an apology to the victim, even though very few rapes are ever
prosecuted there of course. (There is no stable government to speak of)
People who have visited Haiti have observed that rape is not really a
crime there in actuality ... unless a woman has a relative to seek
redress, rape is just part of the burden a woman bears if she is caught
alone somewhere.
If you had ever been around black men anywhere coast-to-coast in any
city for 10 seconds, I'm sure you have noticed it is virtually
impossible for an unaccompanied female to pass a black man on the
street without them making a variety of lewd smacking noises or turning
and following her or propositioning her. Black men also have no
inhibitions about touching and groping women they are able to corner if
they see no male standing guard close by. This makes sense ... with an
average IQ of 85, how the hell could they imagine any long term
consequences or even dream of delaying their short term gratification?
It should be noted that virtually identical behaviour is seen in
severely retarded adult white males whose IQ falls within the same
range as the average black man - retarded white males have no way to
control their impulses and act out spontaneously on their sexual drives.
Just how much of this do you think white men could take in the
reconstructed South, where the North encouraged freed slaves to take
retribution on the conquered whites there?
You claim I feel threatened by the "sexual" threat of black men. Are
you saying rape is sex? Because I don't think rape is sex, I think it
is rape. Being a white anglo saxon who cherishes human civilization and
law and order, of course I reject rape as abhorrent.
In Los Angeles on two separate occasions, my wife and I were unloading
groceries from our car in the driveway - each time when my wife was out
alone in the driveway she was approached by a black male who openly
either began lewd sucking noises (boy those black men are really some
romantic devils alright) and trying to corner her or else cut her off
from the house. One of them I liberated part of his scalp with a
baseball bat, the other guy I just chased off.
Once my wife made it to an elevator first in L.A. and was in between
two black males who didn't realize I was right behind her. They started
the ZZZzzz usual lewd lip smacking and "Hey theah babee whatchoo don
like black mens?" sort of spiel. The doors opened on a slaughterhouse
when we got out.
You really think you're morally superior to the men of the south, don't
you, Felipe? You think you could of just handled all that SO much
better, don't you?
Felipe, you're a narrow hipped he-she who doesn't deserve to kiss those
noble southern gentleman on their ass. They did the best they could to
protect themselves and their families in impossible conditions. You
have NO idea the humiliation the southern people were forced to undergo
by the North, they were utterly destroyed. Before the war, the South
was the wealthiest, healthiest, best educated place to live in the
United States, the real America. It was razed to the ground and the
women of the south were gang raped first by northern troops and
afterwards by freed slaves.
The history you think you know is bunkum, pure bulls**t. I know because
I was taught the same thing. It's all garbage and lies, period.
1. 99% of Southerners never owned slaves and considered slavery
abominable
2. The Civil War was about taxes and tariffs on Southern goods, it had
nothing to do with slavery
3. White slavery was common in the South amongst slaveowners and there
were almost as many white slaves as black. Many black landowners held
both white AND black slaves and beat more than a few to death on their
plantations.
4. Slaves were never forcibly captured by slavers, they were bought
from other blacks in Africa along coastlines where they were offered in
abundancy. That scene at the beginning of ROOTS is a really hilarious
fantasy sequence with Kunta Kinte being captured in a net by guys with
powdered wigs on ... ludicrous, that never happened, ever.
5. There is only one place on Earth where slavery remains a natural
part of existence and an accepted element of human life - Africa. It
has long since been abolished in all white anglo saxon countries.
Slavery continues in Africa to this day, where women and children are
traded like playing cards by african men who keep them in bondage
including leashes and leg irons as well as chains.
6. After the Civil War ended, the North appointed freed slaves by
decree to positions as mayors, governors, sheriffs and overseers above
the white majority, even forbidding whites to vote for a long time in
elections of any kind for fear they'd displace the North's potentates.
7. The word "Slave" comes from the original "slav." Throughout history,
more whites have been kept as slaves than any other race of men in
history.
Pretty big gulf between P.C. history and real history, isn't there?
Ask me sometime about the American Indian, I've got a couple surprises
for you there too. "Dancing With Wolves," was a great fantasy about
noble Rousseau savages, though.