Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Your mother is a fruit fly
50 views
Skip to first unread message
prawnster
Mar 21, 2012, 8:31:59 AM3/21/12
to
This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
From the article:
<The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
is linked to drinking in humans.
“Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
'volved from flies?
If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
wrong, I don't know where to begin.
So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
From the article:
<The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
is linked to drinking in humans.
“Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
'volved from flies?
If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
wrong, I don't know where to begin.
So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
Arkalen
Mar 21, 2012, 9:33:01 AM3/21/12
to
He's not saying that humans evolved from fruit flies either. They
didn't. But both humans and fruit flies evolved from some worm-like
common ancestor. (I am a layperson, when I say "worm-like" I'm saying
something VERY vague, I'm not making a phylogenetic statement about
earthworms or something)
Walter Bushell
Mar 21, 2012, 11:09:03 AM3/21/12
to
And you mother smelled of elderberries?
In article
<0765db5f-a4ab-4e53...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,
This space unintentionally left blank.
In article
<0765db5f-a4ab-4e53...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-t
> urn-to-alcohol.html
>
--
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-t
> urn-to-alcohol.html
>
This space unintentionally left blank.
jillery
Mar 21, 2012, 1:42:40 PM3/21/12
to
comparisons to humans and worms and fruitflys. That all are metazoans
says they share a lot of features inherited from a common ancestor.
Bob Casanova
Mar 21, 2012, 1:55:44 PM3/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:31:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
>This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
>From the article:
>
><The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
>elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
>evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
>addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
>appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
>is linked to drinking in humans.
>
>“Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
>origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
>sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
>director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
>the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
>
>
>So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
>'volved from flies?
No, nor evolved from flies either. Learn to read for
comprehension; it'll reward you in ways you can't begin to
imagine.
<snip additional adolescent "humor">
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:
>This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
>From the article:
>
><The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
>elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
>evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
>addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
>appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
>is linked to drinking in humans.
>
>“Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
>origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
>sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
>director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
>the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
>
>
>So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
>'volved from flies?
comprehension; it'll reward you in ways you can't begin to
imagine.
<snip additional adolescent "humor">
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kermit
Mar 21, 2012, 2:05:52 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 5:31 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-...
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
>
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
>
> If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> wrong, I don't know where to begin.
Some of your cousins (and mine) evolved wings. Our ancestors evolved
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse. >
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
>
> If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> wrong, I don't know where to begin.
the ability to type on a computer; the scientists among us include
the one who developed these computers in the first place. Our common
ancestor could neither type nor fly. Neither were they inclined to
think very much, a feature you will be glad to know that you have
retained.
>
> So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
we have common ancestors.
>
> Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
understanding of evolution indicate that you are related. For one
thing, lawnmowers do not reproduce.
>
> Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
fundamental fact which shaped all living things - the subject of
biology - often is necessary to reference in order to explain an
observation. Geologists, astronomers, and particle physicists rarely
mention biological evolution.
For biologists to refrain from mentioning evolution when it is
appropriate would be akin to a political reporter refraining from
referencing the president in any of her reports. Many of them would
simply not make sense were she to do so.
Do you think that you strengthen your arguments - such as they are -
by pretending to be more clueless than you are?
Kermit
Arkalen
Mar 21, 2012, 2:07:26 PM3/21/12
to
organisms, and all organisms are related. In this case I have one
sentence that bothers me a bit : "Reading this study is like looking
back in time, to see the very origins of the reward circuit that drives
fundamental behaviors like sex, eating and sleeping", because insects
are very derived forms compared to the common ancestor between them and
humans; it is not *necessary* that their brain functions would be just
like "the very origins" of our common reward circuits.
That said even if it isn't necessary that this be the case, it could
still be the case because insects have simple brains compared to ours,
or because it just happens that for those particular circuits they're so
much more like the common ancestor than we are that the quote makes
sense. But I doubt the article makes such a nuanced point. And people DO
get confused on which animals are very like human ancestors and which
aren't. Witness the painful Star Trek episode that had humans
"devolving" into lemurs (ok...) and spiders (NOOOOO).
Dana Tweedy
Mar 21, 2012, 4:44:20 PM3/21/12
to
On 3/21/12 6:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
>
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
No, he's pointing out that humans and flies have a common ancestor, and
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
>
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
that the chemical system of human and fly brains share something in
common.
>
> If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> wrong, I don't know where to begin.
>
> So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>
> Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>
> Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>
DJT
William Morse
Mar 21, 2012, 10:57:53 PM3/21/12
to
On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
>
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
>
> If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> wrong, I don't know where to begin.
That's so evolutionarily right, I don't know where to end -)
> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html
>
> From the article:
>
> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> elements of the brain’s reward system have changed very little during
> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> appetite predicted the flies’ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> is linked to drinking in humans.
>
> “Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> sex, eating and sleeping,” said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
>
>
> So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> 'volved from flies?
>
> If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> wrong, I don't know where to begin.
> So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
observation.
> Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
> Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>
This has already been said better than I just put it.
Yours,
Bill
Walter Bushell
Mar 21, 2012, 11:59:41 PM3/21/12
to
Earle Jones
Mar 22, 2012, 1:48:41 PM3/22/12
to
In article <jke48...@news3.newsguy.com>,
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher
vol.35, March 1973)
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious,
but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher,
25:125-129, p. 129)
earle
*
William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> > This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females
> > -turn-to-alcohol.html
> >
> > From the article:
> >
> > <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> > elements of the brainđs reward system have changed very little during
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> > This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females
> > -turn-to-alcohol.html
> >
> > From the article:
> >
> > <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
> > evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
> > addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> > appetite predicted the fliesđ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
> > addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
> > is linked to drinking in humans.
> >
> > ģReading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
> >
> > origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
> > sex, eating and sleeping,ē said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
> > director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and
> > the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
> >
> >
> > So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> > 'volved from flies?
> >
> > If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> > and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> > flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> > wrong, I don't know where to begin.
>
> That's so evolutionarily right, I don't know where to end -)
>
>
> > So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>
> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
> observation.
>
>
> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>
> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>
>
> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
> >
>
> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill
*
> > the National Institute on Drug Abuse.>
> >
> >
> > So is the august Dr. Heilig, PhD, huzzah huzzah, saying that people
> > 'volved from flies?
> >
> > If that's the case, then WTF? You mean over the millenia and billenia
> > and duhllenia I retained a self-medicating thirst for alcohol from my
> > flycestors, but I didn't retain my wings? That's so evolutionarily
> > wrong, I don't know where to begin.
>
> That's so evolutionarily right, I don't know where to end -)
>
>
> > So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>
> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
> observation.
>
>
> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>
> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>
>
> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
> >
>
> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher
vol.35, March 1973)
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious,
but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher,
25:125-129, p. 129)
earle
*
William Morse
Mar 22, 2012, 10:00:10 PM3/22/12
to
On 03/22/2012 01:48 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
> In article<jke48...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> William Morse<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>>> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females
>>> -turn-to-alcohol.html
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
>>> elements of the brain¹s reward system have changed very little during
> In article<jke48...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> William Morse<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>>> This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females
>>> -turn-to-alcohol.html
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> <The study, posted online in the journal Science, suggests that some
>>> evolution, and these include some of the mechanisms that support
>>> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
>>> appetite predicted the flies¹ thirst for alcohol. A similar chemical
>>> addiction. Levels of a brain chemical that is active in regulating
>>> is linked to drinking in humans.
>>>
>>> ³Reading this study is like looking back in time, to see the very
>>>
>>> origins of the reward circuit that drives fundamental behaviors like
>>> sex, eating and sleeping,² said Dr. Markus Heilig, the clinical
I _love_ the second.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 22, 2012, 11:05:58 PM3/22/12
to
On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMZ_on_TV
You FoxNews guys are dense. Most worms are smarter than all the Fox and
Friends cast combined.
Here you go:
http://www.livescience.com/1454-human-brain-origin-lowly-worm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbilaterian
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/061488/the-origins-of-form
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/137.full
Note: [quote] The new topology is extremely important for understanding
the comparative reasoning that leads to hypotheses about the morphology
of Urbilateria. In particular, it implies that:
— the last common ancestor of insects and vertebrates was in fact
Urbilateria. The remarkable similarities found in the genetics of
development between the fruit fly and the vertebrates therefore have
their origin in Urbilateria. [/quote]
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16411.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16411/F1.medium.gif
Did I piss Sean Hannity off yet?
Given my parents were actually apes, I think you got the genealogy
wrong. In the distant past I share a common ancestor with the fly
buzzing around my head, but we aren't close enough to attend any family
reunions. You evo-denying twits mistake fictional linear progression for
realistic branching.
And we more closely share a common developmental plan with other
vertebrates known as the pharyngular stage (not to be mistaken for a
notorious yet inspirational atheist blog). Organisms like Pikaia
(extinct) are a reasonable approximation of a vertebrate ancestor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia
Though lancelets (extant) are not too far off from the primitive
chordates either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet
Given you primitive paleoconservatives aren't too far removed from the
ooze, you should feel some sort of affiliation for your brethren like
Urbilateria and Pikaia-like chordates. I wonder if given the chance,
lancelets would vote Republican, due to lack of a fully developed human
brain. Lancelets could probably fill in as guest hosts on FoxNews. They
too lack a forehead, like Sean Hannity and Bret Baier. They'd fit right in.
--
*Hemidactylus*
-Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of
the dark side has fallen. Begun the Privacy War has.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 22, 2012, 11:42:35 PM3/22/12
to
shrimp, who thinks deep seated origins for appreciation of a good 9% IPA
means fruit flies got drunk, mated without little fruit fly condoms or
IUDs and gave rise to the human species. What an idiot. I can only
attribute such nonsense to the prawn being pickled. It's sad to see it,
but it happens.
Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
bottle out too long and see what happens]
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 22, 2012, 11:43:38 PM3/22/12
to
Walter Bushell
Mar 24, 2012, 11:19:34 AM3/24/12
to
In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> bottle out too long and see what happens]
Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> bottle out too long and see what happens]
John S. Wilkins
Mar 24, 2012, 7:31:31 PM3/24/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
> In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 24, 2012, 7:41:17 PM3/24/12
to
On 03/24/2012 07:31 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
>> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
>>> bottle out too long and see what happens]
>>
>> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
Or a barf fly who had way too much.
> Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
>> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
>>> bottle out too long and see what happens]
>>
>> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 24, 2012, 8:41:03 PM3/24/12
to
On 03/24/2012 11:19 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
>> bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
Maybe we should recruit some then. Set them up with tiny touchscreens
> In article<iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbS...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
>> bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
and Google Groups accounts.
Arkalen
Mar 30, 2012, 5:54:32 PM3/30/12
to
the actual current consensus on the common ancestor of chordates and
arthropods, so it's kind of you to give me the name.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 30, 2012, 9:28:05 PM3/30/12
to
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 7:11:04 AM4/3/12
to
On Mar 22, 10:48 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
catchphrases. I think the Darwin fish holding a wrench emblazoned
with the single word "EVOLVE" is much more to the point, though.
And just for the record, you have employed two forms of
pseudoreasoning:
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to lame bumpersticker catchphrases.
> [...]
> > Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
> > This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
> > Yours,
>
> > Bill
>
> *
> "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
>
> --Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher
> vol.35, March 1973)
>
> "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
> the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
> becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious,
> but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
>
> --Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher,
> 25:125-129, p. 129)
Mr. Dobzhansky does a pretty good job with the bumpersticker
> > This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
> > Yours,
>
> > Bill
>
> *
> "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
>
> --Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher
> vol.35, March 1973)
>
> "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
> the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
> becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious,
> but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
>
> --Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975) (American Biology Teacher,
> 25:125-129, p. 129)
catchphrases. I think the Darwin fish holding a wrench emblazoned
with the single word "EVOLVE" is much more to the point, though.
And just for the record, you have employed two forms of
pseudoreasoning:
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to lame bumpersticker catchphrases.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 7:15:24 AM4/3/12
to
On Mar 21, 7:57 pm, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> [...]
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
> > So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>
> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
> observation.
>
> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>
> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>
> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>
> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
So if worms fuck enough times, they eventually become people?
> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>
> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
> observation.
>
> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>
> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>
> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>
> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>
----
I'm pretty sure both cars and lawnmowers were intelligently designed.
Are you saying evolution is evidence of intelligent design?
----
I read biology articles all the time that don't bother mentioning
evolution, and they make perfect sense. So I'm pretty sure evolution
is peripheral to anyone's understanding of biology. Also, I don't
believe in evolution at all, and yet I understand biology just fine.
You and the rest of the Darwinists around here should just stop
asserting that chestnut.
Arkalen
Apr 3, 2012, 7:22:05 AM4/3/12
to
(2012/04/03 20:15), prawnster wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:57 pm, William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>>> So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
>>> in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>>
>> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
>> observation.
>>
>>> Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
>>> my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>>
>> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>>
>>> Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
>>> insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>>
>> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
>> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>>
>
> So if worms fuck enough times, they eventually become people?
They might, yes, under the right conditions. Of course by the time they
> On Mar 21, 7:57 pm, William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>>> So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
>>> in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>>
>> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
>> observation.
>>
>>> Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
>>> my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>>
>> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>>
>>> Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
>>> insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>>
>> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
>> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>>
>
> So if worms fuck enough times, they eventually become people?
become people they haven't been worms anymore for a very, very, very,
VERY long time, so most of the fucking involved isn't done by worms, so
in that sense it isn't true.
> ----
> I'm pretty sure both cars and lawnmowers were intelligently designed.
> Are you saying evolution is evidence of intelligent design?
> ----
> I read biology articles all the time that don't bother mentioning
> evolution, and they make perfect sense. So I'm pretty sure evolution
> is peripheral to anyone's understanding of biology. Also, I don't
> believe in evolution at all, and yet I understand biology just fine.
> You and the rest of the Darwinists around here should just stop
> asserting that chestnut.
>
understand calculus. You might understand *some* aspects of maths, well
enough for many purposes, but you don't understand "maths", and even the
aspects of it you do understand, you don't understand fully.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 7:22:41 AM4/3/12
to
On Mar 21, 6:33 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> [...]
about: keepin' it vague, y'all!
And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
distinction; don't misquote me.
> [...]
> No, because nobody but you says "'volved". It's a stupid abbreviation.
> He's not saying that humans evolved from fruit flies either. They
> didn't. But both humans and fruit flies evolved from some worm-like
> common ancestor. (I am a layperson, when I say "worm-like" I'm saying
> something VERY vague, I'm not making a phylogenetic statement about
> earthworms or something)
>
Yeah, keep on keeping it VERY vague. That's what science is all
> He's not saying that humans evolved from fruit flies either. They
> didn't. But both humans and fruit flies evolved from some worm-like
> common ancestor. (I am a layperson, when I say "worm-like" I'm saying
> something VERY vague, I'm not making a phylogenetic statement about
> earthworms or something)
>
about: keepin' it vague, y'all!
And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
distinction; don't misquote me.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 7:30:26 AM4/3/12
to
On Mar 22, 8:05 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>
>
>
> > This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-...
> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>
>
>
> > This story is getting around. Even TMZ covered it:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you assume I'm a Repube? I'm in fact a registered Communist
and am not convinced that welfare systems managed by churches are
superior to welfare systems managed by the State -- both are
inherently flawed creations of sinful men, and are flawed in equal but
different ways. Not believing in an unobserved fantasy like evolution
has nothing to do with my beliefs about how a nation should deal with
its losers, drug addicts, and malingerers.
Arkalen
Apr 3, 2012, 7:45:00 AM4/3/12
to
(2012/04/03 20:22), prawnster wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:33 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> No, because nobody but you says "'volved". It's a stupid abbreviation.
>> He's not saying that humans evolved from fruit flies either. They
>> didn't. But both humans and fruit flies evolved from some worm-like
>> common ancestor. (I am a layperson, when I say "worm-like" I'm saying
>> something VERY vague, I'm not making a phylogenetic statement about
>> earthworms or something)
>>
>
> Yeah, keep on keeping it VERY vague. That's what science is all
> about: keepin' it vague, y'all!
What part of "I am a layperson" do you have a problem with ? If you want
> On Mar 21, 6:33 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> No, because nobody but you says "'volved". It's a stupid abbreviation.
>> He's not saying that humans evolved from fruit flies either. They
>> didn't. But both humans and fruit flies evolved from some worm-like
>> common ancestor. (I am a layperson, when I say "worm-like" I'm saying
>> something VERY vague, I'm not making a phylogenetic statement about
>> earthworms or something)
>>
>
> Yeah, keep on keeping it VERY vague. That's what science is all
> about: keepin' it vague, y'all!
to know what science knows about the common ancestor of fruit flies and
humans in all its sciencey precision you can google it; "humans aren't
descended from fruit flies" was the only level of precision that was
necessary to respond to your comment.
>
> And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
> distinction; don't misquote me.
>
actually need to count, get a better newsreader because mine manages to
show the apostrophe as separate from the quotes just fine.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 7:54:41 AM4/3/12
to
> [...]
DNA could, given enough billenia and duhllenia, become any other
strand of DNA. So looking up some sciencey article about common
traits of worms and people would elucidate nothing. It really isn't
important whether the writer of such an article believes worms
eventually became people via the unobserved process known as
evolution; he could just as easily ascribe shared DNA to a common
designer -- I'm simply not interested in any particular scribbler's
philosophical leanings. So you had it correct in the first place: keep
it VAGUE, y'all!
----
Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
Google sucks just fine.
> What part of "I am a layperson" do you have a problem with ? If you want
> to know what science knows about the common ancestor of fruit flies and
> humans in all its sciencey precision you can google it; "humans aren't
> descended from fruit flies" was the only level of precision that was
> necessary to respond to your comment.
>
>
>
> > And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
> > distinction; don't misquote me.
>
> I didn't misquote you, idiot. Count the little lines. And if you
> actually need to count, get a better newsreader because mine manages to
> show the apostrophe as separate from the quotes just fine.
There's no precision to the idea of evolution at all: any strand of
> to know what science knows about the common ancestor of fruit flies and
> humans in all its sciencey precision you can google it; "humans aren't
> descended from fruit flies" was the only level of precision that was
> necessary to respond to your comment.
>
>
>
> > And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
> > distinction; don't misquote me.
>
> I didn't misquote you, idiot. Count the little lines. And if you
> actually need to count, get a better newsreader because mine manages to
> show the apostrophe as separate from the quotes just fine.
DNA could, given enough billenia and duhllenia, become any other
strand of DNA. So looking up some sciencey article about common
traits of worms and people would elucidate nothing. It really isn't
important whether the writer of such an article believes worms
eventually became people via the unobserved process known as
evolution; he could just as easily ascribe shared DNA to a common
designer -- I'm simply not interested in any particular scribbler's
philosophical leanings. So you had it correct in the first place: keep
it VAGUE, y'all!
----
Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
Google sucks just fine.
Arkalen
Apr 3, 2012, 8:12:54 AM4/3/12
to
(2012/04/03 20:54), prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:45 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/04/03 20:22), prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> What part of "I am a layperson" do you have a problem with ? If you want
>> to know what science knows about the common ancestor of fruit flies and
>> humans in all its sciencey precision you can google it; "humans aren't
>> descended from fruit flies" was the only level of precision that was
>> necessary to respond to your comment.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
>>> distinction; don't misquote me.
>>
>> I didn't misquote you, idiot. Count the little lines. And if you
>> actually need to count, get a better newsreader because mine manages to
>> show the apostrophe as separate from the quotes just fine.
>
> There's no precision to the idea of evolution at all: any strand of
> DNA could, given enough billenia and duhllenia, become any other
> strand of DNA.
Nope. Depends on the selection pressures.
> On Apr 3, 4:45 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/04/03 20:22), prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> What part of "I am a layperson" do you have a problem with ? If you want
>> to know what science knows about the common ancestor of fruit flies and
>> humans in all its sciencey precision you can google it; "humans aren't
>> descended from fruit flies" was the only level of precision that was
>> necessary to respond to your comment.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And one correction: I say 'volve, not volve. It's an important
>>> distinction; don't misquote me.
>>
>> I didn't misquote you, idiot. Count the little lines. And if you
>> actually need to count, get a better newsreader because mine manages to
>> show the apostrophe as separate from the quotes just fine.
>
> There's no precision to the idea of evolution at all: any strand of
> DNA could, given enough billenia and duhllenia, become any other
> strand of DNA.
If there were no such thing as natural selection, and DNA was mutating
freely (...how modern DNA works is also a product of natural selection,
but let's ignore that for the hypothetical), and there were such numbers
as "billenia" and "duhllenia", and those were arbitrarily big numbers...
then yes, any strand of DNA could become any other.
> So looking up some sciencey article about common
> traits of worms and people would elucidate nothing.
that the amount of time that has passed isn't "billenia" OR "duhlennia",
it is in fact under 4.6 billion years, oh and the fact that while worm
genes could follow any path to become human genes (... if there were no
constraints, which there are), there is a path they actually did follow
and that's what phylogeny looks at.
> It really isn't
> important whether the writer of such an article believes worms
> eventually became people via the unobserved process known as
> evolution; he could just as easily ascribe shared DNA to a common
> designer -- I'm simply not interested in any particular scribbler's
> philosophical leanings. So you had it correct in the first place: keep
> it VAGUE, y'all!
> ----
> Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
> Google sucks just fine.
>
of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
chris thompson
Apr 3, 2012, 8:01:09 AM4/3/12
to
appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
Chris
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 8:27:39 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 5:12 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
> > Google sucks just fine.
>
> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
Hey, let's have a metadiscussion!
> > Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
> > Google sucks just fine.
>
> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
Your use of the word "idiot" is very impolite: it used to be a term of
art in psychology to describe people of a certain low IQ. It was
deemed offensive and so was changed to mentally retarded (which,
apparently, is offensive now; I think the polite term now for retarded
folks now "most amazing people that ever existed in the multiverse at
anytime and everywhere"). So if you're employing the word "idiot"
within its original psychology context, I definitely don't meet the
definition of a person with low IQ.
But I'm pretty sure you're not using "idiot" with any antiquated
psychological precision, so, in fact, you are just employing it as an
ad hom attack -- strong evidence that you have no real argument. But
then again, you're the same guy who confuses interpretation and
observation.
James Beck
Apr 3, 2012, 8:30:38 AM4/3/12
to
On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
jillery
Apr 3, 2012, 8:44:11 AM4/3/12
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 04:15:24 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 21, 7:57 pm, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
>> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>>
>> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
>> observation.
>>
>> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
>> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>>
>> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>>
>> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
>> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>>
>> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
>> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>>
>
>So if worms fuck enough times, they eventually become people?
Apparently you are obsessed about sex with long skinny objects.
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 21, 7:57 pm, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 08:31 AM, prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So because flies have a chemical in their bodies similar to a chemical
>> > in people's bodies, therefore people 'volved from flies?
>>
>> People and flies have evolved from a common ancestor, which explains the
>> observation.
>>
>> > Because my lawnmower has chemicals in its body similar to chemicals in
>> > my car's body, therefore my car 'volved from my lawnmower?
>>
>> Your lawnmower in fact evolved from your car.
>>
>> > Why, oh why, does every scribbler on the science beat feel he must
>> > insert a reference to evolution in every biology story?
>>
>> Because you can't understand biology without understanding evolution.
>> This has already been said better than I just put it.
>>
>
>So if worms fuck enough times, they eventually become people?
>I'm pretty sure both cars and lawnmowers were intelligently designed.
>Are you saying evolution is evidence of intelligent design?
bring up croco-Deeres (John Deere, that is).
>I read biology articles all the time that don't bother mentioning
>evolution, and they make perfect sense.
>So I'm pretty sure evolution
>is peripheral to anyone's understanding of biology. Also, I don't
>believe in evolution at all, and yet I understand biology just fine.
>You and the rest of the Darwinists around here should just stop
>asserting that chestnut.
Arkalen
Apr 3, 2012, 8:39:37 AM4/3/12
to
(2012/04/03 21:27), prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:12 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
>>> Google sucks just fine.
>>
>> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
>> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
>> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
>> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
>> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
>
> Hey, let's have a metadiscussion!
>
> Your use of the word "idiot" is very impolite: it used to be a term of
> art in psychology to describe people of a certain low IQ. It was
> deemed offensive and so was changed to mentally retarded (which,
> apparently, is offensive now; I think the polite term now for retarded
> folks now "most amazing people that ever existed in the multiverse at
> anytime and everywhere"). So if you're employing the word "idiot"
> within its original psychology context, I definitely don't meet the
> definition of a person with low IQ.
That is a decent point. It's a common enough word that it's part of my
> On Apr 3, 5:12 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
>>> Google sucks just fine.
>>
>> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
>> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
>> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
>> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
>> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
>
> Hey, let's have a metadiscussion!
>
> Your use of the word "idiot" is very impolite: it used to be a term of
> art in psychology to describe people of a certain low IQ. It was
> deemed offensive and so was changed to mentally retarded (which,
> apparently, is offensive now; I think the polite term now for retarded
> folks now "most amazing people that ever existed in the multiverse at
> anytime and everywhere"). So if you're employing the word "idiot"
> within its original psychology context, I definitely don't meet the
> definition of a person with low IQ.
vocabulary and I'll use it without much thought, but if anyone here
actually feels the word is ableist and problematic and isn't just trying
to make a cheap point (I was actually half impressed by you until the
"most amazing people that ever existed" thing) I'll certainly reconsider
using it here.
>
> But I'm pretty sure you're not using "idiot" with any antiquated
> psychological precision, so, in fact, you are just employing it as an
> ad hom attack -- strong evidence that you have no real argument. But
> then again, you're the same guy who confuses interpretation and
> observation.
>
insult. They are not the same thing, and this was the latter. The former
is a logical fallacy, the latter is just impolite.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 8:50:08 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
1) Observable
2) Repeatable
It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
one else has.
>[...]
> Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
1) Observable
2) Repeatable
It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
one else has.
John S. Wilkins
Apr 3, 2012, 9:21:02 AM4/3/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 3, 2012, 9:34:14 AM4/3/12
to
appeal to authority because it contains "references" relevant to the topic.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Walter Bushell
Apr 3, 2012, 9:35:00 AM4/3/12
to
In article
<a0890112-fb7c-4457...@wr2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
understanding, whereas appeal to authority does not.
reasonable doubt.
<a0890112-fb7c-4457...@wr2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
> >
>
> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
> basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> 1) Observable
> 2) Repeatable
True dat. A proper logical argument leaves a person with
> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
> >
>
> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
> basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> 1) Observable
> 2) Repeatable
understanding, whereas appeal to authority does not.
>
> It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
> he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
> one else has.
But the fact of evolution has been proven many times beyond any
> It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
> he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
> one else has.
reasonable doubt.
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 3, 2012, 9:37:59 AM4/3/12
to
Evolutionary biology delves into the why of the processes and diversity
found in biological organisms.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 3, 2012, 9:41:40 AM4/3/12
to
prawnster.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 3, 2012, 9:44:32 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
Mitchell
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
>
> > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> Love to eat theys mousies...
Mousies what I loves to eat...
> > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
>
> > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> Love to eat theys mousies...
Mitchell
chris thompson
Apr 3, 2012, 10:31:25 AM4/3/12
to
Burkhard
Apr 3, 2012, 10:48:10 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
> > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
> > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
"Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2006) Appeals to authority are forms of the
"argument from a position to know" and therefore in the same category
as arguments based e.g. on eyewitness evidence. They can be perfectly
valid if the right sort of condition is met (i.e. if they are really
are in a position to know)
chris thompson
Apr 3, 2012, 10:50:09 AM4/3/12
to
> <a0890112-fb7c-4457-ac25-c3c954d5a...@wr2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
true!" and attributed it to, say, "Jones" that would be fallacious.
There's no way of knowing who Jones was, being too common a name to
recognize as belonging to any particular expert in the field (OK maybe
a bad choice- there is Steve Jones. But you get the point.)
But "Dobzhansky" should be instantly recognizable to anyone discussing
evolution in any meaningful way, as would the names "Mayr", "Vrba" or
"Haldane". If the shrimp had any knowledge of evolution (and he's on
record as stating he doesn't understand it) he would know something of
the published work. And if he had any desire to understand it, he
would go to the literature and read just how much evidence there
really is. But he doesn't, and he won't.
Another case of invincible ignorance.
Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
> > Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
> > basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> > field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> > happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> > 1) Observable
> > 2) Repeatable
>
> True dat. A proper logical argument leaves a person with
> understanding, whereas appeal to authority does not.
Sorry Walter- untrue. If someone produced a quote like "Evolution is
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>
> > Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking. You're
> > basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> > field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> > happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> > 1) Observable
> > 2) Repeatable
>
> True dat. A proper logical argument leaves a person with
> understanding, whereas appeal to authority does not.
true!" and attributed it to, say, "Jones" that would be fallacious.
There's no way of knowing who Jones was, being too common a name to
recognize as belonging to any particular expert in the field (OK maybe
a bad choice- there is Steve Jones. But you get the point.)
But "Dobzhansky" should be instantly recognizable to anyone discussing
evolution in any meaningful way, as would the names "Mayr", "Vrba" or
"Haldane". If the shrimp had any knowledge of evolution (and he's on
record as stating he doesn't understand it) he would know something of
the published work. And if he had any desire to understand it, he
would go to the literature and read just how much evidence there
really is. But he doesn't, and he won't.
Another case of invincible ignorance.
Chris
James Beck
Apr 3, 2012, 11:06:18 AM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
thinking more of Tiny Footprints, Whack Your Porcupine, or Never Eat
Anything Bigger Than Your Head. Sort of like"Dirty fat person sits on
president's face," or "I'll have the gazpacho, leeks vinaigrette with
shrimp, marinated zucchini, orange mousse, a bottle of Cotes du Rhone
Rouge '59. And bring some shit for my fly."
This one is recently appropriate here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/tasteless22na3.jpg/
Several of my favorites here:
http://the-tarpeian-rock.blogspot.com/2009/03/17-by-b-kliban.html
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
>
> > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> Love to eat theys mousies...
Well now, personally, I don't care for the 'Cat' cartoons. I was
> > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a beer
> > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar fly.
>
> > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> Love to eat theys mousies...
thinking more of Tiny Footprints, Whack Your Porcupine, or Never Eat
Anything Bigger Than Your Head. Sort of like"Dirty fat person sits on
president's face," or "I'll have the gazpacho, leeks vinaigrette with
shrimp, marinated zucchini, orange mousse, a bottle of Cotes du Rhone
Rouge '59. And bring some shit for my fly."
This one is recently appropriate here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/tasteless22na3.jpg/
Several of my favorites here:
http://the-tarpeian-rock.blogspot.com/2009/03/17-by-b-kliban.html
Arkalen
Apr 3, 2012, 11:09:21 AM4/3/12
to
(2012/04/03 23:48), Burkhard wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster<zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
>>> appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
>>> field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
>>> too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
>>> fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>>
>> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
>> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006)
Ah... an appeal to authority I see !
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster<zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
>>> appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
>>> field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
>>> too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
>>> fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
>>
>> Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
>> Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006)
(reminds me of my friend who tried to show that deducing that circular
logic is valid by assuming that circular logic is valid was invalid.
Good thing he has lots of free time is all I can say)
:)
Mark Isaak
Apr 3, 2012, 11:19:52 AM4/3/12
to
On 4/3/12 5:27 AM, prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:12 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
>>> Google sucks just fine.
>>
>> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
>> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
>> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
>> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
>> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
>
> Hey, let's have a metadiscussion!
>
> Your use of the word "idiot" is very impolite: it used to be a term of
> art in psychology to describe people of a certain low IQ.
Since when have you been a fan of politeness, idiot?
> On Apr 3, 5:12 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> Calm yourself, sir. And no, I'm not going to get a better newsreader;
>>> Google sucks just fine.
>>
>> lol. I'm quite calm; you'd need to up your irritant levels a few orders
>> of magnitude before I started getting annoyed. Calling you an idiot
>> wasn't a sign of my annoyance, it was a sign that it is my considered
>> opinion that you are in fact an idiot, and that particular paragraph was
>> a piece of evidence in favor of that opinion.
>
> Hey, let's have a metadiscussion!
>
> Your use of the word "idiot" is very impolite: it used to be a term of
> art in psychology to describe people of a certain low IQ.
--
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
Walter Bushell
Apr 3, 2012, 12:42:43 PM4/3/12
to
RAM
Apr 3, 2012, 1:37:40 PM4/3/12
to
John S. Wilkins
Apr 3, 2012, 4:43:45 PM4/3/12
to
John S. Wilkins
Apr 3, 2012, 4:55:24 PM4/3/12
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >[...]
> > > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
> >
> > Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006) Appeals to authority are forms of the
> "argument from a position to know" and therefore in the same category
> as arguments based e.g. on eyewitness evidence. They can be perfectly
> valid if the right sort of condition is met (i.e. if they are really
> are in a position to know)
In point of fact, apart from the fallacies of improper conversion of
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 5:01 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >[...]
> > > Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy if it is a misplaced
> > > appeal, and the "authority" has not earned his or her place in the
> > > field. Dobzhansky forgot more biology than you will ever know (and me
> > > too, for that matter). If I invoked Dobzhansky in a discussion about
> > > fixing laptop computers, that would be fallacious.
> >
> > Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006) Appeals to authority are forms of the
> "argument from a position to know" and therefore in the same category
> as arguments based e.g. on eyewitness evidence. They can be perfectly
> valid if the right sort of condition is met (i.e. if they are really
> are in a position to know)
conditionals (Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent),
almost none of the fallacies are fallacies proper. For example, post hoc
ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy if the post really is propter, and so
on. Ad hominem is not, in itself, a fallacy. It is really hard to make
cases in which fallacies work as fallacies.
Generally it is better to talk about good reasoning and bad reasoning,
as there are indefinitely many ways to make errors of argument.
>
> You're
> > basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> > field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> > happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> > 1) Observable
> > 2) Repeatable
> >
> > It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
> > he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
> > one else has.
Of course, Argument by Not Looking is a fallacy.
> You're
> > basically just saying that since Mr. Dobz was a smarty-pants in his
> > field that I should just take his word for it that evolution
> > happened. No, that's not the way science works. Science is:
> > 1) Observable
> > 2) Repeatable
> >
> > It's not important that a smart guy like Dobz believes in evolution;
> > he has to demonstrate his hypothesis. And, to date, neither he nor
> > one else has.
prawnster
Apr 3, 2012, 6:40:56 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 7:48 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> On Apr 3, 1:50 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > Appeals to authority are always pseudoargumentation; it's basic
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006) Appeals to authority are forms of the
> "argument from a position to know" and therefore in the same category
> as arguments based e.g. on eyewitness evidence. They can be perfectly
> valid if the right sort of condition is met (i.e. if they are really
> are in a position to know)
Boy, it would sure be nice if Dobz, having "known" that evolution
> > Philosophy 100, sir: Introduction to Critical Thinking.
>
> Nope. See e.g. Doug Walton's books on informal logic e.g. his
> "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation",( Cambridge, Cambridge
> University Press, 2006) Appeals to authority are forms of the
> "argument from a position to know" and therefore in the same category
> as arguments based e.g. on eyewitness evidence. They can be perfectly
> valid if the right sort of condition is met (i.e. if they are really
> are in a position to know)
occurred by, say, "observing" it happen had bothered to grab his
"camera" and videotaped it "happening" so that everyone else could
"see" it. But of course, neither he nor anyone else has observed
evolution, so, as I stated above, any evocation of Dobz's lame and
prolix bumpersticker catchphrases is a mere appeal to authority
because Dobz is no authority on evolution as an observed process; in
fact, no one is.
Mr. Walton's redefinition of appeal to authority is really inapt and
inept, and makes me wonder about his real purpose for redefining
"appeal to authority" thusly. Relying on a witness who has direct
knowledge of a fact in question is not an appeal to authority; it is
eliciting the observations of that person; it's straight percipient
testimony. But Dobz, like every other person on Earth, has never
observed evolution. So if he were to testify to his observations, he
would only be able to say that he observes that organism A looks like
organism B, and that he believes, given enough time, that A could
'volve into B. But in a court of law, his testimony that he
"believes" that A turned into B at sometime in the longlongago would
be objected to and sustained because he's no longer acting as a
percipient witness; instead, he is simply commenting on the evidence
and bloviating about his personal metaphysics. Also, many attorneys
object when someone speaks of "believing" this, that, or the other
thing happened. QED.
Walter Bushell
Apr 3, 2012, 10:28:51 PM4/3/12
to
In article <1ki0kv8.3o444e1izafiyN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a
> > > > > > > > > beer
> > > > > > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar
> > > > > > > fly.
> > > >
> > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
> > > >
> > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
> > > >
> > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell
> > >
> > > Bite they little heads off...
> >
> > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> They don't write folk songs like that any more!
That wasn't a folk song; that was a a cat song or catastophe.
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a
> > > > > > > > > beer
> > > > > > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar
> > > > > > > fly.
> > > >
> > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
> > > >
> > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
> > > >
> > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell
> > >
> > > Bite they little heads off...
> >
> > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> They don't write folk songs like that any more!
John S. Wilkins
Apr 4, 2012, 3:06:17 AM4/4/12
to
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 4, 2012, 10:19:10 AM4/4/12
to
On Apr 4, 3:06 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <1ki0kv8.3o444e1izafiyN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > [leave a beer bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and
> > > > > > > > > a bar fly.
>
> > > > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> > > > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
>
> > > > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
>
> > > > > > Mitchell
>
> > > > > Bite they little heads off...
>
> > > > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> > > They don't write folk songs like that any more!
>
> > That wasn't a folk song; that was a a cat song or catastophe.
>
> You mean a caterwaul.
Which reminds me: Do felines style their hair with catacombs?
>
> > > > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > [leave a beer bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and
> > > > > > > > > a bar fly.
>
> > > > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> > > > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
>
> > > > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
>
> > > > > > Mitchell
>
> > > > > Bite they little heads off...
>
> > > > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> > > They don't write folk songs like that any more!
>
> > That wasn't a folk song; that was a a cat song or catastophe.
>
> You mean a caterwaul.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 4, 2012, 10:23:18 AM4/4/12
to
On Apr 3, 4:43 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a
> > > > > > > > > beer
> > > > > > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar
> > > > > > > fly.
>
> > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
>
> > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
>
> > > > Mitchell
>
> > > Bite they little heads off...
>
> > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> They don't write folk songs like that any more!
Of an Irish maid I sing a song...
>
> > > On Apr 3, 9:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 3, 9:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > > James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <iaGdnXRIN7q2bPbSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Some of by best drinking buddies are fruit flies :-) [leave a
> > > > > > > > > beer
> > > > > > > > > bottle out too long and see what happens]
>
> > > > > > > > Fruit flies seldom post nonsense to TO.
>
> > > > > > > Entomologists can tell the difference betwen a fruit fly and a bar
> > > > > > > fly.
>
> > > > > > B. Kliban would have paid you for this one. So many possibilities.
>
> > > > > Love to eat theys mousies...
>
> > > > Mousies what I loves to eat...
>
> > > > Mitchell
>
> > > Bite they little heads off...
>
> > Nibble at they tiny feet.
>
> They don't write folk songs like that any more!
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 4, 2012, 10:32:17 AM4/4/12
to
On Apr 3, 4:55 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
[snip]
But isn't the actual problem here the common fallacy that because an
argument is of a form that contains a possible (named) fallacy, the
argument is fallacious?
Mitchell
But isn't the actual problem here the common fallacy that because an
argument is of a form that contains a possible (named) fallacy, the
argument is fallacious?
Mitchell
John S. Wilkins
Apr 4, 2012, 5:52:24 PM4/4/12
to
Don Cates
Apr 4, 2012, 7:53:21 PM4/4/12
to
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 4, 2012, 8:50:21 PM4/4/12
to
misrepresentation. Dobzhansky did far more than you will ever do to come
to an understanding of the factors that influence evolution in
populations and was a big player in the modern synthesis. you make it
sound like all the guy did was sell bumperstickers.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_20
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_04.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1207686/pdf/ge14441331.pdf
http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/dobzhansky-muller-model-of-hybrid-incompatibility-7883
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7691.full
--
*Hemidactylus*
chris thompson
Apr 4, 2012, 10:12:48 PM4/4/12
to
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7691.full
>
> --
> *Hemidactylus*
On top of which, the shrimp also wants a videotape (um, he should come
into the present and ask for a Blu-Ray, at least). He obviously thinks
we can never convict a person of a crime based on circumstantial or
forensic evidence (which, in fact, is the strongest evidence around).
He either invincibly stupid, or a very cunning troll.
Chris
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 5, 2012, 10:21:27 AM4/5/12
to
On Apr 4, 5:52 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
After all, another term for "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is
"regression."
Mitchell
"regression."
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 5, 2012, 10:41:38 AM4/5/12
to
Tom Lehrer
About a maid I sing a song
Sing rickety tickety tin
About a maid I sing a song
Who didn't have her family long
Not only did she do them wrong
She did every one of them in, them in
She did every one of them in.
One morning in a fit of pique
Sing rickety tickety tin
One morning in a fit of pique
She drowned her father in the creek
The water tasted bad for a week
And we had to make do with gin, with gin
We had to make do with gin
Her mother she could never stand
Sing rickety tickety tin
Her mother she could never stand
And so a cyanide soup she planned
The mother died with the spoon in her hand
And her face in a hideous grin, a grin
Her face in a hideous grin.
She weighted her brother down with stones
Sing rickety tickety tin
She weighted her brother down with stones
And sent him off to Davey Jones
All they ever found were some bones
And occasional pieces of skin, of skin
Occasional pieces of skin.
She set her sister's hair on fire
Sing rickety tickety tin
She set her sister's hair on fire
And as the smoke and flame rose higher
Danced around the funeral pyre
Playing a violin, -olin
Playing a violin.
One day she had nothing to do
Sing rickety tickety tin
One day she had nothing to do
She cut her baby brother in two
And served him up as an Irish stew
And invited the neighbors in, -bors in
Invited the neighbors in.
And when at last the police came by
Sing rickety tickety tin
And when at last the police came by
Her little pranks she did not deny
To do so she would have had to lie
And lying she knew was a sin, a sin
And lying she knew was a sin.
And just one thing before I go
Sing rickety tickety tin
And just one thing before I go
There's something I think that you ought to know
They had no proof, so they let her go
And they say that she's tall and thin, and thin
They say that she's tall and thin.
My tragic tale I won't prolong
Sing rickety tickety tin
My tragic tale I won't prolong
I hope you like my little song
You've yourself to blame if it's too long
You should never have let me begin, begin
You should never have let me begin.
Mitchell Coffey
Walter Bushell
Apr 5, 2012, 1:09:35 PM4/5/12
to
In article
<79ca9a4e-db69-4f5d...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
You should at least have provided the attribution for the benefit of
the heathen.
<79ca9a4e-db69-4f5d...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
the heathen.
0 new messages