A newish, useful book

[John Harshman]

Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.

Evidence for human evolution comes from all manner of sources, though
creationists tend to ignore all but paleontology and distort even that.
But the greatest source of evidence these days, as it is for almost all
phylogenetic questions, is genetic data.

Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.

Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
incomplete lineage sorting. Second, he wastes a chapter (in my opinion)
in an attempt to reconcile evolution with religion. But all told, good
stuff, some of which you may not have seen before or seen explained as
well, and unanswerable by any creationist who bothers to pay attention.

[prawnster]

"Any creationist" answers, Harshboi:

And yet not one observed instance of speciation. Not one. So who
cares how thorough or baroque is the phantsycastle built by Mr.
Fairbanks or you or any other evolutionary whateverist? Let us all
know when you have a single observed instance of speciation. Until
then, shut the fuh up.

"I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
But when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
John cries out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard." ~ prawnhammer's
"Ode of a Troll"

[Karel]

Logic (and probably speciation) here meaning: a virus that
evolves into a hamster within a human lifetime.

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Regards, Karel

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden

http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg

Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

In message
<5e2aec0e-ae80-4f67...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Nov 17, 4:27�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>> fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
>http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>
>http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>
>Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.

URL:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/theyre_pink_under_all_that
_hai.php>

>
>Ray
>
>> Evidence for human evolution comes from all manner of sources, though
>> creationists tend to ignore all but paleontology and distort even that.
>> But the greatest source of evidence these days, as it is for almost all
>> phylogenetic questions, is genetic data.
>>
>> Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
>> mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
>> powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
>>
>> Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
>> with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
>> pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
>> species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
>> data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
>> incomplete lineage sorting. Second, he wastes a chapter (in my opinion)
>> in an attempt to reconcile evolution with religion. But all told, good
>> stuff, some of which you may not have seen before or seen explained as
>> well, and unanswerable by any creationist who bothers to pay attention.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 11/17/2012 7:23 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> fail to kill it.

[snip]

Gee, John, you could shoot an arrow through a creationist
temple-to-temple and not reduce cognitive functions one wit.

Mitchell

[John Harshman]

On 11/18/12 4:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>> fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>
> http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>
> Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.

That's because you specialize in not seeing things. I'd ask you to try
reading the book, but it wouldn't do any good.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e2aec0e-ae80-4f67...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>> fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>
> http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>
> Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.
>

Care to clarify, no similarities?

[Rolf]

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:0d628017-2c0a-492b...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

You really think species are static, or? Fossils are useless artifacts,
genetic similarities just random noise? I rather think you think Godditit. I
think evidence means something, the question always is: What does the
evidence tell?

The FSM didit?

[TomS]

"On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:28:23 -0800 (PST), in article
<0d628017-2c0a-492b...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."
[...snip...]

>And yet not one observed instance of speciation. Not one. So who
>cares how thorough or baroque is the phantsycastle built by Mr.
>Fairbanks or you or any other evolutionary whateverist? Let us all
>know when you have a single observed instance of speciation. Until
>then, shut the fuh up.

[...snip...]

The evidence for speciation is so convincing that many creationists have
given up on denying that. For example, there is the word "baramin" (or
"created kind") which is supposedly descriptive of what were created in
the creation week, a larger group than species, often said to be
something like a taxonomic family. For example, Answers in Genesis has
a list of "Arguments that should never be used", #8 being "No new
_species have been produced".
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use>

You can also look at the Wikipedia article "Speciation".


--
---Tom S.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 17, 7:27�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> fail to kill it. I'll start over.

I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.

If so, we are in agreement.

> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.

Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
horse sequence.

And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
"microevolution."

However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.

>That's because it's
> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,

That's a statement that cries out for quantification.

+++++++++++++++ sarcasm on

Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
is concerned, don't you?

++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.

Very true where fundie creationists are concerned. Roman Catholic
creationists always have the impregnable citadel of "the body, yes,
but God creates the individual human soul" to retreat to, thereby
divorcing themselves from mainstream creationism.

> Evidence for human evolution comes from all manner of sources, though
> creationists tend to ignore all but paleontology and distort even that.

In spades, where the horse sequence is concerned. I could go on and on
about that.

Where human evolution is concerned, their canonical mantra is "The
missing link is still missing."

I'd say 99.99% of those who chant this mantra have no idea WHERE that
proverbial missing link would be situated, were it found. They
probably don't even have a clue as to how many "missing" links are no
longer missing.

> But the greatest source of evidence these days, as it is for almost all
> phylogenetic questions, is genetic data.

Here the canonical mantra uses the keyword "template."

> Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
> mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
> powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
>
> Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
> with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
> pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
> species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
> data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
> incomplete lineage sorting.

By this last, do you mean low bootstrap figures?

> Second, he wastes a chapter (in my opinion)
> in an attempt to reconcile evolution with religion.

It hardly takes a chapter. As far as I'm concerned, saying "Only
those who have a very literalist interpretation of the Bible should
have trouble reconciling their religion with evolution" is almost all
it takes. After that, one need only point out where the literalist
interpretations supporting creationism can be found, and what the
mainstream Christian denominations say about them.

> But all told, good
> stuff, some of which you may not have seen before or seen explained as
> well, and unanswerable by any creationist who bothers to pay attention.

If you have some good paragraphs to quote, I'm figuratively all ears.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[pnyikos]

That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner. I
have a good friend in the Department of Biological Sciences who says
there is a population of mice being studied that seem to be in the
process of speciation. Until recently there was no observable
reproductive barrier between them. Now a lot seems to depend on
whether a male in strain X mates with a female in strain Y or vice
versa.

If you wish, I can ask him whether any of this is in the public
domain.

>  So who
> cares how thorough or baroque is the phantsycastle built by Mr.
> Fairbanks or you or any other evolutionary whateverist?  Let us all
> know when you have a single observed instance of speciation.  Until
> then, shut the fuh up.

Prawnster to Sherlock Holmes: "Let us all

know when you have a single observed instance of

your suspect murdering someone. Until then,

shut the fuh up."


> "I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
> I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
> But when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
> John cries out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard." ~ prawnhammer's
> "Ode of a Troll"

I agree, once you fix it up by saying "I, John, cry out" instead of
"John cries out".

But even so, this is getting to look more and more like the
proverbial stopped clock telling the correct time twice a day.

By the way, your doggerel could use a second verse, about how John
will sometimes resort to sarcastic histrionics like "OK, we're all
agreed that I am an idiot; now, can you please tell me what you meant"
or "undoubtedly, the reason I don't understand is that I am dead
inside" when his "feigning the 'tard" ploy [and who knows, sometimes
it might actually be sincere] is pointed out.

Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

In message
<587f90f5-5989-4e52...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes

>> And yet not one observed instance of speciation.  Not one.
>
>That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner.

That was obsolete decades (arguably over a century) ago. I'd guess that
there are of the order of 100 observed instances of speciation and
respeciation. (Counting all the synthetic bread wheats as a single
instance - otherwise the number is higher.)

The latest one I've seen was Mimulus peregrinus, which was documented
earlier this year (published July).

> I have a good friend in the Department of Biological Sciences who
>says there is a population of mice being studied that seem to be in the
>process of speciation. Until recently there was no observable
>reproductive barrier between them. Now a lot seems to depend on
>whether a male in strain X mates with a female in strain Y or vice versa.
>
>If you wish, I can ask him whether any of this is in the public domain.

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:01:56 +0000, in article
<GANeWAFU...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."

>
>In message
><587f90f5-5989-4e52...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>> And yet not one observed instance of speciation.  Not one.
>>
>>That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner.
>
>That was obsolete decades (arguably over a century) ago. I'd guess that
>there are of the order of 100 observed instances of speciation and
>respeciation. (Counting all the synthetic bread wheats as a single
>instance - otherwise the number is higher.)
>
>The latest one I've seen was Mimulus peregrinus, which was documented
>earlier this year (published July).

[...snip...]

Just making a guess, I'd say that speciation in plants would not be
counted, certainly not in microbes, probably only in vertebrates.

And my guess is that one is thinking that evolution can be observed
only in fossils. I'd say that something as small as speciation is
difficult to demonstrate with fossils. What about fossils would
indicate that reproductive isolation took place?


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

On 18 Nov, 22:47, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> > place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> > fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> > that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> > weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
> > really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
> > and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
> > relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>
> http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>
> Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.
>
> Ray
>

And now compare with

http://wordoftruthradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bacteria.jpg
http://www.newdawndive.co.uk/images/awarefish.jpg
and
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4765xTSpjJlQEg8Zy5djbafV10h1f38fQ0wO_tIYAjrEOQC1j

Which of these resemble each other more closely?

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/19/12 6:59 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:01:56 +0000, in article
> <GANeWAFU...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>>
>> In message
>> <587f90f5-5989-4e52...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>>> And yet not one observed instance of speciation. Not one.
>>>
>>> That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner.
>>
>> That was obsolete decades (arguably over a century) ago. I'd guess that
>> there are of the order of 100 observed instances of speciation and
>> respeciation. (Counting all the synthetic bread wheats as a single
>> instance - otherwise the number is higher.)
>>
>> The latest one I've seen was Mimulus peregrinus, which was documented
>> earlier this year (published July).
> [...snip...]
>
> Just making a guess, I'd say that speciation in plants would not be
> counted, certainly not in microbes, probably only in vertebrates.

Probably not in vertebrates, either. After all, even after the
speciation, they are still vertebrates! It's like transitional fossils.
The reason there are no transitional fossils is because the zillions
of transitional fossils that are found do not count.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[John Harshman]

On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>> fail to kill it. I'll start over.
>
> I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
> antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.
>
> If so, we are in agreement.

That depends on the particular creationist claim you're trying to hit,
doesn't it? Some creationists do indeed deny that advantageous mutations
happen, for example. Though obviously this has nothing to do with what
we might consider the central claim, separate ancestry of "kinds".

>> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.
>
> Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
> horse sequence.

I don't agree, but arguing about the relative weakness of weak links is
not all that profitable.

> And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
> creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
> "microevolution."

I still disagree. You are apparently obsessed with fossil evidence to
the exclusion of all else.

> However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
> rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
> shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.

Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
result of microevolution?

>> That's because it's
>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>
> That's a statement that cries out for quantification.

Can't be quantified in the way you want, as it's merely a matter of
degree. The more closely species are related, the more similar they are,
and the harder it is to imagine that their similarities are
independently derived. Further, the less divergence, the smaller
percentage of changes are homoplasious, and thus the more easily we can
derive information from the data. (Note that I'm talking mostly about
genetic data.)

> +++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
> theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
> is concerned, don't you?
>
> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Never forget a grievance, eh? This can be quantified. Humans and chimps
are on average only about 1.3% divergent. This means that there are very
few multiple hits on sites, the major problem in phylogenetic inference.
All the apes are within a few percent, which also means low homoplasy.
If our nearest relative was as far away from us as, say, hoatzins are
from other birds, things would be much more difficult. We still have no
clear idea what hoatzins are, despite great effort.

>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> Very true where fundie creationists are concerned. Roman Catholic
> creationists always have the impregnable citadel of "the body, yes,
> but God creates the individual human soul" to retreat to, thereby
> divorcing themselves from mainstream creationism.

We could quibble about the meaning of "creationist", I suppose. Would
you like to?

>> Evidence for human evolution comes from all manner of sources, though
>> creationists tend to ignore all but paleontology and distort even that.
>
> In spades, where the horse sequence is concerned. I could go on and on
> about that.
>
> Where human evolution is concerned, their canonical mantra is "The
> missing link is still missing."
>
> I'd say 99.99% of those who chant this mantra have no idea WHERE that
> proverbial missing link would be situated, were it found. They
> probably don't even have a clue as to how many "missing" links are no
> longer missing.
>
>> But the greatest source of evidence these days, as it is for almost all
>> phylogenetic questions, is genetic data.
>
> Here the canonical mantra uses the keyword "template."
>
>> Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
>> mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
>> powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
>>
>> Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
>> with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
>> pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
>> species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
>> data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
>> incomplete lineage sorting.
>
> By this last, do you mean low bootstrap figures?

I do not. Before I explain, make it easier on me and try googling the
term once. If you don't find a good explanation, then we'll talk.

>> Second, he wastes a chapter (in my opinion)
>> in an attempt to reconcile evolution with religion.
>
> It hardly takes a chapter. As far as I'm concerned, saying "Only
> those who have a very literalist interpretation of the Bible should
> have trouble reconciling their religion with evolution" is almost all
> it takes. After that, one need only point out where the literalist
> interpretations supporting creationism can be found, and what the
> mainstream Christian denominations say about them.

We could argue about that too, but I don't feel like it.

>> But all told, good
>> stuff, some of which you may not have seen before or seen explained as
>> well, and unanswerable by any creationist who bothers to pay attention.
>
> If you have some good paragraphs to quote, I'm figuratively all ears.

I would advise just reading the book. I expect it's in a library near you.

[jillery]

I am reminded of a classic line from Kent Hovind, "the only thing you
know about a fossil is that it died."

More seriously, I agree that the features which separate a new species
from its parent species are usually not the kind of features that can
be fossilized. Nevermind the fact that the chances of capturing a
complete fossil sequence across a speciation event is exceedingly
rare.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 19, 12:37�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> >> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> >> fail to kill it. I'll start over.
>
> > I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
> > antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.
>
> > � If so, we are in agreement.
>
> That depends on the particular creationist claim you're trying to hit,
> doesn't it?

Only if you modify your blanket statement about "kill it."

>Some creationists do indeed deny that advantageous mutations
> happen, for example. Though obviously this has nothing to do with what
> we might consider the central claim, separate ancestry of "kinds".
>
> >> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> >> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> >> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.
>
> > Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
> > horse sequence.
>
> I don't agree, but arguing about the relative weakness of weak links is
> not all that profitable.

Well, nowadays creationists seem willing to let Homo erectus into the
human kind, now that "Pithecanthropus" is no longer considered a
separate genus. So what does that do to the evidence available back
then? Biochemistry was yet to be invented, you know.

> > And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
> > creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
> > "microevolution."
>
> I still disagree. You are apparently obsessed with fossil evidence to
> the exclusion of all else.

Wrong. We have lots of biochemical evidence where horses, asses, and
zebras are concerned. And, more to the point, we also have it for
tapirs and rhinos. And that's what I am talking about here:

> > However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
> > rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
> > shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.
>
> Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
> result of microevolution?

I doubt that the people who run the AIG website dare to go that far.
They seem stuck at the Linnean family level. Plus, the differences
between horses and rhinos seem huge to laymen.

And if Tetraclaenodon turns out to be a plausible common ancestor,
that will also bring a good part of the old "Condylartha", and perhaps
all of the new "rump state Condylartha" into the fold of one "kind".
Maybe even Tubulidentata, the aardvarks.

Unfortunately for you, cladophiles are ill prepared for such an
eventuality. Y'all can't seem to bring yourselves to acknowledge any
"non-imaginary" difference between "genus" and "phylum." Not to
mention the fact that "plausible common ancestor" is anathema to
y'all.

> >> That's because it's
> >> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>
> > That's a statement that cries out for quantification.
>
> Can't be quantified in the way you want, as it's merely a matter of
> degree.

> The more closely species are related, the more similar they are,

To a cladophile, there is no way to tell whether *Didelphis* [the
Virginia opossum] is any more "closely related" to *Procoptodon*
[giant extinct kangaroo] than human beings are to chimps. The
respective LCA's are incomparable.

> and the harder it is to imagine that their similarities are
> independently derived. Further, the less divergence, the smaller
> percentage of changes are homoplasious, and thus the more easily we can
> derive information from the data. (Note that I'm talking mostly about
> genetic data.)
>
> > +++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> > Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
> > theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
> > is concerned, don't you?
>
> > ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>
> Never forget a grievance, eh?

That's grist for the mill of a third verse by prawnster: tuning data
about double standards by Harshman into personal grievances against
Harshman.

You do it a lot, don't deny it.

>This can be quantified. Humans and chimps
> are on average only about 1.3% divergent.

By what genetic standard? The great hotchpot of base pairs, the
number of shared alleles, ...?

> This means that there are very
> few multiple hits on sites, the major problem in phylogenetic inference.
> All the apes are within a few percent, which also means low homoplasy.
> If our nearest relative was as far away from us as, say, hoatzins are
> from other birds, things would be much more difficult. We still have no
> clear idea what hoatzins are, despite great effort.

Now you are getting concrete enough to be meaningful. But "ease of
argument" is the other side of the coin, and I'm not sure small
deviation numbers are going to impress people much more than large
deviation numbers, especially when the smaller numbers (chimp vs.
human) are in the millions.

At least, I don't recall anyone disputing "millions" with Dr. Dr.
Kleinman.

> >> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
> >> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> > Very true where fundie creationists are concerned. �Roman Catholic
> > creationists always have the impregnable citadel of "the body, yes,
> > but God creates the individual human soul" to retreat to, thereby
> > divorcing themselves from mainstream creationism.
>
> We could quibble about the meaning of "creationist", I suppose. Would
> you like to?

No, I'd rather discuss the narrower concept, "mainstream
creationism".

[snip things about which you had nothing to say]

> >> Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
> >> mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
> >> powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
>
> >> Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
> >> with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
> >> pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
> >> species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
> >> data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
> >> incomplete lineage sorting.
>
> > By this last, do you mean low bootstrap figures?
>
> I do not. Before I explain, make it easier on me and try googling the
> term once. If you don't find a good explanation, then we'll talk.

Fair enough. I was hoping you, in turn, could make things easier on
the rest of us by asking:

[snip and cut to the chase]

> > If you have some good paragraphs to quote, I'm figuratively all ears.
>
> I would advise just reading the book. I expect it's in a library near you.

Can't you at least tell us which chapters were particularly strong and
which were weak in your estimation? You've made a start with your
opinion that the author wastes a chapter on reconciling relligion with
evolution [snipped above] and I gave my qualified agreement [also
snipped]. I'd like to see more.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 19, 10:02�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:01:56 +0000, in article

> <GANeWAFUvjqQF...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>
> >In message
> ><587f90f5-5989-4e52-948b-776b1882c...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes

> >>> And yet not one observed instance of speciation. Not one.
>
> >>That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner.
>
> >That was obsolete decades (arguably over a century) ago. I'd guess that
> >there are of the order of 100 observed instances of speciation and
> >respeciation. (Counting all the synthetic bread wheats as a single
> >instance - otherwise the number is higher.)
>
> >The latest one I've seen was Mimulus peregrinus, which was documented
> >earlier this year (published July).
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Just making a guess, I'd say that speciation in plants would not be
> counted, certainly not in microbes, probably only in vertebrates.

Yes, Genesis treats plants differently from animals, saying on the one
hand that "the earth brought forth" plants whereas "God created"
animals.

> And my guess is that one is thinking that evolution can be observed
> only in fossils.

No reason why it can't be observed in living animals, except for the
time element. But I think several centuries may well do it for the
mice, which mutate a lot more rapidly than anthropoids.

> I'd say that something as small as speciation is
> difficult to demonstrate with fossils. What about fossils would
> indicate that reproductive isolation took place?

You need a lot of speciations strung together, like in the horse
sequence, to make an impression on creationists. For instance, if
there weren't a long string of intermediates between Hyracotherium and
Equus, creationists could reasonably stonewall about "missing links".
They can quibble about whether Hyracotherium and Orohippus are
separate "baramin", but most still balk at saying Hyracotherium and
Equus are the same "kind."

[pnyikos]

On Nov 19, 12:17�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/12 6:59 AM, TomS wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:01:56 +0000, in article

> > <GANeWAFUvjqQF...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>
> >> In message
> >> <587f90f5-5989-4e52-948b-776b1882c...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes

> >>>> And yet not one observed instance of speciation. �Not one.
>
> >>> That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner.
>
> >> That was obsolete decades (arguably over a century) ago. I'd guess that
> >> there are of the order of 100 observed instances of speciation and
> >> respeciation. (Counting all the synthetic bread wheats as a single
> >> instance - otherwise the number is higher.)
>
> >> The latest one I've seen was Mimulus peregrinus, which was documented
> >> earlier this year (published July).
> > [...snip...]
>
> > Just making a guess, I'd say that speciation in plants would not be
> > counted, certainly not in microbes, probably only in vertebrates.
>
> Probably not in vertebrates, either. �After all, even after the
> speciation, they are still vertebrates!

That makes a cute satire on creationist thinking, but nothing more.

[another cute satire deleted here]

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 11/19/12 1:36 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 19, 12:37 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>>>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>>>> fail to kill it. I'll start over.
>>
>>> I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
>>> antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.
>>
>>> If so, we are in agreement.
>>
>> That depends on the particular creationist claim you're trying to hit,
>> doesn't it?
>
> Only if you modify your blanket statement about "kill it."

You will have to explain what we are arguing about before I can address it.

>> Some creationists do indeed deny that advantageous mutations
>> happen, for example. Though obviously this has nothing to do with what
>> we might consider the central claim, separate ancestry of "kinds".
>>
>>>> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>>>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>>>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.
>>
>>> Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
>>> horse sequence.
>>
>> I don't agree, but arguing about the relative weakness of weak links is
>> not all that profitable.
>
> Well, nowadays creationists seem willing to let Homo erectus into the
> human kind, now that "Pithecanthropus" is no longer considered a
> separate genus. So what does that do to the evidence available back
> then? Biochemistry was yet to be invented, you know.

When was the "back then" you are referring to and why did you bring it up?

>>> And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
>>> creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
>>> "microevolution."
>>
>> I still disagree. You are apparently obsessed with fossil evidence to
>> the exclusion of all else.
>
> Wrong. We have lots of biochemical evidence where horses, asses, and
> zebras are concerned. And, more to the point, we also have it for
> tapirs and rhinos. And that's what I am talking about here:

No it isn't, if by "that's" you mean biochemical evidence. You're
talking exclusively about fossils.

>>> However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
>>> rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
>>> shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.
>>
>> Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
>> result of microevolution?
>
> I doubt that the people who run the AIG website dare to go that far.
> They seem stuck at the Linnean family level. Plus, the differences
> between horses and rhinos seem huge to laymen.

As far as I can tell, they don't much care about kinds except that
humans and apes must be separate. And that's my point.

> And if Tetraclaenodon turns out to be a plausible common ancestor,
> that will also bring a good part of the old "Condylartha", and perhaps
> all of the new "rump state Condylartha" into the fold of one "kind".
> Maybe even Tubulidentata, the aardvarks.
>
> Unfortunately for you, cladophiles are ill prepared for such an
> eventuality. Y'all can't seem to bring yourselves to acknowledge any
> "non-imaginary" difference between "genus" and "phylum." Not to
> mention the fact that "plausible common ancestor" is anathema to
> y'all.

You can't leave anything alone, can you? But sure, derail the thread all
you like. What are the non-imaginary differences between genus and
phylum? Why should we be interested in plausible common ancestors? And
whatever can this possibly have to do with the subject of the thread, a
book about the genetic evidence for human evolution?

>>>> That's because it's
>>>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>>
>>> That's a statement that cries out for quantification.
>>
>> Can't be quantified in the way you want, as it's merely a matter of
>> degree.
>
>> The more closely species are related, the more similar they are,
>
> To a cladophile, there is no way to tell whether *Didelphis* [the
> Virginia opossum] is any more "closely related" to *Procoptodon*
> [giant extinct kangaroo] than human beings are to chimps. The
> respective LCA's are incomparable.

This is among your more ignorant statements. Didelphis is exactly as far
from Procoptodon as from any other macropodid, and we have genetic data
for that.

>> and the harder it is to imagine that their similarities are
>> independently derived. Further, the less divergence, the smaller
>> percentage of changes are homoplasious, and thus the more easily we can
>> derive information from the data. (Note that I'm talking mostly about
>> genetic data.)
>>
>>> +++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>>
>>> Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
>>> theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
>>> is concerned, don't you?
>>
>>> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>>
>> Never forget a grievance, eh?
>
> That's grist for the mill of a third verse by prawnster: tuning data
> about double standards by Harshman into personal grievances against
> Harshman.
>
> You do it a lot, don't deny it.

I deny turning something into something else, because I think your "data
about double standards" is in fact a personal grievance.

>> This can be quantified. Humans and chimps
>> are on average only about 1.3% divergent.
>
> By what genetic standard? The great hotchpot of base pairs, the
> number of shared alleles, ...?

The standard here is average percentage difference of orthologous
sequences across the genome.

>> This means that there are very
>> few multiple hits on sites, the major problem in phylogenetic inference.
>> All the apes are within a few percent, which also means low homoplasy.
>> If our nearest relative was as far away from us as, say, hoatzins are
>> from other birds, things would be much more difficult. We still have no
>> clear idea what hoatzins are, despite great effort.
>
> Now you are getting concrete enough to be meaningful. But "ease of
> argument" is the other side of the coin, and I'm not sure small
> deviation numbers are going to impress people much more than large
> deviation numbers, especially when the smaller numbers (chimp vs.
> human) are in the millions.
>
> At least, I don't recall anyone disputing "millions" with Dr. Dr.
> Kleinman.

Kleinman actually had no clue about the numbers until I told him. Now
if, like Kleinman, you are incapable of distinguishing between
percentages and raw numbers, that seems odd for a mathematician. As for
impressing creationists, that's mostly futile regardless of the data.

>>>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>>>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>>
>>> Very true where fundie creationists are concerned. Roman Catholic
>>> creationists always have the impregnable citadel of "the body, yes,
>>> but God creates the individual human soul" to retreat to, thereby
>>> divorcing themselves from mainstream creationism.
>>
>> We could quibble about the meaning of "creationist", I suppose. Would
>> you like to?
>
> No, I'd rather discuss the narrower concept, "mainstream
> creationism".

If you really want to. Go.

>>>> Which brings us to my subject, a fairly new book (and one I haven't seen
>>>> mentioned here before): Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2010. Relics of Eden: The
>>>> powerful evidence of evolution in human DNA. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
>>
>>>> Fairbanks goes into the genetic data in good though accessible detail,
>>>> with chapters on chromosomal fusion, transposons, retroelements,
>>>> pseudogenes, DNA sequence comparisons, and genetic diversity within
>>>> species. I have few quibbles: first, inadequate discussion of discordant
>>>> data and reasons therefore, in particular no mention at all of
>>>> incomplete lineage sorting.
>>
>>> By this last, do you mean low bootstrap figures?
>>
>> I do not. Before I explain, make it easier on me and try googling the
>> term once. If you don't find a good explanation, then we'll talk.
>
> Fair enough. I was hoping you, in turn, could make things easier on
> the rest of us by asking:
>
> [snip and cut to the chase]
>
>>> If you have some good paragraphs to quote, I'm figuratively all ears.
>>
>> I would advise just reading the book. I expect it's in a library near you.
>
> Can't you at least tell us which chapters were particularly strong and
> which were weak in your estimation?

All the chapters about the genetic data were strong. The chapter on the
history of genetics was nice, though mostly irrelevant to the subject.
The chapter on religion was both weak and irrelevant.

> You've made a start with your
> opinion that the author wastes a chapter on reconciling relligion with
> evolution [snipped above] and I gave my qualified agreement [also
> snipped]. I'd like to see more.

Then go find the book.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> > place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> > fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> > that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> > weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
> > really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
> > and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
> > relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>
> http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>
> Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.
>
> Ray

One of the dirty little secrets of cladistics, not even mentioned by
Gould (whose "dirty little..." quote should be familar to you) is that
the more doctrinaire cladists ("cladophiles") like Harshman:

1. Will gladly tell you that humans are more closely related to chimps
than to gibbons BUT

2. CANNOT tell you whether humans are more closely related to chimps
than mosquitoes are to oysters.

In fact, they will pronounce the second issue "meaningless" because
they are locked into a specialized definition of "more closely
related."

Ask Harshman to explain it to you. It should give you quite a lot of
insight into the thought processes of cladophiles.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 11/20/12 11:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>>> fail to kill it. I'll start over. Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution. That's because it's
>>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>>> and humans' connection to the other great apes is the one close
>>> relationship creationists are absolutely forbidden from accepting.
>>
>> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/elaine-alden
>>
>> http://www.monkeys.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chimpanzees_group.jpg
>>
>> Close relationship? I don't see any such thing.
>>
>> Ray
>
> One of the dirty little secrets of cladistics, not even mentioned by
> Gould (whose "dirty little..." quote should be familar to you) is that
> the more doctrinaire cladists ("cladophiles") like Harshman:
>
> 1. Will gladly tell you that humans are more closely related to chimps
> than to gibbons BUT
>
> 2. CANNOT tell you whether humans are more closely related to chimps
> than mosquitoes are to oysters.

Depends on what you mean by "more closely related". If we mean "recency
of common descent", then sure, you can often say that sort of thing. If
we mean "genetic similarity", you can often do that too. By either
scale, humans are more closely related to chimps than mosquitoes are to
oysters. There is one meaning by which we can't do this: simple
cladistic relationships, on a tree whose branches are unscaled. Do you
have a fourth meaning in mind?

> In fact, they will pronounce the second issue "meaningless" because
> they are locked into a specialized definition of "more closely
> related."
>
> Ask Harshman to explain it to you. It should give you quite a lot of
> insight into the thought processes of cladophiles.

As is so often the case, you are confused.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 19, 5:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/12 1:36 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Nov 19, 12:37 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>    wrote:
> >>>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
> >>>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
> >>>> fail to kill it. I'll start over.
>
> >>> I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
> >>> antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.
>
> >>>    If so, we are in agreement.
>
> >> That depends on the particular creationist claim you're trying to hit,
> >> doesn't it?
>
> > Only if you modify your blanket statement about "kill it."
>
> You will have to explain what we are arguing about before I can address it.

"evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics," will not kill
creationism. In fact it only gives it a minor flesh wound, easily
healed.

Go back and read what you originally wrote if the above is still
mystifying to you.

> >> Some creationists do indeed deny that advantageous mutations
> >> happen, for example. Though obviously this has nothing to do with what
> >> we might consider the central claim, separate ancestry of "kinds".
>
> >>>> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
> >>>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
> >>>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.
>
> >>> Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
> >>> horse sequence.
>
> >> I don't agree, but arguing about the relative weakness of weak links is
> >> not all that profitable.
>
> > Well, nowadays creationists seem willing to let Homo erectus into the
> > human kind, now that  "Pithecanthropus" is no longer considered a
> > separate genus.  So what does that do to the evidence available back
> > then?  Biochemistry was yet to be invented, you know.
>
> When was the "back then" you are referring to and why did you bring it up?

Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus. Duh.

If prawnster is still reading this thread, he might enjoy the way you
are producing "evidence" for his little ditty.

> >>> And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
> >>> creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
> >>> "microevolution."
>
> >> I still disagree. You are apparently obsessed with fossil evidence to
> >> the exclusion of all else.
>
> > Wrong.  We have lots of biochemical evidence where horses, asses, and
> > zebras are concerned.  And, more to the point, we also have it for
> > tapirs and rhinos.  And that's what I am talking about here:
>
> No it isn't, if by "that's" you mean biochemical evidence. You're
> talking exclusively about fossils.

Prawnster may also enjoy the way you seem to have forgotten your
insult about "obsessed with," etc. even with it still up there.

> >>> However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
> >>> rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
> >>> shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.
>
> >> Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
> >> result of microevolution?
>
> > I doubt that the people who run the AIG website dare to go that far.
> > They seem stuck at the Linnean family level.  Plus, the differences
> > between horses and rhinos seem huge to laymen.
>
> As far as I can tell, they don't much care about kinds except that
> humans and apes must be separate. And that's my point.

And I think you are dead wrong about AIG. And that's MY point.

Continued in next reply, where more points will come to light.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 19, 5:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/12 1:36 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Nov 19, 12:37 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:

Repeating some things from my first reply, to maintain continuity.

> > Well, nowadays creationists seem willing to let Homo erectus into the
> > human kind, now that  "Pithecanthropus" is no longer considered a
> > separate genus.  So what does that do to the evidence available back
> > then?  Biochemistry was yet to be invented, you know.

[snip]

> >>> And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
> >>> creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
> >>> "microevolution."

[snip]

> >>> However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
> >>> rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
> >>> shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.
>
> >> Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
> >> result of microevolution?
>
> > I doubt that the people who run the AIG website dare to go that far.
> > They seem stuck at the Linnean family level.  Plus, the differences
> > between horses and rhinos seem huge to laymen.

[snip]

> > And if Tetraclaenodon turns out to be a plausible common ancestor,
> > that will also bring a good part of the old "Condylartha", and perhaps
> > all of the new "rump state Condylartha" into the fold of one "kind".
> > Maybe even Tubulidentata, the aardvarks.
>
> > Unfortunately for you, cladophiles are ill prepared for such an
> > eventuality. Y'all can't seem to bring yourselves to acknowledge any
> > "non-imaginary" difference between "genus" and "phylum." Not to
> > mention the fact that "plausible common ancestor" is anathema to
> > y'all.
>
> You can't leave anything alone, can you? But sure, derail the thread all
> you like.

Though this may seem like madness, there's method in't. I am
illustrating how doctrinaire cladophilia concedes a lot of ground to
creationism, unnecessarily. See my reply to Ray Martinez for more
about that.

>What are the non-imaginary differences between genus and
> phylum?

Huge latitude for biochemical differences in the latter, for one
thing.

> Why should we be interested in plausible common ancestors?

Because to a creationist, that is what evolution is largely about.
Hence the mantra, "The missing link is still missing."

And hence the "cherry-picked" quote from Gould about "never at the
nodes, only at the tips."

> And
> whatever can this possibly have to do with the subject of the thread, a
> book about the genetic evidence for human evolution?

It has mainly to do with "it's really easy to show the close
relationships of closely related species," quoted directly below.

To get anywhere with this, you need to be able to make comparisons of
the form "more closely related to each other than..." if you throw
away the (admittedly crude) measure of whether they belong to the same
genus, or family, or order, or class, or phylum.

> >>>> That's because it's
> >>>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>
> >>> That's a statement that cries out for quantification.
>
> >> Can't be quantified in the way you want, as it's merely a matter of
> >> degree.
>
> >> The more closely species are related, the more similar they are,
>
> > To a cladophile, there is no way to tell whether *Didelphis* [the
> > Virginia opossum] is any more "closely related" to *Procoptodon*
> > [giant extinct kangaroo] than human beings are to chimps. The
> > respective LCA's are incomparable.
>
> This is among your more ignorant statements. Didelphis is exactly as far
> from Procoptodon as from any other macropodid, and we have genetic data
> for that.

Feigning the 'tard again? Re-read what I wrote. We aren't
macropodids, and neither are chimps.

If that still doesn't help, read my reply to Ray Martinez for a much
more graphic example.

You have yourself to blame for this reminder about prawnster's ditty,
with your insult "This is among your more ignorant statements."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> and the harder it is to imagine that their similarities are
> >> independently derived. Further, the less divergence, the smaller
> >> percentage of changes are homoplasious, and thus the more easily we can
> >> derive information from the data. (Note that I'm talking mostly about
> >> genetic data.)
>
> >>> +++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> >>> Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
> >>> theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
> >>> is concerned, don't you?
>
> >>> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>
> >> Never forget a grievance, eh?
>
> > That's grist for the mill of a third verse by prawnster: tuning data
> > about double standards by Harshman into personal grievances against
> > Harshman.
>
> > You do it a lot, don't deny it.
>
> I deny turning something into something else, because I think your "data
> about double standards" is in fact a personal grievance.

Do you deny having double standards? Even if you try to argue that IN
THIS CASE that is not what the data is about, there are plenty of
other examples in the nearly two years of intensive discussion/debate
between us.

Anyway, you seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes a
grievance. It's no skin off MY nose if you indulge in double
standards. If it isn't skin off YOUR nose either, then your level of
amorality makes you a good "poster boy" for anyone who wants to argue
that if even the best of atheists in this newsgroup [and that includes
you] is so amoral, atheism tends to lead to amorality.

> >> This can be quantified. Humans and chimps
> >> are on average only about 1.3% divergent.
>
> > By what genetic standard? The great hotchpot of base pairs, the
> > number of shared alleles, ...?
>
> The standard here is average percentage difference of orthologous
> sequences across the genome.
>
> >> This means that there are very
> >> few multiple hits on sites, the major problem in phylogenetic inference.
> >> All the apes are within a few percent, which also means low homoplasy.
> >> If our nearest relative was as far away from us as, say, hoatzins are
> >> from other birds, things would be much more difficult. We still have no
> >> clear idea what hoatzins are, despite great effort.
>
> > Now you are getting concrete enough to be meaningful. But "ease of
> > argument" is the other side of the coin, and I'm not sure small
> > deviation numbers are going to impress people much more than large
> > deviation numbers, especially when the smaller numbers (chimp vs.
> > human) are in the millions.
>
> > At least, I don't recall anyone disputing "millions" with Dr. Dr.
> > Kleinman.
>
> Kleinman actually had no clue about the numbers until I told him. Now
> if, like Kleinman, you are incapable of distinguishing between
> percentages and raw numbers, that seems odd for a mathematician.

Don't insult my intelligence like this. I know the difference, I'm
just not impressed by it.

And I'm sure the more knowledgeable creatiionists will be even less
impressed. They could argue that most of that 98.7% similarity has to
do with routine bodily functions and not in what really separates "man
from the animals," as they would put it.

>As for
> impressing creationists, that's mostly futile regardless of the data.

It's great for telling how sincere and honest they are. Quite a few
creationists in talk.origins have been written off on that basis,
although some of the "writers" seem strangely impervious to applying
the same standards to their fellow "evolutionists." [I hate that word;
it makes it seem like we are on a par with creationists.]

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 11/20/12 1:19 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 11/19/12 1:36 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 19, 12:37 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/12 7:23 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Creationism's Achilles heel -- no, wait, that implies that there's some
>>>>>> place on creationism's body where you could hit it with an arrow and
>>>>>> fail to kill it. I'll start over.
>>
>>>>> I take it you think the arrow "evolving bacterial resistance to
>>>>> antibiotics" simply misses the target altogether.
>>
>>>>> If so, we are in agreement.
>>
>>>> That depends on the particular creationist claim you're trying to hit,
>>>> doesn't it?
>>
>>> Only if you modify your blanket statement about "kill it."
>>
>> You will have to explain what we are arguing about before I can address it.
>
> "evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics," will not kill
> creationism. In fact it only gives it a minor flesh wound, easily
> healed.
>
> Go back and read what you originally wrote if the above is still
> mystifying to you.

This depends on what sort of creationism you have in mind. How about if
I agree that separate ancestry of humans and apes is a much more central
(pretty much universal) tenet of traditional creationism than is the
absence of advantageous mutations?

>>>> Some creationists do indeed deny that advantageous mutations
>>>> happen, for example. Though obviously this has nothing to do with what
>>>> we might consider the central claim, separate ancestry of "kinds".
>>
>>>>>> Creationism's weakest link -- yeah,
>>>>>> that's better, as even a paper chain, in which all links are weak, has a
>>>>>> weakest one -- has always been human evolution.
>>
>>>>> Not always. Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus, it was the
>>>>> horse sequence.
>>
>>>> I don't agree, but arguing about the relative weakness of weak links is
>>>> not all that profitable.
>>
>>> Well, nowadays creationists seem willing to let Homo erectus into the
>>> human kind, now that "Pithecanthropus" is no longer considered a
>>> separate genus. So what does that do to the evidence available back
>>> then? Biochemistry was yet to be invented, you know.
>>
>> When was the "back then" you are referring to and why did you bring it up?
>
> Prior to the discovery of Australopithecus. Duh.

Why did you bring it up?

> If prawnster is still reading this thread, he might enjoy the way you
> are producing "evidence" for his little ditty.

Thanks for putting "evidence" in quotes.

>>>>> And the only reason it isn't still the horse sequence is that
>>>>> creationists have left the door open to subsuming it under
>>>>> "microevolution."
>>
>>>> I still disagree. You are apparently obsessed with fossil evidence to
>>>> the exclusion of all else.
>>
>>> Wrong. We have lots of biochemical evidence where horses, asses, and
>>> zebras are concerned. And, more to the point, we also have it for
>>> tapirs and rhinos. And that's what I am talking about here:
>>
>> No it isn't, if by "that's" you mean biochemical evidence. You're
>> talking exclusively about fossils.
>
> Prawnster may also enjoy the way you seem to have forgotten your
> insult about "obsessed with," etc. even with it still up there.

It's bizarre the way you appeal to the Prawn for legitimacy. Since you
seem intent on turning a molecular thread into a paleontological thread,
what else should we call it but obsession?

>>>>> However, *Hyracotherium* is so close to the ancestry of tapirs and
>>>>> rhinos and brontotheres and chalicotheres that this door could slam
>>>>> shut any day now, with e.g. a full skeleton of *Tetraclaenodon*.
>>
>>>> Sorry, what door is slamming shut? Why can't all perissodactyls be the
>>>> result of microevolution?
>>
>>> I doubt that the people who run the AIG website dare to go that far.
>>> They seem stuck at the Linnean family level. Plus, the differences
>>> between horses and rhinos seem huge to laymen.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, they don't much care about kinds except that
>> humans and apes must be separate. And that's my point.
>
> And I think you are dead wrong about AIG. And that's MY point.

You could be right. I don't have any real evidence one way or another.
Do you?

> Continued in next reply, where more points will come to light.

I don't think you have any points so far.

[chris thompson]

No he's not. I have reserved opinion until now, but this settles it, and here it is.

He's lying.

Chris

[John Harshman]

1) Nasty extra line spaces are what I presume is a consequence of
posting from Google. Please avoid when possible.

2) Why do you think Peter is lying rather than merely confused? He's
been confused on this point for years now.

[John Harshman]

Even if this were true, isn't it hijacking a thread to make a point
irrelevant to the original subject?

>> What are the non-imaginary differences between genus and
>> phylum?
>
> Huge latitude for biochemical differences in the latter, for one
> thing.

That means nothing. We can agree that the average phylum contains more
genetic divergence than the average genus, but that's hardly a real
difference. I am not quite sure that there are no cases in which some
genus doesn't contain more divergence than some phylum. There are
certainly some genera with more divergence than some orders.

>> Why should we be interested in plausible common ancestors?
>
> Because to a creationist, that is what evolution is largely about.
> Hence the mantra, "The missing link is still missing."

But the creationist is wrong. Why pander to him?

> And hence the "cherry-picked" quote from Gould about "never at the
> nodes, only at the tips."

Again, why should a creationist misunderstanding of biology cause us to
change the practice of biology?

>> And
>> whatever can this possibly have to do with the subject of the thread, a
>> book about the genetic evidence for human evolution?
>
> It has mainly to do with "it's really easy to show the close
> relationships of closely related species," quoted directly below.
>
> To get anywhere with this, you need to be able to make comparisons of
> the form "more closely related to each other than..." if you throw
> away the (admittedly crude) measure of whether they belong to the same
> genus, or family, or order, or class, or phylum.

The problem with those crude measures is that they are arbitrary and
thus frequently wrong by other criteria.

>>>>>> That's because it's
>>>>>> really easy to show the close relationships of closely related species,
>>
>>>>> That's a statement that cries out for quantification.
>>
>>>> Can't be quantified in the way you want, as it's merely a matter of
>>>> degree.
>>
>>>> The more closely species are related, the more similar they are,
>>
>>> To a cladophile, there is no way to tell whether *Didelphis* [the
>>> Virginia opossum] is any more "closely related" to *Procoptodon*
>>> [giant extinct kangaroo] than human beings are to chimps. The
>>> respective LCA's are incomparable.
>>
>> This is among your more ignorant statements. Didelphis is exactly as far
>> from Procoptodon as from any other macropodid, and we have genetic data
>> for that.
>
> Feigning the 'tard again? Re-read what I wrote. We aren't
> macropodids, and neither are chimps.

Please stop accusing me of "feigning the 'tard". Your attachment to a
creationist troll only hurts your credibility, if anything.

At any rate, I had hoped you could go the extra inch, but here is the
explanation: we can't get genetic distances (and probably not other
proxies of time) off Procoptodon, but we can from other macropodids, and
thus we have the data needed for comparison.

> If that still doesn't help, read my reply to Ray Martinez for a much
> more graphic example.
>
> You have yourself to blame for this reminder about prawnster's ditty,
> with your insult "This is among your more ignorant statements."

>>>> and the harder it is to imagine that their similarities are
>>>> independently derived. Further, the less divergence, the smaller
>>>> percentage of changes are homoplasious, and thus the more easily we can
>>>> derive information from the data. (Note that I'm talking mostly about
>>>> genetic data.)
>>
>>>>> +++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>>
>>>>> Ah, but you only want quantification where the existence of God or the
>>>>> theory of directed panspermia or the defense of homegrown abiogenesis
>>>>> is concerned, don't you?
>>
>>>>> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>>
>>>> Never forget a grievance, eh?
>>
>>> That's grist for the mill of a third verse by prawnster: tuning data
>>> about double standards by Harshman into personal grievances against
>>> Harshman.
>>
>>> You do it a lot, don't deny it.
>>
>> I deny turning something into something else, because I think your "data
>> about double standards" is in fact a personal grievance.
>
> Do you deny having double standards?

Yes.

> Even if you try to argue that IN
> THIS CASE that is not what the data is about, there are plenty of
> other examples in the nearly two years of intensive discussion/debate
> between us.
>
> Anyway, you seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes a
> grievance. It's no skin off MY nose if you indulge in double
> standards. If it isn't skin off YOUR nose either, then your level of
> amorality makes you a good "poster boy" for anyone who wants to argue
> that if even the best of atheists in this newsgroup [and that includes
> you] is so amoral, atheism tends to lead to amorality.

I am losing interest in your attacks on my morals. Please stop before I
become too bored.

>>>> This can be quantified. Humans and chimps
>>>> are on average only about 1.3% divergent.
>>
>>> By what genetic standard? The great hotchpot of base pairs, the
>>> number of shared alleles, ...?
>>
>> The standard here is average percentage difference of orthologous
>> sequences across the genome.
>>
>>>> This means that there are very
>>>> few multiple hits on sites, the major problem in phylogenetic inference.
>>>> All the apes are within a few percent, which also means low homoplasy.
>>>> If our nearest relative was as far away from us as, say, hoatzins are
>>>> from other birds, things would be much more difficult. We still have no
>>>> clear idea what hoatzins are, despite great effort.
>>
>>> Now you are getting concrete enough to be meaningful. But "ease of
>>> argument" is the other side of the coin, and I'm not sure small
>>> deviation numbers are going to impress people much more than large
>>> deviation numbers, especially when the smaller numbers (chimp vs.
>>> human) are in the millions.
>>
>>> At least, I don't recall anyone disputing "millions" with Dr. Dr.
>>> Kleinman.
>>
>> Kleinman actually had no clue about the numbers until I told him. Now
>> if, like Kleinman, you are incapable of distinguishing between
>> percentages and raw numbers, that seems odd for a mathematician.
>
> Don't insult my intelligence like this. I know the difference, I'm
> just not impressed by it.

Why not? Mutation is best characterized as a thing that's proportional
to sequence length, and so percentage is a better gauge than sheer numbers.

> And I'm sure the more knowledgeable creatiionists will be even less
> impressed. They could argue that most of that 98.7% similarity has to
> do with routine bodily functions and not in what really separates "man
> from the animals," as they would put it.

More knowledgeable by comparison only with the completely ignorant. Most
of the 98.7% similarity has to do with no functions at all. It's junk
DNA. What this has to do with anything is beyond me. Of course a tiny
minority of the 40 million mutations have any phenotypic effect. You
appear not to understand this any better than the more knowledgeable
creationists.

[John S. Wilkins]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> One of the dirty little secrets of cladistics, not even mentioned by
> Gould (whose "dirty little..." quote should be familar to you) is that
> the more doctrinaire cladists ("cladophiles") like Harshman:
>
> 1. Will gladly tell you that humans are more closely related to chimps
> than to gibbons BUT
>
> 2. CANNOT tell you whether humans are more closely related to chimps
> than mosquitoes are to oysters.
>
> In fact, they will pronounce the second issue "meaningless" because
> they are locked into a specialized definition of "more closely
> related."
>
> Ask Harshman to explain it to you. It should give you quite a lot of
> insight into the thought processes of cladophiles.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Really? You think that there are degrees of relatedness that are
absolute? Cladistics tells you the structure of a tree; if you want the
amounts you have to do some measurement of genetic change or pehnotypic
change, which *people do all the time*. There's no dirty little secret
here except in your head, Peter.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[prawnster]

On Nov 19, 5:42�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [...]

> That may become obsolete in a couple of centuries, if not sooner. �I
> have a good friend in the Department of Biological Sciences who says
> there is a population of mice being studied that seem to be in the
> process of speciation. �Until recently there was no observable
> reproductive barrier between them. �Now a lot seems to depend on
> whether a male in strain X mates with a female in strain Y or vice
> versa.
>
> If you wish, I can ask him whether any of this is in the public
> domain.
>

> [...]

> Prawnster to Sherlock Holmes: "Let us all
> know when you have a single observed instance of
> your suspect murdering someone. �Until then,
> shut the fuh up."
>

Sounds like animal husbandry and/or genetic engineering to me, not
speciation observed in the wild. I have no doubt that an intelligent
designer could cause speciation; in fact, I'm sure it's already
happened. The question is, has this ever been observed in the wild?
And the answer is, of course, nopers.

And let's say your good friend is observing this in the wild. Does
the new "species" look and behave the same as the old species? If so,
then it doesn't matter; we're still not getting anywhere toward the
grand grand worm-to-man atheo-Darwinist creation myth.
---------
The burden of proof in criminal trials, beyond a reasonable doubt, is
profoundly lower than the burden of proof in science: repeated
observation leading to correct, novel, precise predictions. So
prawndaddy would never tell the fictional Sherlock Holmes to shut the
fuh up if he didn't have a videotape of the perp in action.
-------
Regarding the rest of your post: you're correct and, furthermore, LOL.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ PrawnHammer

[prawnster]

On Nov 19, 9:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> I am reminded of a classic line from Kent Hovind, "the only thing you
> know about a fossil is that it died."
>

That's all he said? I say the only thing you know about a fossil is
that it died suddenly. It's much more accurate.

[prawnster]

On Nov 20, 3:37�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> More knowledgeable by comparison only with the completely ignorant. Most
> of the 98.7% similarity has to do with no functions at all. It's junk
> DNA.

Junk DNA . . . . . Ha ha, good one! You're so 2006. Hey, found any
new vestigial organs lately? Yeah, didn't think so. Junk DNA and
vestigial organs are just vestiges of old-timey pseudoscientists'
ignorance. Get with the times, Harshboi.

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:49:15 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 19, 9:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I am reminded of a classic line from Kent Hovind, "the only thing you
>> know about a fossil is that it died."
>>
>
>That's all he said? I say the only thing you know about a fossil is
>that it died suddenly. It's much more accurate.

Unless you mean that everything dies "suddenly", what you say is very
wrong. In fact, there are fossils which show that some organisms died
a lingering death, and/or the body laid around for some time before it
was finally buried.

Besides, why are you even challenging the point? What difference does
it make?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:47:20 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>Sounds like animal husbandry...

I'm sure we can leave that to ewe...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[RAM]

On Nov 21, 11:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:47:20 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster

> <zweibro...@ymail.com>:

>
> >Sounds like animal husbandry...
>
> I'm sure we can leave that to ewe...

He's clearly a baa baa...

[prawnster]

On Nov 20, 11:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Besides, why are you even challenging the point?  What difference does
> it make?

I agree with Mr. Hovind. The so-called fossil record is a bunch of
critters buried suddenly. Nothing more.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:01:29 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 11:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Besides, why are you even challenging the point?  What difference does
>> it make?
>
>I agree with Mr. Hovind. The so-called fossil record is a bunch of
>critters buried suddenly. Nothing more.

How clever of you to snip out the preceding text so nobody could
possibly notice that you switched from "died suddenly" to "buried
suddenly". I'm sorry I spoiled your surprise. But I'm not surprised
you agree with Hovind.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 22:02:05 UTC, prawnster wrote:
> I agree with Mr. Hovind. The so-called fossil record is a bunch of
> critters buried suddenly. Nothing more.

Not that either. A fossil may have beencovered with sediment slowly
in an underwater anoxic environment, where there isn't anything that
would disturb it.

And of course you can tell pretty well that a fossil had legs,
for instance. And eyes, there will be holes in the skull for eyes.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 21 2012, 7:12�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:01:29 -0800 (PST), prawnster
>

Jillery is the real expert on snipping out text, and the results are
far more nasty: many of jillery's accusations of lying would be
immediately seen to be false (hence libelous) if some of the snipped
text were still there. Here is a prime example:

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 16 2013 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos defends evolution quite poorly

On Jan 16, 11:36 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:07:42 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 15, 3:15 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 24 2012, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> > On Nov 20, 9:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > Not to end on a sour note -- you should go back to the thread you
> >> > > began about me, the one on which jillery posted her crap about Crick
> >> > > and Orgel repudiating directed panspermia.

> >> This was the thread on which jillery kept demanding that you show that
> >> you knew which reference [s]he was talking about.

> >> It became obvious (from something Nick Keigley posted) that she was
> >> just misled by the Wikipedia entry on Crick:

> >>http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long

> >> But if you look at entry B7 in my FAQ on Directed Panspermia, you will
> >> see just how false this crap of jillery's is.

> I can't imagine why a DP FAQ would say anything about Ray's inability
> to prove rockhead's lie that I cited a specific article.

Jillery, who has conveniently killfiled me, also conveniently deleted
the following explanation of what she HAD cited, because she is bent
on libeling me with claims of lying:

____________ begin repost_________________

> > > She got tired of waiting
> > > for you to post your reference, then posted a reference which is NOT
> > > the one I was talking about, and is NOT the one she was talking about,
> > > and claimed she had to conclude that it was the reference YOU had in
> > > mind, and the one I had in mind.
> ...and hence that we'd lied "again."
> That other reference was a 1968 paper by Crick that Crick and Orgel
> *did* critique in 1993, naming some things in it that were obsolete.
> But that was NOT the directed panspermia paper, and jillery
> figuratively cackled with glee over how we MUST have been thinking of
> this paper, even though it was not the directed panspermia paper (and
> made no mention of directed panspermia).
> > I didn't know that. And I never said I was going to post a reference.
> > I asked her to post the link to the retraction. But because I hadn't
> > given her enough attention, like a spoiled brat she refused to post
> > the link out of revenge.

========== end of repost of text deleted by jillery

> When it
> comes to rockhead recognizing false crap, apparently it depends on
> which side of the stick he holds.

"rockhead" is a nickname that jillery has attached to me, with ZERO
valid justification, and nobody has called her on the childishness of
referring to people by such derogatory nicknames.

[I'd do it, but jillery has killfiled me.]

> <snip repost of rockhead's old rant>

"old" can only honestly mean "older than the Martinez post to which I
am replying." As for "rant," see repost above.

> >> > Yeah, I will take a look.

> >> > Ray

> >> Evidently you didn't. You could have nailed her too, and she hasn't
> >> yet killfiled *you*.

> >> > > Will respond to the rest of what you wrote after the Thanksgiving
> >> > > break.

> >> > > Peter Nyikos

> >> Looks like I should have said "Christmas" instead of "Thanksgiving".

> >I've completely forgotten about this thread and the issues. Please
> >accept my apology.

> You "forgot" only if you mean you ran away from it.

Actually it was jillery who ran away, right in this post, from an
identification of the article she obviously had in mind, the 1993
article by Crick and Orgel. Ray had already alluded to it in the
thread in which jillery ran away from Nick Keigley. And Ray alluded to
it in the post to which jillery is replying here, but jillery deleted
that information too:

________begin second repost_____________

> > She thinks the "frozen accident" paper is a
> > DP retraction paper. Said paper doesn't even mention DP.
> Hmmm... one of us should look up that 1968 paper to see whether it
> also uses the word string "frozen accident." I know the 1993 paper
> does, and maybe jillery never read that paper in the first place,
> relying on an inept inclusion of the 1993 paper in a section on
> directed panspermia.

============== end of repost

The section I am mentioning above is part of the Wikipedia entry on
Francis Crick.

> But now that you
> have miraculously "remembered" perhaps you will finally correct your
> false claims.

"jillery" does not spell out what those allegedly false claims are
supposed to be. That's par for the course for low-lifes like jillery.

> >You've been gone a while. And since you've been gone Jill has
> >continued to misrepresent me tirelessly and spitefully.

> So many lies in one little sentence. Of course, I don't expect you to
> support your assertions now any better than you did before.

The words "frozen accident" are support for anyone who has read the
1993 paper and is honest about what [s]he has read.

"jillery" is guilty on the second count if she is innocent on the
first one.

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

============end of included post

The "next reply" showed jillery taking dishonest advantage of her/his
highly selective exposure to my FAQs on directed panspermia, made
possible by having killfiled me.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 1/17/13 2:54 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 21 2012, 7:12 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:01:29 -0800 (PST), prawnster
>>
>> <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 11:32 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Besides, why are you even challenging the point? What difference does
>>>> it make?
>>
>>> I agree with Mr. Hovind. The so-called fossil record is a bunch of
>>> critters buried suddenly. Nothing more.
>>
>> How clever of you to snip out the preceding text so nobody could
>> possibly notice that you switched from "died suddenly" to "buried
>> suddenly". I'm sorry I spoiled your surprise. But I'm not surprised
>> you agree with Hovind.
>
> Jillery is the real expert on snipping out text, and the results are
> far more nasty: many of jillery's accusations of lying would be
> immediately seen to be false (hence libelous) if some of the snipped
> text were still there. Here is a prime example:

[mercifully snipped]

OK, this counts as stalking. You have invaded a completely irrelevant
thread for the purpose of attacking someone who wasn't even talking to
you. I might note that in the process you appear to be defending the
worst creationist troll currently active on TO. Step back a moment and
think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?

[jillery]

This is truly pathetic, and not really for the reasons John Harshman
cited. If rockhead wants to agree with prawnster, that his right and
his business. What rockhead refuses to acknowledge is the difference
between attributed snipping, which I practice, and undocumented
snipping, which prawnster practiced in his post above. I suspect
rockhead refuses to recognize the difference because he practices
unattributed snipping as often as not.

Rockhead's "prime example" is snipped out, but based on the timing of
this post, I suspect it involves a post I made to Ray Martinez. Too
bad for rockhead that I identified in that post what I snipped where I
snipped and why I snipped it. I can't say the same is a habit of
either Prawnster or rockhead. It's that kind of dishonesty that
separates their posts from mine.

[John Harshman]

Peter isn't agreeing with the prawn. He's merely seizing an opportunity
to attack you. By the way, this is what an actual personal attack looks
like.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:04:58 -0800, John Harshman

Too bad you snipped out the substance of my post without attribution.
Your posting style isn't as different from rockhead's as you seem to
think.

[John Harshman]

You and Peter and the prawn are all pathological in different ways. It's
certainly unpleasant to converse with you.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:07:31 -0800, John Harshman

Continued evasion of the point of substance noted. And you still
insist on framing the discussion based on my personal problems,
without acknowledging that I have an equivalent opinion of you for
equally valid reasons. That's another thing you share with rockhead.

[John Harshman]

Your personal problems, unfortunately and inevitably, intrude themselves
into any discussion with you. I snipped out the substance of your post,
such as it was, because it was pointless. It's the sort of thing you
might want to respond to Peter's post with if you're so obsessive as to
need to argue with him about it, but I have no interest in getting involved.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:37:22 -0800, John Harshman

I respond only to what is posted. When you make false accusations, I
may or may not respond to them at my discretion. If you don't want me
to respond to those comments, don't make them. Even you should have
figured that out by now.

> I snipped out the substance of your post,

without attribution

>such as it was, because it was pointless.

You're saying it's pointless to point out when someone snips out text
without identifing what they did, and which serves to twist the
meaning of the other people's posts? Then you agree with rockhead and
prawnster, and your criticism of them is pointless.

>It's the sort of thing you
>might want to respond to Peter's post

That's hard to do when I don't see rockhead's posts except when other
posters include his comments in their posts. So I reply when I see
that rockhead makes comments about me. If you don't like it, don't
include his comments about me in your posts. Even you should have
figured that out by now.

>with if you're so obsessive as to
>need to argue with him about it, but I have no interest in getting involved.

And yet here you are, doing some of the same things rockhead does. You
would be funny if you weren't so obvious.

[John Harshman]

It certainly is acutely painful to attempt any sort of discussion with
you. If you want to respond to Peter, don't killfile him. Is that so
difficult? Or at the very least, put a notice on top that you're
piggybacking, delete everything I said, and address yourself to Peter.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:04:39 -0800, John Harshman

Unless there's somebody with a gun to your head, you have nobody but
yourself to blame for your pain about which you complain.

> If you want to respond to Peter, don't killfile him.

That makes zero sense. I don't want to respond to rockhead. That's
why I killfiled him. And when I see that he continues to lie about me
anyway in other people's posts, I respond to those other people. As
in this case. I responded to you, John Harshman. Unless you're
saying that one of you is a sock puppet of the other. I have to
admit, I see little difference between your posts and his.

> Is that so
>difficult? Or at the very least, put a notice on top that you're
>piggybacking, delete everything I said, and address yourself to Peter.

Once again, I have no interest or desire to reply to rockhead. Is
that so difficult for you to understand?

[John Harshman]

Agreed, for the most part. But you deserve at least a small part of the
responsibility. There are multiple causes for most things.

>> If you want to respond to Peter, don't killfile him.
>
> That makes zero sense. I don't want to respond to rockhead. That's
> why I killfiled him. And when I see that he continues to lie about me
> anyway in other people's posts, I respond to those other people. As
> in this case. I responded to you, John Harshman.

No, you didn't. None of what you had to say was about me. It was about
what an asshole Peter is, responding to what he said about you. That was
a subject of no interest to me, as should have been clear.

> Unless you're
> saying that one of you is a sock puppet of the other. I have to
> admit, I see little difference between your posts and his.

You actually don't have to admit that.

>> Is that so
>> difficult? Or at the very least, put a notice on top that you're
>> piggybacking, delete everything I said, and address yourself to Peter.
>
> Once again, I have no interest or desire to reply to rockhead. Is
> that so difficult for you to understand?

But you didn't reply to what I said, only to what Peter said. That
counts as a reply to Peter. Leave me out; that's all I ask.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:02:04 -0800, John Harshman

While you're argument is technically correct, it's too artfully
phrased to take seriously. I have no control of your behavior. But
you do. Use it or lose it.

>>> If you want to respond to Peter, don't killfile him.
>>
>> That makes zero sense. I don't want to respond to rockhead. That's
>> why I killfiled him. And when I see that he continues to lie about me
>> anyway in other people's posts, I respond to those other people. As
>> in this case. I responded to you, John Harshman.
>
>No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

>None of what you had to say was about me.

Does it always have to be about you? Everything I wrote about related
to the same topic you wrote about, rockhead's stalking behavior. That
includes the substantial part you snipped out without attribution Had
you not deleted it, perhaps this point would be more obvious to you.

>It was about what an asshole Peter is,

That's your word, not mine. I characterized his behavior as pathetic
and dishonest, and refers to the same behavior to which you refer when
you accuse him of stalking. But I agree that all these adjectives
have the similar spirit.

>responding to what he said about you. That was
>a subject of no interest to me, as should have been clear.

What I responded to is exactly the same thing you responded to. If
you now wish to claim that's of no interest to you, then it's very
unclear why you responded to it in the first place. Is it your habit
to post about things you have no interest in?

>> Unless you're
>> saying that one of you is a sock puppet of the other. I have to
>> admit, I see little difference between your posts and his.
>
>You actually don't have to admit that.

Actually you have to understand that, as you seem to think yourself
innocent and a victim.

>>> Is that so
>>> difficult? Or at the very least, put a notice on top that you're
>>> piggybacking, delete everything I said, and address yourself to Peter.
>>
>> Once again, I have no interest or desire to reply to rockhead. Is
>> that so difficult for you to understand?
>
>But you didn't reply to what I said,

Yes I did.

>only to what Peter said.

No, I didn't.

>That counts as a reply to Peter.

Only if you don't know how to count. Perhaps you should go back to
school.

>Leave me out; that's all I ask.

You posted your reply to rockhead. I had no control over your post or
his. Stop blaming me and grow up.

[pnyikos]

On Jan 17, 6:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 1/17/13 2:54 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Nov 21 2012, 7:12 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:01:29 -0800 (PST), prawnster
>
> >> <zweibro...@ymail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Nov 20, 11:32 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Besides, why are you even challenging the point?  What difference does
> >>>> it make?
>
> >>> I agree with Mr. Hovind.  The so-called fossil record is a bunch of
> >>> critters buried suddenly.  Nothing more.
>
> >> How clever of you to snip out the preceding text so nobody could
> >> possibly notice that you switched from "died suddenly" to "buried
> >> suddenly".  I'm sorry I spoiled your surprise.  But I'm not surprised
> >> you agree with Hovind.
>
> > Jillery is the real expert on snipping out text, and the results are
> > far more nasty: many of jillery's accusations of lying would be
> > immediately seen to be false (hence libelous) if some of the snipped
> > text were still there.  Here is a prime example:

Now you decided to be merciful to yourself, Harshman:

> [mercifully snipped]
>
> OK, this counts as stalking.

Why the "OK"? IIRC the only person who discussed the concept of
"stalking" with jillery was Paul Gans, playing "good cop" to
jillery's "bad cop" on that occasion.

> You have invaded a completely irrelevant
> thread for the purpose of attacking someone who wasn't even talking to
> you.

That sort of makes up for the countless times jillery (and her ally
O'Shea) made nasty remarks about me when I wasn't involved in the
conversation, and I didn't reply, knowing jillery had me killfiled and
figuring nobody (least of all you) would be interested in what I had
to say in rebuttal.

So you see, "wasn't even talking to you" is a highly misleading
statement. Jillery hasn't talked *to* me in almost a year now; but
she posts copiously *about* me.

> I might note that in the process you appear to be defending the
> worst creationist troll currently active on TO.

Completely inappropriate use of "defending" noted.

Still, it isn't as memorable as your completely inappropriate use of
"paranoid" which left you with a metaphorical pack of wet sponges on
your back. For one thing, it is still within the astronomically
distant bounds that have been established for "defending" in this
severely inbred (intellectually and emotionally) newsgroup.

> Step back a moment and
> think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?

I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking
me.

But you don't think that will ever happen in this severely inbred
newsgroup, do you?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Jan 17, 10:04�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 1/17/13 5:42 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:33:36 -0800, John Harshman

> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
Yeah, sure, like it's my right and business to agree with Giwer that
Giwer is not anti-semitic.
++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> Peter isn't agreeing with the prawn. He's merely seizing an opportunity
> to attack you.

Hence my comment about your use of "defending" being completely
inappropriate -- anywhere but in a handful of highly charged blogs and
newsgroups.

> By the way, this is what an actual personal attack looks
> like.

Do you REALLY think jillery doesn"t know what an actual personal
attack looks like?????

At least mine was honest, and documented.

Oh. Wait. Are you using an inbred talk.origins convention that it
only counts as a personal attack if it IS documented?

Mark Isaak seemed to be claiming that back in July. When I confronted
him with that, he never replied.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ada3fa38-f62b-4ede...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

The closest thing to that I have seen used and unchallenged more than once is
that ad hom is only ad hom when _not_ true.

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/13 11:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:33 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[continuing with merciful snippage]

>> Step back a moment and
>> think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?
>
> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking
> me.
>
> But you don't think that will ever happen in this severely inbred
> newsgroup, do you?

I see you don't want to think about it. That was intended as helpful
advice. "Billy hit me first" is not a good defense. I thought you were
supposedly a Christian. Even a Christian agnostic tending toward atheist
ought to follow the code, no?

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/13 11:56 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> Do you REALLY think jillery doesn"t know what an actual personal
> attack looks like?????

Yes. She has a tendency to interpret any disagreement as such an attack.

[jillery]

That's your interpretation. Which is of course wrong.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1felh8l7g8oigt5nb...@4ax.com...

Is "of course" a personal attack?

[pnyikos]

On Feb 12, 3:05�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:ada3fa38-f62b-4ede...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

I take it you haven't seen what Mark Isaak wrote. Would you like to
see it?

Anyway, you are using the well established Internet convention that
"ad hominem" means "personal attack," regardless of whether there is a
fallacious argument that the attack was used for.

Some purists insist (and some smart alecs pretend to think) that "ad
hominem" can only be used to denote a certain kind of fallacy.

I am not that sort of purist/smart alec. I freely use "ad hominem" in
the broader sense.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 12, 3:09�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/12/13 11:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:> On Jan 17, 6:33 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>
> [continuing with merciful snippage]

Merciful to you, and this time flagrantly so.

I didn't catch the falsity of what you said earlier:

============begin restoration
>>> >> OK, this counts as stalking. You have invaded a completely

>>> >> irrelevant thread for the purpose of attacking someone
>>> >> who wasn't even talking to you.

=================== end of restoration

I was involved in this thread earlier: in fact, before I did the post
which you are criticizing below, Chris Thompson made the false
accusation that I was lying, without even trying to explain what was
behind it.

You halfway defended me by saying I was merely confused, not lying.
But I maintain that if you read exactly what I wrote, I am not
confused--YOU confused the issue by bringing in other meanings of the
word "related" that have nothing to do with the use that I've seen
from you cladists.

I was talking about the ONLY cladistic definition of "more closely
related" that I have ever seen. In fact, one of the former "young
Turks" of cladistics, now about as old as you, wrote a book in which
he misrepresented a statement by a traditional systematists by giving
it the only cladistic use of "more closely related" I have ever seen.

The traditional systematist had been complaining about cladists
because they say lungfishes are more closely related to mammals than
they are to "bony" fishes. This author misrepresented the traditional
systematist by drawing an evolutionary tree which showed mammals
branching off from a clade that included both lungfishes and bony
fishes.

> >> Step back a moment and
> >> think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?
>
> > I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking
> > me.
>
> > But you don't think that will ever happen in this severely inbred
> > newsgroup, do you?
>
> I see you don't want to think about it. That was intended as helpful
> advice.

Does this mean you think jillery and O'Shea are beyond help? Or
merely that you haven't seen examples of them stalking me?

> "Billy hit me first" is not a good defense. I thought you were
> supposedly a Christian.

Your internet convention as to what "stalking" denotes has nothing to
do with Christian ethics.

And, of course, it has nothing to do with the legal sense of the word
either.

The fact that you have adopted it does, however, have a lot to do
with how intellectually inbred this newsgroup is.

> Even a Christian agnostic tending toward atheist
> ought to follow the code, no?

What code? "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
does not apply, inasmuch as what I wrote was true -- even documented
part way.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

That does seem to be the case sometimes. I was surprised by the
vehemence she displayed in the tiff the two of you had while I was
gone.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:35b9cadd-bc8d-45bc...@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Nothing happens in a vacuum, Peter.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:02:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in talk.origins:

A personal attack is not an attack on a fallacious argument.

[John Harshman]

You may be right about some or all of this. I have no idea; it was a
long time ago.

>>>> Step back a moment and
>>>> think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?
>>
>>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking
>>> me.
>>
>>> But you don't think that will ever happen in this severely inbred
>>> newsgroup, do you?
>>
>> I see you don't want to think about it. That was intended as helpful
>> advice.
>
> Does this mean you think jillery and O'Shea are beyond help? Or
> merely that you haven't seen examples of them stalking me?

I tend not to read all three of you, because you are so often just
trading insults. But I do believe I have occasionally attempted advice
to jillery, at least.

>> "Billy hit me first" is not a good defense. I thought you were
>> supposedly a Christian.
>
> Your internet convention as to what "stalking" denotes has nothing to
> do with Christian ethics.
>
> And, of course, it has nothing to do with the legal sense of the word
> either.
>
> The fact that you have adopted it does, however, have a lot to do
> with how intellectually inbred this newsgroup is.
>
>> Even a Christian agnostic tending toward atheist
>> ought to follow the code, no?
>
> What code? "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
> does not apply, inasmuch as what I wrote was true -- even documented
> part way.

I was thinking of the part about turning the other cheek. You defended
your attacks on others by claiming that they do it too. Is that a
justification?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<7c0fc54d-0004-4450...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.

Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>(in article
><7c0fc54d-0004-4450...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>
>Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
>who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
>in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
>Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.

You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed
handicap of having him killfiled. Cue the theme song to "Rocky".

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote
(in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43...@4ax.com>):

I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
a killfile. It's part of the evidence supporting the assertion that he's
nuts. And a mindless liar.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 14, 6:48�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:02:08 -0800 (PST), pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in talk.origins:

> >On Feb 12, 3:05 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:ada3fa38-f62b-4ede...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 17, 10:04 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >> > > By the way, this is what an actual personal attack looks
> >> > > like.
>
> >> > Do you REALLY think jillery doesn"t know what an actual personal
> >> > attack looks like?????
>
> >> > At least mine was honest, and documented.

The convention of which I speak first below is purely hypothetical at
this point; the one about *ad hominem* (later on) is real, and
widespread.

> >> > Oh. Wait. Are you using an inbred talk.origins convention that it
> >> > only counts as a personal attack if it IS documented?
>
> >> > Mark Isaak seemed to be claiming that back in July. When I confronted
> >> > him with that, he never replied.
>
> >> The closest thing to that I have seen used and unchallenged more than once is
> >> that ad hom is only ad hom when _not_ true.
>
> >I take it you haven't seen what Mark Isaak wrote. �Would you like to
> >see it?

Here is the well established convention:

> >Anyway, you are using the well established Internet convention that
> >"ad hominem" means "personal attack," regardless of whether there is a
> >fallacious argument that the attack was used for.
>
> >Some purists insist (and some smart alecs pretend to think) that "ad
> >hominem" can only be used to denote a certain kind of fallacy.
>
> >I am not that sort of purist/smart alec. �I freely use "ad hominem" in
> >the broader sense.
>
> >Peter Nyikos
>
> A personal attack is not an attack on a fallacious argument.

Why belabor the obvious? Is this your way of signaling to us that you
are a purist?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 7:04�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote

> (in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43jpnscaoupbu8pm...@4ax.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >> (in article

> >> <7c0fc54d-0004-4450-9357-98d9ef569...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

>
> >>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>
> >> Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
> >> who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
> >> in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
> >> Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.
>
> > You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
> > T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed
> > handicap of having him killfiled. �Cue the theme song to "Rocky".
>
> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
> a killfile.

In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread
after thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due
to her seeing people's replies to me.

> It's part of the evidence supporting the assertion that he's
> nuts. And a mindless liar.

You're Pat James. aren't you?

I think jillery would find the following line from "Pat James" far
more amusing than the dishonest drivel you post about me these days.

"You, now, can kiss my ass.
And be sure to apply plenty of tongue."
--Message-ID: <01HW.B6B69B200...@enews.newsguy.com>

Of course, her *public* reaction might be like Renia's when I showed
that to her.

Renia claimed that she didn't like vulgar comments. But jillery used
a vulgar comment about me and UC doing something homosexual together,
which you saw and approved of, so it's anyone's guess whether jillery
will stoop to that level of hypocrisy.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

The next time I'm in the library where I found that book (a fairly
recent one, btw) I'll see if I can find it again. Alas, I remember
neither the title nor the author's name.

> >>>> Step back a moment and
> >>>> think about this sort of behavior. Is it what you want to be known for?
>
> >>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking
> >>> me.
>
> >>> But you don't think that will ever happen in this severely inbred
> >>> newsgroup, do you?
>
> >> I see you don't want to think about it. That was intended as helpful
> >> advice.
>
> > Does this mean you think jillery and O'Shea are beyond help? �Or
> > merely that you haven't seen examples of them stalking me?
>
> I tend not to read all three of you, because you are so often just
> trading insults. But I do believe I have occasionally attempted advice
> to jillery, at least.

"advice" isn't the way I would label the tongue-lashing you gave me.
You deleted it above, with an unmarked snip, but that was a peccadillo
compared to what I caught Casanova doing. You ducked the whole issue
when you delivered another tongue-lashing to me on that thread, about
an hour ago.

> >> "Billy hit me first" is not a good defense. I thought you were
> >> supposedly a Christian.
>
> > Your internet convention as to what "stalking" denotes has nothing to
> > do with Christian ethics.
>
> > And, of course, it has nothing to do with the legal sense of the word
> > either.
>
> > The fact that you have adopted it does, �however, have a lot to do
> > with how intellectually inbred this newsgroup is.
>
> >> Even a Christian agnostic tending toward atheist
> >> ought to follow the code, no?
>
> > What code? �"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
> > does not apply, inasmuch as what I wrote was true -- even documented
> > part way.
>
> I was thinking of the part about turning the other cheek.

That is generally taken out of context. I could tell you what the
best exegetes say about it, but for the nonce I will say that it does
not apply to me.

I do know of one person, on another newsgroup, who really follows that
precept the way it is usually understood, but she is the only person
I've ever encountered on Usenet who did so.

And it only enrages another woman on that newsgroup, who once wrote,
"Denise needs to be gangraped to death" about her.

That woman is now one of the mainstays of that newsgroup, helping it
to go on being a hellhole.

Turning the other cheek in the "usual" sense only works if the other
person has a conscience.

> You defended
> your attacks on others by claiming that they do it too. Is that a
> justification?

"attack," in this case, is a One Shade of Gray Meltdown. Try, "you
defended your accusations against others by saying they misrepresented
you in a derogatory way."

Jesus did a lot of similar things in John 8, especially 44-45.

And please don't use the fallacy of saying I am "equating" myself with
Jesus. I merely note that he didn't always "turn the other cheek"
either.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Nevertheless, that's what it was.

[pnyikos]

Go ahead and believe that if it makes you happy. I just have to
wonder whether you have ever given jillery any "advice" along the
lines of the following [reposted}:

>OK, this counts as stalking.
> You have invaded a completely irrelevant
> thread for the purpose of attacking someone who wasn't even talking to
> you.

As I pointed out, I didn't "invade' this thread, I had already been
posting on it earlier.

Also the next part of your tongue lashing wasn't even correct: you
said I was "defending" prawnster when all I did was to show him how
jillery often doesn't practice what she preaches.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 2/18/13 3:16 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:24 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 12:37 PM, pnyikos wrote:

>>> "advice" isn't the way I would label the tongue-lashing you gave me.
>
>> Nevertheless, that's what it was.
>
> Go ahead and believe that if it makes you happy. I just have to
> wonder whether you have ever given jillery any "advice" along the
> lines of the following [reposted}:

I believe I have, on occasion.

>> OK, this counts as stalking.
>> You have invaded a completely irrelevant
>> thread for the purpose of attacking someone who wasn't even talking to
>> you.
>
> As I pointed out, I didn't "invade' this thread, I had already been
> posting on it earlier.
>
> Also the next part of your tongue lashing wasn't even correct: you
> said I was "defending" prawnster when all I did was to show him how
> jillery often doesn't practice what she preaches.

Very well, I will withdraw the charge that you were defending prawnster,
simply because I don't care enough to look it up and see whether you are
right.

[Paul J Gans]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 7:04?am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote
>> (in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43jpnscaoupbu8pm...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>> >> (in article
>> >> <7c0fc54d-0004-4450-9357-98d9ef569...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> >>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>>
>> >> Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
>> >> who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
>> >> in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
>> >> Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.
>>
>> > You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
>> > T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed

>> > handicap of having him killfiled. ?Cue the theme song to "Rocky".

>>
>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>> a killfile.

>In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread
>after thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due
>to her seeing people's replies to me.

So you are stalking me. I just saw a post of yours, directed
at Harshman, that dropped a few comments about me.

I'm sure you have an exculpating response for that.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/18/13 12:18 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:04 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote
>> (in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43jpnscaoupbu8pm...@4ax.com>):
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <7c0fc54d-0004-4450-9357-98d9ef569...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>>
>>>> Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
>>>> who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
>>>> in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
>>>> Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.
>>
>>> You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
>>> T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed
>>> handicap of having him killfiled. Cue the theme song to "Rocky".
>>
>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>> a killfile.
>
> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread
> after thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due
> to her seeing people's replies to me.

You claim that you want to keep t.o. from degenerating. And how do you
go about it? Whenever mud is thrown, you make sure it gets thrown at
least one more time, and probably more. You work hard to keep mud
flying at all times.

> [snip example of just that]

If cleaning t.o. is indeed your true motive (and I suspect otherwise,
based on your behavior), here is my suggestion:

Step 1: Describe a behavior in general terms. Go out of your way to
make it difficult for people to tell whose behavior you have in mind.
No names. No initials. Not even any hints.

Step 2: Ask, "Is there a consensus that that is undesirable behavior?"
Reveal the specific example only if people ask.

Step 3: If the answer is no, drop it. If the answer is yes, drop it at
least until the next time the behavior comes up.

As I have said before, your clean-up campaign is hugely
counterproductive, and because I applaud your goal, I fervently wish you
would stop your current means of trying to achieve it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Robert Camp]

On Feb 18, 6:22�ｿｽpm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 2/18/13 12:18 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:04 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote
> >> (in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43jpnscaoupbu8pm...@4ax.com>):
> >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <7c0fc54d-0004-4450-9357-98d9ef569...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>
> >>>> Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
> >>>> who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
> >>>> in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
> >>>> Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.
>
> >>> You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
> >>> T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed

> >>> handicap of having him killfiled. �ｿｽCue the theme song to "Rocky".

>
> >> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
> >> a killfile.
>
> > In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread
> > after thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due
> > to her seeing people's replies to me.
>

> You claim that you want to keep t.o. from degenerating. �ｿｽAnd how do you
> go about it? �ｿｽWhenever mud is thrown, you make sure it gets thrown at
> least one more time, and probably more. �ｿｽYou work hard to keep mud
> flying at all times.
>
> �ｿｽ> [snip example of just that]

>
> If cleaning t.o. is indeed your true motive (and I suspect otherwise,
> based on your behavior), here is my suggestion:
>

> Step 1: Describe a behavior in general terms. �ｿｽGo out of your way to

> make it difficult for people to tell whose behavior you have in mind.

> No names. �ｿｽNo initials. �ｿｽNot even any hints.

>
> Step 2: Ask, "Is there a consensus that that is undesirable behavior?"
> Reveal the specific example only if people ask.
>

> Step 3: If the answer is no, drop it. �ｿｽIf the answer is yes, drop it at

> least until the next time the behavior comes up.
>
> As I have said before, your clean-up campaign is hugely
> counterproductive, and because I applaud your goal, I fervently wish you
> would stop your current means of trying to achieve it.

Mature and practical recommendations. This represents my opinion
perfectly.

RLC

[jillery]

This works with people who operate in good faith and have a
conscience. For those who believe they server a higher purpose,
and/or those who are borderline personalities, such efforts would roll
off them.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:18:33 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<8815c269-083b-42b9...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):

>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>> a killfile.
>
> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread after
> thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due to her
> seeing people's replies to me.

So you have your own private dictionary, eh, Peter?

[jillery]

The irony here is that my alleged stalking is in response to the same
behavior he does. It would not even be comment worthy, except that
several of the village elders have fallen for his lies.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <bmuli8tj50e6m4lnl...@4ax.com>,

I seriously doubt that any "village elders" [and when did we acquire
these, BTW? :-)] particularly accept Peter's version of the froup
history... There are, typically enough, misreadings and other ways
in which "normal" conversation here can seem (and can be) at times
a misrepresentation or otherwise simulate hostility that is not in
fact intended as active animus by any of the particpants. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

I note your expressed opinion. You may be unaware that other posters
have explicitly and unrepentantly equated my behavior with rockhead's.
Or worse, singled out my reactions without any notice at all of his.
Whether or not you accept the veracity of their claims, you can not
reasonably describe their negative interpretation as coming from a
misreading. Just sayin'.

[Paul J Gans]

But the most horrible part of all this is that Peter isn't lying
in the sense of being aware that he's not dealing with facts.
It seems to me that he actually believes what he writes. It
is a personality trait of his.

Remember when he said that I'd not brought up any objections
to his schemes? When reminded of the numerious objections I'd
raised he simply said that HE didn't consider them serious
objections. I'm sure he was serious about that too. He has
great faith in himself and sees nothing wrong with being the
judge, jury, and defendent all at the same time.

In many ways this is worse than lying, since you can never
get him to see what he's done.

[Mitchell Coffey]

A case can be made that Peter can't control himself, while you can,
though your supposed sin is stalking Peter, in a manner similar to how
Peter stalks his array of enemies, but in a rather mystical manner, as
you have him kill filed.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 2/25/2013 12:30 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:53:57 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:18:33 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <8815c269-083b-42b9...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>>>>> a killfile.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread after
>>>> thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due to her
>>>> seeing people's replies to me.
>>>
>>> So you have your own private dictionary, eh, Peter?
>
>
>> The irony here is that my alleged stalking is in response to the same
>> behavior he does. It would not even be comment worthy, except that
>> several of the village elders have fallen for his lies.
>
> But the most horrible part of all this is that Peter isn't lying
> in the sense of being aware that he's not dealing with facts.
> It seems to me that he actually believes what he writes. It
> is a personality trait of his.

You're too kind to Peter. I'm sure his problem is listed in the DSMIV,
but I doubt that it's under "personality traits."

> Remember when he said that I'd not brought up any objections
> to his schemes? When reminded of the numerious objections I'd
> raised he simply said that HE didn't consider them serious
> objections. I'm sure he was serious about that too. He has
> great faith in himself and sees nothing wrong with being the
> judge, jury, and defendent all at the same time.
>
> In many ways this is worse than lying, since you can never
> get him to see what he's done.

Again, an kind way of addressing his inability to tell right from wrong.
On the other hand, it does confer him the advantage that he can never be
executed in any state other than Texas.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Applaud what goal, making T.O. safe for the someone who ridicules a
regular because his child has cancer? Sheesh.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 2/18/2013 9:32 PM, Robert Camp wrote:

> On Feb 18, 6:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 12:18 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 7:04 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:22:13 -0500, jillery wrote
>>>> (in article <6so3i85qer0ucll43jpnscaoupbu8pm...@4ax.com>):
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:43:38 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <7c0fc54d-0004-4450-9357-98d9ef569...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> I'll worry about that once jillery and O'Shea are known for stalking me.
>>
>>>>>> Hmm. Now, who is the one who has started threads about who? Who is the one
>>>>>> who, _after screaming about how someone mentioned him in a thread he wasn't
>>>>>> in_ has proceeded to mention the other in nearly every thread he's been in?
>>>>>> Hmm. 'Tis a puzzlement.
>>
>>>>> You and I may be tied as two of the three most abusive posters on
>>>>> T.O., but I got you beat by stalking him with the self-imposed

>>>>> handicap of having him killfiled. Cue the theme song to "Rocky".

>>
>>>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>>>> a killfile.
>>
>>> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread
>>> after thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due
>>> to her seeing people's replies to me.
>>

>> You claim that you want to keep t.o. from degenerating. And how do you
>> go about it? Whenever mud is thrown, you make sure it gets thrown at
>> least one more time, and probably more. You work hard to keep mud
>> flying at all times.
>>

>> > [snip example of just that]
>>
>> If cleaning t.o. is indeed your true motive (and I suspect otherwise,
>> based on your behavior), here is my suggestion:
>>

>> Step 1: Describe a behavior in general terms. Go out of your way to

>> make it difficult for people to tell whose behavior you have in mind.

>> No names. No initials. Not even any hints.

>>
>> Step 2: Ask, "Is there a consensus that that is undesirable behavior?"
>> Reveal the specific example only if people ask.
>>

>> Step 3: If the answer is no, drop it. If the answer is yes, drop it at

>> least until the next time the behavior comes up.
>>
>> As I have said before, your clean-up campaign is hugely
>> counterproductive, and because I applaud your goal, I fervently wish you
>> would stop your current means of trying to achieve it.
>
> Mature and practical recommendations. This represents my opinion
> perfectly.

Really? But the whole issue was that Peter was misrepresenting those
"behaviors," while excusing the pollution by the likes of Prawnster.

Mitchell Coffey

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kggi0c$ig5$1...@dont-email.me...

There's nothing mystical about that. Peter's determining factor seems
to be the volume of posts that constitutes stalking, which is fairly
subjective. The implication that stalking can't be considered because
a person is in your killfile is not.

[jillery]

What you are describing above is a mental disease. There was a time
when such behavior would qualify him for commitment to an institution.

[jillery]

That case has been made, or words to that effect. Such a case implies
that I am as out of control as rockhead, or that my replies are
inappropriate to context, both of which are provably false.

As to the case that rockhead is incompetent, and therefore not liable
for his actions, that is one not often presented. Instead, it is
argued that he is lettered, and so like some inbred royal peer, his
personality "quirks" are to be tolerated, which I consider
simple-minded mush.

>though your supposed sin is stalking Peter, in a manner similar to how
>Peter stalks his array of enemies, but in a rather mystical manner, as
>you have him kill filed.

To the best of my ability, I have limited my replies to where rockhead
has injected my nym into a thread as a trolling tactic, and/or to
where the poster to whom I replied had already referred to rockhead's
comments. I know for a fact I have not responded to several of
rockhead's provocations. I assume there have been many more of his
posts I have not seen, as other posters appropriately ignored them.

[James Beck]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:42:01 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
<mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/25/2013 12:30 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:53:57 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:18:33 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <8815c269-083b-42b9...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>
>>>>>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him in
>>>>>> a killfile.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread after
>>>>> thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due to her
>>>>> seeing people's replies to me.
>>>>
>>>> So you have your own private dictionary, eh, Peter?
>>
>>
>>> The irony here is that my alleged stalking is in response to the same
>>> behavior he does. It would not even be comment worthy, except that
>>> several of the village elders have fallen for his lies.
>>
>> But the most horrible part of all this is that Peter isn't lying
>> in the sense of being aware that he's not dealing with facts.
>> It seems to me that he actually believes what he writes. It
>> is a personality trait of his.
>
>You're too kind to Peter. I'm sure his problem is listed in the DSMIV,
>but I doubt that it's under "personality traits."

Are you just being snarky, or do you have a reason for thinking so?

[Paul J Gans]

Sadly, such behavior is not unknown among the professoriate.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 18, 7:55�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

This isn't the "Clowning around with Paul Gans" thread, but I see that
where you are concerned, one swallow DOTH make a summer.

> I'm sure you have an exculpating response for that.

"thread after thread" -- compare the number of threads jillery does
these things to me, with the number where I do them to you.

And be sure to count the thread where you shamelessly replied to
jillery as documented -- and corrected -- below.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Feb 21 2013 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: Clowning around with Paul Gans on interstellar travel

On Feb 21, 3:41 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:37:21 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
> ><mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 2/20/2013 7:54 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> Skip to end.

> >>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 19, 7:35?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> [big snip here -- PJG]
> >>>> [small snip here]

> >>> Here is the "small snip":

> >>> Look, if all this bores you, I'll gladly stop.
> >>> You are clearly
> >>> not going to actually respond to any of the questions I bring up.

I dealt with this joke in my latest reply to the post where you wrote
this, but I expect you to go on telling this joke, because it is
highly entertaining to jillery, who has me killfiled.

For the same reason, I expect you to delete what I wrote in that
reply.

[snip rest of entertainment, along with something else]

[that something else was the subject of a cross between a sob story
and a song and dance by you at the end of this post]

> >>Why, I do declare: that looks like Peter's engaged in, in, in *sneaky
> >>dishonest deletia*! Why I do declare.
> >Yet another petard goes to hoist.

> I have to defend Peter here. He considers what I wrote as
> "fooling around". Indeed he constructed a three phase joke
> that he thinks I was pulling on him,

Don't forget, I alluded to a three phase joke YOU constructed starting
back in August:

Phase 1. "More importantly, Peter seems to assume that
the panspermists were unicellular. That raises so many
questions of its own that I won't even go there except to
say that I can't imagine how an amoeboid creature
can weild a monkey wrench."

After I said that the hypothesized panspermists SENT microbes, you had
all you needed for:

Phase 2: "you kept going on about microbes on some
other planet so I assumed that you had microbes
as the builders."
You said something even stronger before you said that, about how you
were forced to guess because I give so little information about the
panspermists.

Phase 3 came after I told you how I had written a great deal about
them, and consisted of you accusing me of demanding that everyone read
everything I post.

I documented you making that OBVIOUS joke more recently too. I
documented it right on this thread, in my reply to your first post on
this thread.

And the joke I "constructed" was a straightforward analogue of the
above, with Phase 1 already in place with your joke that a problem
with Project Daedalus was also a problem with Project Orion.

> but luckily he detected
> it early enough to thwart it. What he deleted was just more
> of my "fooling around", as he puts it.

You are entertaining jillery by acting as though you didn't know the
reasons for why I suspected you of this.

And, since jillery has me killfiled, I expect you to go on
entertaining her in this fashion.

> Of course I was not fooling around, as and fool can plainly see.

Only a fool would believe you were NOT fooling around, just on your
say-so. Only a colossal fool would believe that after reading
everything I've written in reply to you.

Jillery, of course, may never learn the truth about why it is obvious
that you are really laying on the joking thickly in that last line of
yours. It would SO spoil its entertainment value.

> But I take Peter seriously. As Mitch sugggested earlier, Peter
> seems not to recognize statements that go against his world
> view.

Nor will jillery ever learn just what a big joke this last statement
is, if you or Mitch has anything to do with that.

> Some part of him reclassifies them as "nonsense" or
> "foolishness" or whatever. He actually uses these terms to
> describe them.

Some part of you knows that this is a half-truth at best where YOUR
statements are concerned, and may even know that it is close to a
complete lie where normal people like Glenn are concerned.

But the clown in you just can't let unequivocal drivel like this go.
And so, you continue living up to the subject line of this thread.

And now comes the cross between a sob story and a song and dance
mentioned at the beginning:

> This is very very sad. I was looking for a way to disengage
> from this endless slogfest without leaving myself open to
> ten years of continual hectoring that I "cut and ran" when
> the going got tough.

Instead, you are leaving yourself open to hectoring about pushing
tired old jokes way beyond their natural life.

> It isn't too tough. It is too damn sad to see a naked ego
> lying out in the open for all to view. I don't want to do
> this any more. I though that offering an agreement on the
> most basic point under discussion might meet with his
> approval and we could then go our various ways.

> It was not to be. He can't read it for what it says. He
> only sees it for what he thinks it says.

I never replied to it one way or the other, joker. Care to guess what
my reply will be?

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

To the extent I'm competent to diagnose borderline personality disorder
- which is to say, not at all - yes. I'm fairly certain, nonetheless, he
suffers from some narcissistic personality disorder. He is, diagnoses
aside, clearly delusional, he claims things are true or not true that
are demonstrably the other way around. He invents in his mind rules that
don't exist - for instance, see his fantasies about libel law, his claim
that he could get someone expelled from T.O. by producing evidence of
their "lying," and his inventions about the rules of posts-of-the-month.
He conversely, denies that he makes threats, presumably because he puts
them in the subjunctive, and to the extent that he claims you are lying
if you point out his threats.

Clearly delusion are things like his claim that his hiding peoples'
names behind initials in order to obscure whom he's making charges
against and what those charges are, with the hypothetical case of simply
referring to him by initials, without obscuring that he's the one whose
being referred to or what is being said about him.

Of course, somethings are just character flaws if taken in isolation. He
does not recognized that things happen if he isn't aware of them. He
declares himself the factual arbiter of highly studied issues of which
he is utterly ignorant. Then there are all those irritating
eccentricities, like his dragging in references to people from other
newsgroups, long ago; his injecting his own issues in the middle of
unrelated discussion; his injecting in the middle of threads unrelated
insults of people not in the thread; his attacking people who do exactly
the same thing; etc.

Things like his attacking the morals of people who don't accept the
Holocaust deniers' separation of "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust
skepticism" or "merely" believing there weren't gas chambers at
Auschwitz, are simply because he has few morals, but it would be better
if I could be convinced it was because he was crazy.

Mitchell

[pnyikos]

I look at whether it is justified. If it is, no problem. If it is
not, is the person at least sincere? If it seems that way, a
correction may be in order, but not reciprocal mud-slinging.

What you are indulging in is a misleadingly value-free description,
another example of what I call The One Shade of Gray Meltdown.

> you make sure it gets thrown at
> least one more time, and probably more.

I'd label this "lying" on your part, but I will chalk it up to the
hypothesis that you are a profoundly amoral person, who is judging on
the basis of what I do when dishonest, insincere, hypocritical people
are involved and pay precious little attention when sincere-seeming
people like Arkalen are involved.

Go ahead, flame the bejesus out of me for naming someone not on this
thread, while pretending that you did not bring the whole readership
of t.o. to the table with your across-the-board flaming of me.

> �You work hard to keep mud
> flying at all times.

"at all times". If I said what this phrase does in the minds of
responsible, mature adults, you'd flame me for "mud-slinging" wouldn't
you?

> �> [snip example of just that]

>
> If cleaning t.o. is indeed your true motive (and I suspect otherwise,
> based on your behavior), here is my suggestion:
>
> Step 1: Describe a behavior in general terms.

Generalities seldom do justice to what actually goes on.

That's why you love them, isn't it?

>�Go out of your way to

> make it difficult for people to tell whose behavior you have in mind.

I did, and got denounced for it by Mitchell Coffey.

Funny, you two seem to be birds of a feather a great deal of the
time.

Well, maybe not so funny. Nuff said for now.

> No names. �No initials. �Not even any hints.

The initials were never associated with those people before. Did this
go down your memory hole?

> Step 2: Ask, "Is there a consensus that that is undesirable behavior?"

OK, let's start with the following:

Is there a consensus that calling
justifiable denunciations and defamatory
unsupported accusations by the same
expression [e.g. "mudslinging"]
and never distinguishing between them,
constitutes undesirable behavior?

and follow up with:

If there is no such consensus, should there be?

Since I'm replying to you, you get to go first.

No, second. My answer is a resounding NO to the first and YES to the
second.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if the above is greeted by
the internet equivalent of stony silence.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 25, 1:12�am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <bmuli8tj50e6m4lnl6m1v9g0pbofqib...@4ax.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:53:57 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:18:33 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> > >(in article

> > ><8815c269-083b-42b9-ad7a-ee8b02ecd...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > >>> I did notice that you were supposed to be stalking him despite having him
> > >>> in
> > >>> a killfile.
>
> > >> In this case, "stalking" means dropping comments about me in thread after
> > >> thread, especially in ones where jillery knows I am present, due to her
> > >> seeing people's replies to me.
>
> > >So you have your own private dictionary, eh, Peter?
>
> > The irony here is that my alleged stalking is in response to the same
> > behavior he does. �It would not even be comment worthy, except that
> > several of the village elders have fallen for his lies.
>
> I seriously doubt that any "village elders" [and when did we acquire
> these, BTW? :-)] particularly accept Peter's version of the froup
> history...

I'm glad to see my terminology is catching on. Making the description
of a "list" completely value-free [albeit with demanding standards --
15 years' of being a non-creationist regular] does wonders, I see.

See, Glenn [are you reading this?] I am catching on.

> There are, typically enough, misreadings and other ways
> in which "normal" conversation here can seem (and can be) at times
> a misrepresentation or otherwise simulate hostility that is not in
> fact intended as active animus by any of the particpants. Just sayin'.

I must admit, I found it hard to treat your mock-serious denunciations
as joking, but I think I did get it right.

Oh. Wait.

Does anyone reading this know whether Michael Siemon, whom I am
addressing, is boycotting me to some extent?

I don't recall a single reply made by him to a post where I was
replying to him since I returned to talk.origins after a decade of
absence.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 25, 3:48�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Applaud what goal, making T.O. safe for the someone who ridicules a
> regular because his child has cancer? Sheesh.

Are you referring to Ray Martinez? He's another person who is moving
talk.origins towards the hellhole status of talk.abortion.

Or prawnster? He's also part of the problem, though not (in my
experience) as much as you, Gans, jillery, and O'Shea.

Each of you four has a pretty close counterpart in talk.abortion, a
counterpart instrumental in making it the hellhole that it is now.

Names of counterparts will be given if I deem it called for.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

Remember, if I'd started Berkeley a few years earlier I'd have been able
to take math from Ted Kaczynski. He used to lecture with his back to the
students, scratching on the chalkboard, refusing to respond to
questions. When he left, the math department begged him to stay and
offered sweeteners.

Mitchell

[James Beck]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:13:59 -0500, Mitchell Coffey

All of the things you described are personality traits. The
alternatives are neurological, like autism, Asperger's, and PBA. If I
had to guess what a psychiatrist would diagnose, it would be PDD NOS
i.e., pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified.
mainly because he seems disordered in so many different, but
non-specific ways. OTOH, he's not all that weird especially for a
mathematician.

'Theoretical Mathematician' isn't in the DSM, but it might tell you
how to deal with him. Peter's conclusions follow from his definitions
and in my experience it is pointless to debate with him. Propose an
alternative definition that makes his conclusion false. If he sticks
to his MO, he'll claim that you are intellectually mediocre. It's
perfectly okay to shrug at that and move on. Or not. Some people seem
to find arguing with him entertaining.