Darwinian Indoctrination 101: Part 1

[Steady Eddie]

This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...

EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00

EPISODE DESCRIPTION
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.

[RonO]

Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.

Did you learn anything from those bogus immune system references that
you put up to counter the Abzyme reality?

Do you understand why they didn't counter anything under discussion?

Do you understand how stupid it was to even put them up?

Luskin is the ID perp that just left the Discovery Institute. Did you
ever get any ID science from Luskin or Cornelius Hunter? What is it if
you claim that you did.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
> >
> > EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
> > http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
> >
> > EPISODE DESCRIPTION
> > On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
> > signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
> > Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
> > misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
> >
> >
> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.

You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.

> Did you learn anything from those bogus immune system references that
> you put up to counter the Abzyme reality?
>
> Do you understand why they didn't counter anything under discussion?
>
> Do you understand how stupid it was to even put them up?
>
> Luskin is the ID perp that just left the Discovery Institute. Did you
> ever get any ID science from Luskin or Cornelius Hunter? What is it if
> you claim that you did.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Ron Oblivious's natural reaction: deflect and disguise.

[John Harshman]

It happens I know Mohammed Noor. Really, you're only embarrassing yourself.

[Steady Eddie]

I suppose your buddy Mo can count on embarrassing any of his students that dare question
Darwinism in his classroom, but you don't have the same luxury here.

I'm only embarrassed in your mind, and that's fine with me.

Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
on the subject?

[John Harshman]

Agreed. You lack the capacity. The embarrassment is only in the eyes of
everyone who reads any of your posts. But should should know it's intense.

> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
> on the subject?

Sure. I know he doesn't deal in any misrepresentations and fallacies.
Nor will his course be typical.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
>on the subject?

Do you have some reason why *not* knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you

to pontificate on the subject?

I suppose I should stop, but you make it sooo easy.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

That has never stopped Steadly in T.O.

[Steady Eddie]

Coming from you that's a real indictment.

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>> >
>> > EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>> > http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>> >
>> > EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>> > On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>> > signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>> > Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>> > misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>> >
>> >
>> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
>> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.
>
>You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.

Do you realize that this is a tacit admission that you either did not
listen to the recording or you do not have a clue what they are
talking about, and that your vulgarity reflects exceptionally badly on
you?

>> Did you learn anything from those bogus immune system references that
>> you put up to counter the Abzyme reality?
>>
>> Do you understand why they didn't counter anything under discussion?
>>
>> Do you understand how stupid it was to even put them up?
>>
>> Luskin is the ID perp that just left the Discovery Institute. Did you
>> ever get any ID science from Luskin or Cornelius Hunter? What is it if
>> you claim that you did.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>Ron Oblivious's natural reaction: deflect and disguise.

Do you realize that this wholly unneccesary reaction looks like
projection?
--
Church of the FSM: "I believe _because_ it is ridiculous."

[jonathan]

And as usual your reply is entirely without
substance, reason, thought or civility.


You should be more embarrassed.

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:57:32 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 4/22/16 9:46 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:38:58 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/22/16 6:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>>>>
>>>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>>>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>>>>
>>>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>>>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>>>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>>>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>>>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It happens I know Mohammed Noor. Really, you're only embarrassing yourself.
>>
>> I suppose your buddy Mo can count on embarrassing any of his students that dare question
>> Darwinism in his classroom, but you don't have the same luxury here.
>>
>> I'm only embarrassed in your mind, and that's fine with me.
>
>Agreed. You lack the capacity. The embarrassment is only in the eyes of
>everyone who reads any of your posts. But should should know it's intense.

Agreed. Eddie's comments are pointlessly vitriolic and often clearly
indicate either a profound ignorance of whatever he is claiming to
discuss or a grotesque disdain for the idea of actually learning
anything. It is hard to comprehend of anyone reading his posts and not
coming away with the same conclusion.

>> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
>> on the subject?
>
>Sure. I know he doesn't deal in any misrepresentations and fallacies.
>Nor will his course be typical.

[jonathan]

On 4/23/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
>> on the subject?
>
>
> Do you have some reason why *not* knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you
> to pontificate on the subject?
>
> I suppose I should stop, but you make it sooo easy.

The way a debate works in this...

One side makes a claim as Steady Eddie
just did, and the other side refutes
that claim.

Which side is more convincing...wins.

But when one side makes a claim and the
reply is nothing more than 'you're full
of crap', without so much as even knowing
what the claim was, guess which side loses
the debate?

Eddie is winning this debate if for no
other reason than the shear ignorance of
the rebuttals. If one could even call the
sandbox replies a rebuttal.

[RonO]

On 4/22/2016 11:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>>>
>>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>>>
>>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>>>
>>>
>> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
>> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.
>
> You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.

What is sad is that you know who the dipshit is and it is the guy that
is admitting that he doesn't understand the junk enough to present and
summarize it in any cogent fashion.

>
>> Did you learn anything from those bogus immune system references that
>> you put up to counter the Abzyme reality?
>>
>> Do you understand why they didn't counter anything under discussion?
>>
>> Do you understand how stupid it was to even put them up?
>>
>> Luskin is the ID perp that just left the Discovery Institute. Did you
>> ever get any ID science from Luskin or Cornelius Hunter? What is it if
>> you claim that you did.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Ron Oblivious's natural reaction: deflect and disguise.

It isn't deflection and disguise when you are the one that is running
away in denial, and you are the one that is deflecting from the
essential point that you haven't got a clue about what you are talking
about.

That is just a fact. Look at how you are deflecting from it.

Can you even be that honest with yourself?

Really, put up what the point of the stupidity is, and I will tell you
if you are even on the right track. Hey Eddie, if you know anything
about me you should know that I taught genetics at the University of
Arkansas before going into industry. I did molecular genetic research
for years at the academic level. Since I started research as an
undergraduate I was doing academic research for decades. You can search
for me on Google scholar and get my publications (search "Ronald
Okimoto"). So I am among the people around here that can make sense out
of the claptrap arguments that IDiots like Hunter put up. If you want
to know more about it, just put up what you think the argument is and
get informed. Running in denial is the stupidest thing that you do, and
you do it all the time.

Ron Okimoto

[Jonathan]

On 4/23/2016 3:14 AM, John Vreeland wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>>>>
>>>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>>>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>>>>
>>>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>>>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>>>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>>>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>>>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
>>> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.
>>
>> You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.
>
> Do you realize that this is a tacit admission that you either did not
> listen to the recording or you do not have a clue what they are
> talking about, and that your vulgarity reflects exceptionally badly on
> you?
>

And how is your response any different? You didn't listen
to it or offer any summary or rebuttal to the point being
made.

I just listened to it and the interview.

The point is how evolution is taught does NOT
reflect current evolutionary thought.

The course taught by Noor introducing evolution as
the theory explaining the 'origin of species' as
Darwin states. And the course explains all about
the incrementalism of selection as the basic
mechanism of evolution, or as the basic explanation
for all the species on life on Earth.

That is not correct, the incrementalism in selection
DOES NOT explain speciation, or the 'origin of species'
and if you go to Noor's homepage the VERY FIRST THING HE SAYS
is speciation is the hot issue and is yet to be understood.

/The very first sentence/ he explains the origin
of species is by no means a settled issue, yet
that is not the FIRST THING he teaches his
undergrads, which represents the public's
general concept of evolution.
https://biology.duke.edu/people/mohamed-noor


If this were politics, this difference would
be called 'The Big Lie'.



Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

It's obvious neither of you bothered to listen
to the interview, and yet feel qualified to
offer up jr high school insults.

This level of discussion as the two of you are
displaying is embarrassing to witness
in an ng devoted to science.

Why should anyone change their minds based
on anything the two of you just said?

The point of the interview is valid and worthy
of debate, but since the two of you are totally
ignorant of the point of the poster, you wouldn't
know that.

[Bill Rogers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efpjE_wg_1M

"The crux of the argument made by proponents of Intelligent Design is that the theory of evolution is in serious trouble. They claim that the evidence for evolution is weak, the gaps in the theory are huge, and that these flaws should be taught to students. In this brilliant synthesis of scientific data and theory, Occidental College geologist, paleontologist, and evolutionary theorist Dr. Donald Prothero will present the best evidence we have that evolution happened, why Darwins theory still matters, and what the real controversies are in evolutionary biology."

[Thrinaxodon]

That this involves Casey Luskin is all we need to know.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, the Wedge document in all its
glory is available at:

http://antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

So much for ID being "scientific". Of course, there's also the issue
with /Of Panda's and People/, whereas it was initially "creationists"
and "Creator", but they changed the text to "Design Proponents" and
"Intelligent Agency", although one editor was lazy enough to just slap
"design proponents" over creationist and, valla! You get: "cdesign
proponentsists". ID is dead, that's all I have to say, after /Kitzmiller
v. Dover/
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html), ID no
longer had any means of injecting its bullshit into the classroom,
leaving us with summer "education" (cough *propaganda* cough) courses,
with them asking us for "donations" to lend a helping HAND to the
Dishonesty Institute's propaganda courses
(http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/02/does-the-dis-la.html).


I have to add a note about Hunter's credentials, he's a surgeon, if you
wanted to know. A SURGEON! Given that being a surgeon requires extensive
knowledge of human anatomy, as well as modern medicine's foundations of
biology (as Doubzhansky once said, "Nothing makes sense in biology
without the light of evolution."), Hunter must've gotten his medical
degree from Liberty University (which I`m sure he didn't, but I don't
know his alma matter).



--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 04:08:21 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

>On 4/23/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
>>> on the subject?
>>
>>
>> Do you have some reason why *not* knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you
>> to pontificate on the subject?
>>
>> I suppose I should stop, but you make it sooo easy.
>
>
>
>The way a debate works in this...
>
>One side makes a claim as Steady Eddie
>just did, and the other side refutes
>that claim.
>
>Which side is more convincing...wins.

Is that really how you think a debate works? If so, when do you think
the side making a claim is supposed to support their claim? Apparently
you agree with Steadly et al who insist they don't have to back up
their bald assertions.

>But when one side makes a claim and the
>reply is nothing more than 'you're full
>of crap', without so much as even knowing
>what the claim was, guess which side loses
>the debate?

No guessing needed here. The side that loses the debate is the one
that doesn't support their claims. Without that, there is no debate.
One can't win a race when one doesn't run in it. It's called
cheating.

>Eddie is winning this debate if for no
>other reason than the shear ignorance of
>the rebuttals. If one could even call the
>sandbox replies a rebuttal.

Your reply above explains a lot about your posts. Not only is Eddie
not winning this debate, by virtue of the fact that he refuses to run
in it, but the rebuttals you call ignorant are instead reasoned,
appropriate, and correct responses to his willful stupidity.

And it's "sheer", as in transparent. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:10:27 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/23/2016 3:14 AM, John Vreeland wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>>>>>
>>>>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>>>>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>>>>>
>>>>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>>>>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>>>>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>>>>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>>>>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
>>>> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.
>>>
>>> You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.
>>
>> Do you realize that this is a tacit admission that you either did not
>> listen to the recording or you do not have a clue what they are
>> talking about, and that your vulgarity reflects exceptionally badly on
>> you?
>>
>
>
>
>And how is your response any different? You didn't listen
>to it or offer any summary or rebuttal to the point being
>made.

Since you asked, John Vreeland didn't call anybody "dipshit", and his
question is relevant to Steadly's reply. Considering your posts, it's
no surprise that you fail to recognize these differences.

HTH but I doubt it.

>I just listened to it and the interview.
>
>The point is how evolution is taught does NOT
>reflect current evolutionary thought.
>
>The course taught by Noor introducing evolution as
>the theory explaining the 'origin of species' as
>Darwin states. And the course explains all about
>the incrementalism of selection as the basic
>mechanism of evolution, or as the basic explanation
>for all the species on life on Earth.
>
>That is not correct, the incrementalism in selection
>DOES NOT explain speciation, or the 'origin of species'
>and if you go to Noor's homepage the VERY FIRST THING HE SAYS
>is speciation is the hot issue and is yet to be understood.
>
>/The very first sentence/ he explains the origin
>of species is by no means a settled issue, yet
>that is not the FIRST THING he teaches his
>undergrads, which represents the public's
>general concept of evolution.
>https://biology.duke.edu/people/mohamed-noor
>
>
>If this were politics, this difference would
>be called 'The Big Lie'.

[Steady Eddie]

Excellent!
Then you can be content to let others judge for themselves.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016 01:53:57 UTC-6, John Vreeland wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:03:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2016 8:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >> > This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
> >> >
> >> > EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
> >> > http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
> >> >
> >> > EPISODE DESCRIPTION
> >> > On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
> >> > signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
> >> > Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
> >> > misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Go for it and give us a summary, but my guess is that you wouldn't have
> >> a clue about what they were talking about even after watching the series.
> >
> >You don't watch it, dipshit. You listen to it.
>
> Do you realize that this is a tacit admission that you either did not
> listen to the recording or you do not have a clue what they are
> talking about, and that your vulgarity reflects exceptionally badly on
> you?

Do you realize that not all people wear your "glasses", and your opinion is not an authority?

> >> Did you learn anything from those bogus immune system references that
> >> you put up to counter the Abzyme reality?
> >>
> >> Do you understand why they didn't counter anything under discussion?
> >>
> >> Do you understand how stupid it was to even put them up?
> >>
> >> Luskin is the ID perp that just left the Discovery Institute. Did you
> >> ever get any ID science from Luskin or Cornelius Hunter? What is it if
> >> you claim that you did.
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> >Ron Oblivious's natural reaction: deflect and disguise.
>
> Do you realize that this wholly unneccesary reaction looks like
> projection?
> --
> Church of the FSM: "I believe _because_ it is ridiculous."

Do I care what you think of me?

[David Canzi]

On 04/23/16 04:08, jonathan wrote:
> On 4/23/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you
>>> to pontificate
>>> on the subject?
>>
>>
>> Do you have some reason why *not* knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you
>> to pontificate on the subject?
>>
>> I suppose I should stop, but you make it sooo easy.
>
> The way a debate works in this...
>
> One side makes a claim as Steady Eddie
> just did, and the other side refutes
> that claim.
>
> Which side is more convincing...wins.

The skills that make one good at debating are not the skills
that make one good at finding out or figuring out what is true.
If I want to learn things that are true, I'm better off listening
to somebody with a few modest skills for finding out and figuring
out than somebody with all of the most excellent debating skills.

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016 16:28:57 UTC-6, Thrinaxodon wrote:
> Steady Eddie wrote:
> > This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
> >
> > EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
> > http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
> >
> > EPISODE DESCRIPTION
> > On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
> > signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
> > Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
> > misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
> >
> >
> That this involves Casey Luskin is all we need to know.
>
> Oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, the Wedge document in all its
> glory is available at:
>
> http://antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

I'm familiar with the "Wedge Document".
It is an excellent, forthright declaration of war on atheistic philosophies in all their forms,
especially their scientific pretences.

Sure, the timeline was way over-optimistic, but they got the order of goals right, and are
plugging right along on it.

The problem arises when people assume that the DI is at the stage of promoting ID in the
public classrooms.
They're not. And they know that. And that's what they say.
DI's stated goal at this point in the Wedge plan is to raise awareness in the scientific fields
of the likelihood that naturalism is a dead-end philosophy.
It's just taking way longer than they planned.
But it's going all according to the Wedge Document.

> So much for ID being "scientific". Of course, there's also the issue
> with /Of Panda's and People/, whereas it was initially "creationists"
> and "Creator", but they changed the text to "Design Proponents" and
> "Intelligent Agency", although one editor was lazy enough to just slap
> "design proponents" over creationist and, valla! You get: "cdesign
> proponentsists". ID is dead, that's all I have to say, after /Kitzmiller
> v. Dover/
> (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html), ID no
> longer had any means of injecting its bullshit into the classroom,
> leaving us with summer "education" (cough *propaganda* cough) courses,
> with them asking us for "donations" to lend a helping HAND to the
> Dishonesty Institute's propaganda courses
> (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/02/does-the-dis-la.html).
>
>
> I have to add a note about Hunter's credentials, he's a surgeon, if you
> wanted to know. A SURGEON! Given that being a surgeon requires extensive
> knowledge of human anatomy, as well as modern medicine's foundations of
> biology (as Doubzhansky once said, "Nothing makes sense in biology
> without the light of evolution."), Hunter must've gotten his medical
> degree from Liberty University (which I`m sure he didn't, but I don't
> know his alma matter).

...So what's your point about Hunter?

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:38:58 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:

Do you happen to know what Dr. Noor's definition of Evolution is?

"Change through time over generations".
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
0:26

As his course focuses on "defending Evolution" from its (mostly ID) opponents, it's funny
that he'd choose this definition - no-one in the ID camp disagrees with it.

OF COURSE life forms change over generations - that's called ADAPTATION, and it's usually
cyclical around a mean, if given a cyclically-changing environment.

In Noor's sense, adaptation is "Evolution".

We don't have a quarrel with the occurrence of adaptation, so Noor's "Defence of evolution"
is fighting-off a STRAW MAN.

Our quarrel, as I'm always careful to specify, is with "Darwinism", the most critical distinction
being that Darwin posited that ALL EXTANT LIFE FORMS derived from one or a few "Common Ancestors" by means of the Evolutionary process of adaptation.

Plainly stated:
Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
on a global scale, both of time and space.

And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.

Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.

So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
of adaptation within a species or subspecies.

That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.

Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...

[John Harshman]

On 4/24/16 6:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:38:58 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/22/16 6:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>>>
>>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>>>
>>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>>>
>>>
>> It happens I know Mohammed Noor. Really, you're only embarrassing yourself.
>
> Do you happen to know what Dr. Noor's definition of Evolution is?
>
> "Change through time over generations".
> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
> 0:26
>
> As his course focuses on "defending Evolution" from its (mostly ID) opponents, it's funny
> that he'd choose this definition - no-one in the ID camp disagrees with it.
>
> OF COURSE life forms change over generations - that's called ADAPTATION, and it's usually
> cyclical around a mean, if given a cyclically-changing environment.
>
> In Noor's sense, adaptation is "Evolution".

True. Well, of course it is. By everyone's definition, unless you know
of some definition I don't.

> We don't have a quarrel with the occurrence of adaptation, so Noor's "Defence of evolution"
> is fighting-off a STRAW MAN.

Really? Then why are creationists so often anxious to discredit known
cases of evolution by that definition? I might raise the example of
industrial melanism in peppered moths, which creationists are constantly
attacking.

> Our quarrel, as I'm always careful to specify, is with "Darwinism", the most critical distinction
> being that Darwin posited that ALL EXTANT LIFE FORMS derived from one or a few "Common Ancestors" by means of the Evolutionary process of adaptation.

Yes, that's one of your quarrels. But it isn't the only one.

> Plainly stated:
> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
> on a global scale, both of time and space.

I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
"Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
historians of science and, of course, creationists.

> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.

Bet you can't find that assertion.

> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
>
> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.

Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
them. But are you sure you aren't?

> That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
> It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
> them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
>
> Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
>

It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
courtesy to make clear who's talking.

Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
evidence.

[Steady Eddie]

I can't speak for others on the topic, but I have no conceptual quarrel with the peppered moth
phenomenon. If the science was done right (which some people contest for some reason I don't
remember and don't care about) it seems to me a classic case of adaptation.

> > Our quarrel, as I'm always careful to specify, is with "Darwinism", the most critical distinction
> > being that Darwin posited that ALL EXTANT LIFE FORMS derived from one or a few "Common Ancestors" by means of the Evolutionary process of adaptation.
>
> Yes, that's one of your quarrels. But it isn't the only one.

Okay, I should not pretend to speak for anyone else.
But, this is MY quarrel in the context of Noor's characterization of "Evolution".
He knows damn well there's more to his idea of Evolution than that.

> > Plainly stated:
> > Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
> > on a global scale, both of time and space.
>
> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
> historians of science and, of course, creationists.

What do you think is untrue about it?

> > And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
>
> Bet you can't find that assertion.

Two Important Principles of Evolution:
..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...

> > Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
> >
> > So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
> > to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
> > of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
>
> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
> them. But are you sure you aren't?

Why, do yo think I am?

> > That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
> > It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
> > them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
> >
> > Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
> >
> It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
> Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
> courtesy to make clear who's talking.

Wow, did anyone see how he deflected the attention from my point to some irrelevant stylistic
comparison?
BTW, I'm flattered to be compared with Casey Luskin.

> Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
> defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
> this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
> evidence.

"Population-level evidence" is all there IS to support adaptation by natural selection.
For the next step, you have to swallow the pill.

Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...

Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
main headings...s

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 20:08:52 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/24/16 6:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:38:58 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 4/22/16 6:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
> >>>
> >>> EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
> >>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
> >>>
> >>> EPISODE DESCRIPTION
> >>> On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
> >>> signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
> >>> Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
> >>> misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It happens I know Mohammed Noor. Really, you're only embarrassing yourself.
> >
> > Do you happen to know what Dr. Noor's definition of Evolution is?
> >
> > "Change through time over generations".
> > https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
> > 0:26
> >
> > As his course focuses on "defending Evolution" from its (mostly ID) opponents, it's funny
> > that he'd choose this definition - no-one in the ID camp disagrees with it.
> >
> > OF COURSE life forms change over generations - that's called ADAPTATION, and it's usually
> > cyclical around a mean, if given a cyclically-changing environment.
> >
> > In Noor's sense, adaptation is "Evolution".
>
> True. Well, of course it is. By everyone's definition, unless you know
> of some definition I don't.

Good point. I should have said that, in Noor's professed sense, "Evolution" is simple adaptation.
Until, of course, he switches his definition to include "(universal) Common Ancestry".

[Steady Eddie]

BTW, the second "important principle Evolution":

Natural Selection produces the "appearance of design", whatever he means by that.
Which implies that NS actually produced all the different structures and processes in all life forms.

But he won't come right out and say that till later in the course, I suspect...

[Steady Eddie]

BZZZT!

Basic Principles and Evidence for Evolution
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
T=4:47

He actually uses HORSE EVOLUTION as an example of a fulfilled Evolutionary prediction!

Problem is, he forgot, this time, to include the disclaimer that THIS IS NOT THE HORSE LINEAGE; these
fossils were 'CONTEMPORARY' with different species of the horse lineage, not actual MEMBERS of the
lineage.

The problem with THAT is:
ANY fossil found in the same layers as these specimens were CONTEMPORARIES of the supposed real
horse ancestor that was presumed to be there at the time.
SO WHAT?

[John Harshman]

I'm glad you realize you can't speak for other creationists. So instead
of "we", you should say "I"; you can't even speak for Casey Luskin.

>>> Our quarrel, as I'm always careful to specify, is with "Darwinism", the most critical distinction
>>> being that Darwin posited that ALL EXTANT LIFE FORMS derived from one or a few "Common Ancestors" by means of the Evolutionary process of adaptation.
>>
>> Yes, that's one of your quarrels. But it isn't the only one.
>
> Okay, I should not pretend to speak for anyone else.
> But, this is MY quarrel in the context of Noor's characterization of "Evolution".
> He knows damn well there's more to his idea of Evolution than that.

You have to distinguish between the definition of evolution and
everything we know about it, which is much more.

>>> Plainly stated:
>>> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
>>> on a global scale, both of time and space.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
>> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
>> historians of science and, of course, creationists.
>
> What do you think is untrue about it?

Well, for one thing it had an incorrect view of how heredity works.

>>> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
>>
>> Bet you can't find that assertion.
>
> Two Important Principles of Evolution:
> ..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

True. But where does he equate the one with the other? The definition
evolution is not the same as an important principle of evolution.

> ...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...

You're making that up.

>>> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
>>>
>>> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
>>> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
>>> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
>>
>> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
>> them. But are you sure you aren't?
>
> Why, do yo think I am?

It's very common for creationists to claim they have no problem with
evolution within species (or within "kinds"), and then to attack all the
published evidence for evolution within species (or "kinds"). So that's
why I have to ask.

>>> That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
>>> It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
>>> them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
>>>
>>> Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
>>>
>> It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
>> Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
>> courtesy to make clear who's talking.
>
> Wow, did anyone see how he deflected the attention from my point to some irrelevant stylistic
> comparison?

It isn't irrelevant; it's important for clarity. And wait, you have a point?

> BTW, I'm flattered to be compared with Casey Luskin.

Well, that shows how deluded you are if nothing else does.

>> Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
>> defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
>> this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
>> evidence.
>
> "Population-level evidence" is all there IS to support adaptation by natural selection.
> For the next step, you have to swallow the pill.

But of course adaptation by natural selection isn't all there is to
evolution. I expect he will use relevant evidence to support each
separate point.

> Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...
>
> Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
> main headings...s
>

Whose main headings? Where are you getting these headings? None of them
appear in the course syllabus.

[John Harshman]

No, it doesn't imply that. As usual, you are confused.

> But he won't come right out and say that till later in the course, I suspect...

You will have to wait until he does, then.

[John Harshman]

No, that isn't true. Evolution isn't adaptation, and his definition
(which is a version of the most common definition) doesn't say so.

[John Harshman]

Where do you get that information? How do you know they aren't actual
members? And what exactly was the prediction?

> The problem with THAT is:
> ANY fossil found in the same layers as these specimens were CONTEMPORARIES of the supposed real
> horse ancestor that was presumed to be there at the time.
> SO WHAT?
>

I don't think you have any comprehension of the claims being made here.

[Steady Eddie]

You have to get honest and incorporate the 'main points' of "Evolution" in your definition.
What's so bad about including that you believe it is MUCH MORE than simple adaptation.

> >>> Plainly stated:
> >>> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
> >>> on a global scale, both of time and space.
> >>
> >> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
> >> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
> >> historians of science and, of course, creationists.
> >
> > What do you think is untrue about it?
>
> Well, for one thing it had an incorrect view of how heredity works.

That's a cop-out.
You know damn well that Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution on a global scale, both of time and space.

> >>> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
> >>
> >> Bet you can't find that assertion.
> >
> > Two Important Principles of Evolution:
> > ..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
> > https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>
> True.

Yes, TRUE.

> But where does he equate the one with the other? The definition
> evolution is not the same as an important principle of evolution.

Really, this bait-and-switch on Noor's definition of "Evolution" doesn't really bother me.
Let's just consider the "definition" and the "TWO important principles" combined by the end of your
second lecture into - what shall we say - the MEANING OF THE TERM EVOLUTION.

And it's painfully obvious that he believes Evolution does more than just cause adaptation of a species
or genus.

> > ...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...
>
> You're making that up.

And you're not refuting it.
You can't.
You know that's where you check your critical thinking faculties and buy into the dream of adaptation
building new structures and systems.

> >>> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
> >>>
> >>> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
> >>> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
> >>> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
> >>
> >> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
> >> them. But are you sure you aren't?
> >
> > Why, do yo think I am?
>
> It's very common for creationists to claim they have no problem with
> evolution within species (or within "kinds"), and then to attack all the
> published evidence for evolution within species (or "kinds"). So that's
> why I have to ask.

Agreed - people can be idiotic and argue against anything, whatever their world-view
So?

> >>> That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
> >>> It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
> >>> them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
> >>>
> >> It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
> >> Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
> >> courtesy to make clear who's talking.
> >
> > Wow, did anyone see how he deflected the attention from my point to some irrelevant stylistic
> > comparison?
>
> It isn't irrelevant; it's important for clarity. And wait, you have a point?
>
> > BTW, I'm flattered to be compared with Casey Luskin.
>
> Well, that shows how deluded you are if nothing else does.
>
> >> Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
> >> defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
> >> this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
> >> evidence.
> >
> > "Population-level evidence" is all there IS to support adaptation by natural selection.
> > For the next step, you have to swallow the pill.
>
> But of course adaptation by natural selection isn't all there is to
> evolution. I expect he will use relevant evidence to support each
> separate point.

When you say "evolution", are you referring to its definition, or its meaning?

> > Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...
> >
> > Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
> > main headings...s
> >
> Whose main headings? Where are you getting these headings? None of them
> appear in the course syllabus.

They're from the videos you can play if you scroll down; previews of the course (or at least some highlights, I suspect):
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

[Steady Eddie]

I think his only examples of Evolution are cases of simple adaptation.

[Steady Eddie]

Enlighten us, Professor; what constitutes the "appearance of design" produced by natural selection?

> > But he won't come right out and say that till later in the course, I suspect...
>
> You will have to wait until he does, then.

I know what he means, and it's exactly what I said. I have no need to hear him say it out loud.

[Steady Eddie]

You'll have to watch the above preview video for his course. I even time stamped it for you.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:30:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 22 April 2016 22:38:58 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/22/16 6:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > This could be an interesting series... to see the indoctrination process from a critical student's perspective...
>> >
>> > EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM: PART 1
>> > http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2016-04-22T16_50_37-07_00
>> >
>> > EPISODE DESCRIPTION
>> > On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently
>> > signed up to take a free online course at Coursera titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution," taught by
>> > Duke University professor Mohamed Noor. Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the
>> > misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
>> >
>> >
>> It happens I know Mohammed Noor. Really, you're only embarrassing yourself.
>
>Do you happen to know what Dr. Noor's definition of Evolution is?
>
>"Change through time over generations".
>https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>
>0:26

I will make two points here:

First, the link above is useless. It brings up an introductory web
page, but there are no links to any videos on it. Whatever it is you
think your illustrating by using them, it's not working.

I suspect that the link you really want is one to Dr. Noor's first
lecture for the course:

<https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/OCKVK/what-is-evolution-g>

I do not know if this link works for those who haven't enrolled in the
course. But enrollment is free, and one incurs no obligation in
enrolling, so if anybody is interested in hearing what Dr. Noor
actually says, they should do so.

Second, your statement above dishonestly misrepresents Dr. Noor's
definition of Evolution. In the very same slide where it says what
you say, it *also* says:

"If within an individual, it's not evolution"

This is an important distinction, and refutes the very heart of your
claims below about adaptation. My impression is you're playing
another dishonest word game, where you pretend that your meaning of
"adaptation" is the same as Dr. Noor's meaning.

IIUC your meaning refers to purely phenotypic changes, non-genetic
responses of individuals to the environment. But those non-genetic
adaptations by individuals are not the kinds of genetic adaptations of
populations to which biologists refer.

Individuals don't evolve, at least not in the same way biologists
define evolution. The kind of adaptation you're talking about is
relevant only to Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics, which
is proven false and irrelevant to Darwinian Evolution.

I challenge you to make explicit what you mean by adaptation,
including what you think are examples of it. If you do that, it's
almost certain that your definition will either A) show that you mean
something entirely different than Dr. Noor, or B) show that it doesn't
support your assertions about adaptation and Dr. Noor's definition of
evolution.

[jillery]

Once again, the link you provided is to an introductory web page. I
do not know what video you're actually describing.

And without seeing the video, I can't figure out what problem you're
actually talking about.

Now maybe one of your fellow circle jerkers will again blow smoke for
you to run away here, but it would be nice if you actually posted
working links to what your talking about regarding peppered moth and
horses, along with a coherent description of your objections to them.

[jillery]

Be careful here. My impression is that Steadly is playing a word game
about the meaning of "adaptation". IIUC Steadly is referring to
non-genetic, purely phenotypic changes of individuals, as contrasted
to genetic, heritable changes within populations.

I took this course when it was first offered from Coursera. The
current incarnation appears to use the same material. Even the first
time, there was a group of individuals more concerned with injecting
into discussions their Creationist and IDist dogma, rather than
actually learning anything from the class. My impression is Steadly's
cites illustrate a continuation of those efforts.

[Steady Eddie]

Wrong, as usual.

[Steady Eddie]

The videos are all in the "preview" section. I gave the title of the video I was discussing:
"Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution".

[John Harshman]

You should note that the definition says nothing about adaptation. It
isn't the job of a definition to tell you everything. It's the job to
distinguish evolution from not-evolution.

>>>>> Plainly stated:
>>>>> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
>>>>> on a global scale, both of time and space.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
>>>> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
>>>> historians of science and, of course, creationists.
>>>
>>> What do you think is untrue about it?
>>
>> Well, for one thing it had an incorrect view of how heredity works.
>
> That's a cop-out.
> You know damn well that Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on
> species necessarily implies macroevolution on a global scale, both of
> time and space.

No, I don't know any such thing. I don't even know what you think
"Darwinism" means. As I've told you before, it's a obsolete term now
used mainly by creationists.

>>>>> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
>>>>
>>>> Bet you can't find that assertion.
>>>
>>> Two Important Principles of Evolution:
>>> ..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>>
>> True.
>
> Yes, TRUE.
>
>> But where does he equate the one with the other? The definition
>> evolution is not the same as an important principle of evolution.
>
> Really, this bait-and-switch on Noor's definition of "Evolution" doesn't really bother me.
> Let's just consider the "definition" and the "TWO important principles" combined by the end of your
> second lecture into - what shall we say - the MEANING OF THE TERM EVOLUTION.
>
> And it's painfully obvious that he believes Evolution does more than just cause adaptation of a species
> or genus.

Well of course it does. But that isn't part of the definition. The earth
goes around the sun, but that isn't part of the definition of gravity.

>>> ...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...
>>
>> You're making that up.
>
> And you're not refuting it.
> You can't.
> You know that's where you check your critical thinking faculties and buy into the dream of adaptation
> building new structures and systems.

That is the most reasonable source of new structures and systems. I
don't see another.

>>>>> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
>>>>> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
>>>>> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
>>>>
>>>> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
>>>> them. But are you sure you aren't?
>>>
>>> Why, do yo think I am?
>>
>> It's very common for creationists to claim they have no problem with
>> evolution within species (or within "kinds"), and then to attack all the
>> published evidence for evolution within species (or "kinds"). So that's
>> why I have to ask.
>
> Agreed - people can be idiotic and argue against anything, whatever their world-view
> So?

That's why I have to ask.

>>>>> That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
>>>>> It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
>>>>> them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
>>>> Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
>>>> courtesy to make clear who's talking.
>>>
>>> Wow, did anyone see how he deflected the attention from my point to some irrelevant stylistic
>>> comparison?
>>
>> It isn't irrelevant; it's important for clarity. And wait, you have a point?
>>
>>> BTW, I'm flattered to be compared with Casey Luskin.
>>
>> Well, that shows how deluded you are if nothing else does.
>>
>>>> Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
>>>> defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
>>>> this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> "Population-level evidence" is all there IS to support adaptation by natural selection.
>>> For the next step, you have to swallow the pill.
>>
>> But of course adaptation by natural selection isn't all there is to
>> evolution. I expect he will use relevant evidence to support each
>> separate point.
>
> When you say "evolution", are you referring to its definition, or its meaning?

Aren't those the same thing? Neither. I'm referring to the subject and
the phenomenon.

>>> Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...
>>>
>>> Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
>>> main headings...s
>>>
>> Whose main headings? Where are you getting these headings? None of them
>> appear in the course syllabus.
>
> They're from the videos you can play if you scroll down; previews of the course (or at least some highlights, I suspect):
> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

Better you should look at the syllabus. I still don't know what videos
you're talking about, but it seems to me that the syllabus would be a
better guide to course content.

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 25 April 2016 00:28:51 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

Wrong, still.
John knows what I'm talking about.

[John Harshman]

Since you haven't taken the course, how could you possibly know that?
Also, your definition of "adaptation" (change within species) seems to
contradict your statement below that he uses horse evolution as an example.

[John Harshman]

Wrong how, exactly?

[John Harshman]

Eddie, is that true?

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:46:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Wrong, as usual.


So where's your explanation of what you mean by "adaptation"? Don't
just SAY I'm wrong. PROVE it.

Unless, of course, you're happy in your role as village idiot.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 01:00:03 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 04:08:21 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/23/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, do you have some reason why knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you to pontificate
>>>> on the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have some reason why *not* knowing Mohammed Noor qualifies you
>>> to pontificate on the subject?
>>>
>>> I suppose I should stop, but you make it sooo easy.
>>
>>
>>
>>The way a debate works in this...
>>
>>One side makes a claim as Steady Eddie
>>just did, and the other side refutes
>>that claim.
>>
>>Which side is more convincing...wins.
>
>
>Is that really how you think a debate works? If so, when do you think
>the side making a claim is supposed to support their claim? Apparently
>you agree with Steadly et al who insist they don't have to back up
>their bald assertions.


No answer here. Apparently all those big words exceeded your reading
comprehension.

[jillery]

What's so hard about you saying what you mean?

>John knows what I'm talking about.

That's not the relevant question here. Instead, it's whether *you*
know what you're talking about. John has already stated his opinion
about that.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>The videos are all in the "preview" section. I gave the title of the video I was discussing:
>"Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution".

Why can't you post a direct link? For those who want to know what
Noor really says, here it is:

<https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g>

This lecture discusses horses. Peppered moths are covered in a
previous lecture, which I also provided a direct link elsethread. Your
welcome.

Now that I did that part of your job, where's your coherent
explanation of what you think is the problem with his lectures? The
gibberish you posted previously doesn't parse.

[John Harshman]

I was eventually able to find what you're talking about, though no
thanks to you. So the prediction was that we should be able to find
examples of gradual change over time.

Now, what are you trying to say? What do you mean by your disclaimer?
There of course is no such thing as "the horse lineage", because the
horses form a tree, not a single line. But how is that an objection to
the story?

Also, how many different "kinds" do you think horses are?

>>> The problem with THAT is:
>>> ANY fossil found in the same layers as these specimens were CONTEMPORARIES of the supposed real
>>> horse ancestor that was presumed to be there at the time.
>>> SO WHAT?
>>>
>> I don't think you have any comprehension of the claims being made here.
>

And that much is clear from the video.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:09:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

><https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g>
>
>This lecture discusses horses. Peppered moths are covered in a
>previous lecture, which I also provided a direct link elsethread. Your
>welcome.

To preempt the pedant patrol, the above should be "You're welcome".
I need a grammar checker. I haven't had one since her husband died.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:24:51 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:


>I was eventually able to find what you're talking about, though no
>thanks to you. So the prediction was that we should be able to find
>examples of gradual change over time.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, will you say if you had to enroll in the
course to watch the videos?

[Steady Eddie]

That's when he starts talking about Darwinian evolution.
Watch his videos if you want to reply to my comments.

[Steady Eddie]

The definition is the same as that for adaptation.

> >>>>> Plainly stated:
> >>>>> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
> >>>>> on a global scale, both of time and space.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
> >>>> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
> >>>> historians of science and, of course, creationists.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think is untrue about it?
> >>
> >> Well, for one thing it had an incorrect view of how heredity works.
> >
> > That's a cop-out.
> > You know damn well that Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on
> > species necessarily implies macroevolution on a global scale, both of
> > time and space.
>
> No, I don't know any such thing. I don't even know what you think
> "Darwinism" means. As I've told you before, it's a obsolete term now
> used mainly by creationists.

Then you don't know much about Darwinism.

> >>>>> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bet you can't find that assertion.
> >>>
> >>> Two Important Principles of Evolution:
> >>> ..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
> >>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
> >>
> >> True.
> >
> > Yes, TRUE.
> >
> >> But where does he equate the one with the other? The definition
> >> evolution is not the same as an important principle of evolution.
> >
> > Really, this bait-and-switch on Noor's definition of "Evolution" doesn't really bother me.
> > Let's just consider the "definition" and the "TWO important principles" combined by the end of your
> > second lecture into - what shall we say - the MEANING OF THE TERM EVOLUTION.
> >
> > And it's painfully obvious that he believes Evolution does more than just cause adaptation of a species
> > or genus.
>
> Well of course it does. But that isn't part of the definition. The earth
> goes around the sun, but that isn't part of the definition of gravity.

We'll see.. if he takes advantage of the definition bait-and-switch later on to obfuscate the issues...

> >>> ...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...
> >>
> >> You're making that up.
> >
> > And you're not refuting it.
> > You can't.
> > You know that's where you check your critical thinking faculties and buy into the dream of adaptation
> > building new structures and systems.
>
> That is the most reasonable source of new structures and systems. I
> don't see another.

Of course you don't. But science can infer UNSEEN causes.

> >>>>> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
> >>>>> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
> >>>>> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
> >>>> them. But are you sure you aren't?
> >>>
> >>> Why, do yo think I am?
> >>
> >> It's very common for creationists to claim they have no problem with
> >> evolution within species (or within "kinds"), and then to attack all the
> >> published evidence for evolution within species (or "kinds"). So that's
> >> why I have to ask.
> >
> > Agreed - people can be idiotic and argue against anything, whatever their world-view
> > So?
>
> That's why I have to ask.

No, you don't have to a ask anything until the issue comes up.
YOU hav to ask because you're an asshole.

> >>>>> That's what all the famous idiots from the Darwinian Establishment do.
> >>>>> It makes a good sound bite, and nobody is really paying attention to them anyway, so to
> >>>>> them, from a distance, the STRAW MAN looks real, and they get on with their day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dr. Noor doesn't have that luxury, as Hunter and I take a look at what else Noor teaches...
> >>>>>
> >>>> It's hard to tell how much of this you wrote and how much is quotes from
> >>>> Casey Luskin. Please try to do better in the future; it's just ordinary
> >>>> courtesy to make clear who's talking.
> >>>
> >>> Wow, did anyone see how he deflected the attention from my point to some irrelevant stylistic
> >>> comparison?
> >>
> >> It isn't irrelevant; it's important for clarity. And wait, you have a point?
> >>
> >>> BTW, I'm flattered to be compared with Casey Luskin.
> >>
> >> Well, that shows how deluded you are if nothing else does.
> >>
> >>>> Now I suspect that if Mo is actually spending a lot of his time
> >>>> defending evolution against creationists (and is there evidence that
> >>>> this is the main thrust?) he will go way beyond simple population-level
> >>>> evidence.
> >>>
> >>> "Population-level evidence" is all there IS to support adaptation by natural selection.
> >>> For the next step, you have to swallow the pill.
> >>
> >> But of course adaptation by natural selection isn't all there is to
> >> evolution. I expect he will use relevant evidence to support each
> >> separate point.
> >
> > When you say "evolution", are you referring to its definition, or its meaning?
>
> Aren't those the same thing? Neither. I'm referring to the subject and
> the phenomenon.

Check, so you're referring to the Darwinist meaning of the term, rather than the definition.

> >>> Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...
> >>>
> >>> Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
> >>> main headings...s
> >>>
> >> Whose main headings? Where are you getting these headings? None of them
> >> appear in the course syllabus.
> >
> > They're from the videos you can play if you scroll down; previews of the course (or at least some highlights, I suspect):
> > https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>
> Better you should look at the syllabus. I still don't know what videos
> you're talking about, but it seems to me that the syllabus would be a
> better guide to course content.

Click on the video in the "preview" section if you want to see the videos.

[Steady Eddie]

Thank you, Jillery. You're a technical wizard.
Now start from the first one and go through it. I am currently on the second one.
Noor's "disclaimer" of the horse lineage is in the first one.

[Steady Eddie]

It's Noor's disclaimer that he makes in his first video.

> There of course is no such thing as "the horse lineage", because the
> horses form a tree, not a single line. But how is that an objection to
> the story?

If you don't think there is a "horse" lineage, I can't help you.

> Also, how many different "kinds" do you think horses are?

That's irrelevant.

[John Harshman]

Then you have redefined the word to mean something entirely different
from the usual meaning. When you make up a personal definition, don't
expect anyone to know what you're saying.

I think you may be confusing evolution with natural selection.

>>>>>>> Plainly stated:
>>>>>>> Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on species necessarily implies macroevolution
>>>>>>> on a global scale, both of time and space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's true. But of course there is no such thing as
>>>>>> "Darwinism" these days; it's an obsolete term, used by nobody except
>>>>>> historians of science and, of course, creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think is untrue about it?
>>>>
>>>> Well, for one thing it had an incorrect view of how heredity works.
>>>
>>> That's a cop-out.
>>> You know damn well that Darwinism holds that microevolution acting on
>>> species necessarily implies macroevolution on a global scale, both of
>>> time and space.
>>
>> No, I don't know any such thing. I don't even know what you think
>> "Darwinism" means. As I've told you before, it's a obsolete term now
>> used mainly by creationists.
>
> Then you don't know much about Darwinism.

I know that neoDarwinism, in its original meaning, was a reaction to
Darwinism that rejected the effects of use and disuse and blending
inheritance, so presumably Darwinism incorporated those. What do you
know about Darwinism?

>>>>>>> And, to be honest, THAT is what Noor is REALLY here to assert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bet you can't find that assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two Important Principles of Evolution:
>>>>> ..."All species SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY..."
>>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>> Yes, TRUE.
>>>
>>>> But where does he equate the one with the other? The definition
>>>> evolution is not the same as an important principle of evolution.
>>>
>>> Really, this bait-and-switch on Noor's definition of "Evolution" doesn't really bother me.
>>> Let's just consider the "definition" and the "TWO important principles" combined by the end of your
>>> second lecture into - what shall we say - the MEANING OF THE TERM EVOLUTION.
>>>
>>> And it's painfully obvious that he believes Evolution does more than just cause adaptation of a species
>>> or genus.
>>
>> Well of course it does. But that isn't part of the definition. The earth
>> goes around the sun, but that isn't part of the definition of gravity.
>
> We'll see.. if he takes advantage of the definition bait-and-switch later on to obfuscate the issues...

It's only a definition bait-and-switch if he's trying to deceive you. I
bet he doesn't. You think he's going to show that alleles change
frequency and claim that proves common descent. Bet he doesn't. He will
provide different evidence for common descent.

>>>>> ...and down the rabbit-hole he goes, pulling his listener behind him...
>>>>
>>>> You're making that up.
>>>
>>> And you're not refuting it.
>>> You can't.
>>> You know that's where you check your critical thinking faculties and buy into the dream of adaptation
>>> building new structures and systems.
>>
>> That is the most reasonable source of new structures and systems. I
>> don't see another.
>
> Of course you don't. But science can infer UNSEEN causes.

Playing word-magic games there. I'm glad you finally admit that
inference is a tool of science. Unfortunately, the data don't imply the
unseen cause you particularly want.

>>>>>>> Too bad he doesn't have the guts to own up to it right up front.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in cowardly evading a chance to forthrightly state what it is he is defending, he is trying
>>>>>>> to "stack the deck" in his own favor, by caricaturing IDers as disagreeing with the existence
>>>>>>> of adaptation within a species or subspecies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, many creationists do exactly that. I'm glad you aren't one of
>>>>>> them. But are you sure you aren't?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, do yo think I am?
>>>>
>>>> It's very common for creationists to claim they have no problem with
>>>> evolution within species (or within "kinds"), and then to attack all the
>>>> published evidence for evolution within species (or "kinds"). So that's
>>>> why I have to ask.
>>>
>>> Agreed - people can be idiotic and argue against anything, whatever their world-view
>>> So?
>>
>> That's why I have to ask.
>
> No, you don't have to a ask anything until the issue comes up.
> YOU hav to ask because you're an asshole.

We'll see.

I will agree that the definition doesn't necessary encompass everything
we mean. But I'm also pretty sure that different meanings are clear from
context, and nobody is trying to conflate any of them.

>>>>> Yes, I am looking forward to watching his next preview...
>>>>>
>>>>> Between the topics of 'Why Evolution is true' and a 'defence from critics' sections, that's two thirds of his
>>>>> main headings...s
>>>>>
>>>> Whose main headings? Where are you getting these headings? None of them
>>>> appear in the course syllabus.
>>>
>>> They're from the videos you can play if you scroll down; previews of the course (or at least some highlights, I suspect):
>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution
>>
>> Better you should look at the syllabus. I still don't know what videos
>> you're talking about, but it seems to me that the syllabus would be a
>> better guide to course content.
>
> Click on the video in the "preview" section if you want to see the videos.

I note you can only see one at a time doing that. Have you even looked
at the syllabus?

[John Harshman]

First we have to make sense of your comments. When you say his only
examples of evolution are cases of simple adaptation, do you include
horses and whales in that?

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/16 11:05 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:24:51 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I was eventually able to find what you're talking about, though no
>> thanks to you. So the prediction was that we should be able to find
>> examples of gradual change over time.
>
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, will you say if you had to enroll in the
> course to watch the videos?

I didn't. Though I imagine it's only a selection of what you would get
in the full course.

[John Harshman]

Didn't find that disclaimer. Where exactly is it?

>> There of course is no such thing as "the horse lineage", because the
>> horses form a tree, not a single line. But how is that an objection to
>> the story?
>
> If you don't think there is a "horse" lineage, I can't help you.

Well of course you can't help me. You are incapable of helping anyone
with anything. Your ignorance is near complete, and your arrogance
armors you against learning.

>> Also, how many different "kinds" do you think horses are?
>
> That's irrelevant.

No it isn't. The question is whether horse evolution is what you call
"adaptation" and claim to have no problem with, or whether it's what you
call "macroevolution", which you reject. So please answer.

[John Harshman]

On 4/25/16 11:05 AM, jillery wrote:

Ah, here we are:

"Can I preview the course content before I enroll and pay?

You can preview a selection of the course content (usually the first
week’s lectures) by selecting the “Preview Course” option. Once you
enroll and purchase the course, you’ll have access to all content once
the session begins (for session-based course) or immediately (for
self-paced courses). If you choose to explore the course without
purchasing, you may not be able to access certain assignments."

[Steady Eddie]

I know, it's quite confusing. When he shows examples of his DEFINITION of evolution, in his FIRST video,
he uses examples of adaptation i.e. peppered moths.
When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
sorry whale and horse examples.

[Steady Eddie]

Watch the first video until the picture of the 'horse lineage' comes up, then listen carefully to what he says.

> >> There of course is no such thing as "the horse lineage", because the
> >> horses form a tree, not a single line. But how is that an objection to
> >> the story?
> >
> > If you don't think there is a "horse" lineage, I can't help you.
>
> Well of course you can't help me. You are incapable of helping anyone
> with anything. Your ignorance is near complete, and your arrogance
> armors you against learning.
>
> >> Also, how many different "kinds" do you think horses are?
> >
> > That's irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't. The question is whether horse evolution is what you call
> "adaptation" and claim to have no problem with, or whether it's what you
> call "macroevolution", which you reject. So please answer.

Still irrelevant.

[John Harshman]

No, you're the confusing one. And you won't answer questions either.

> When he shows examples of his DEFINITION of evolution, in his FIRST video,
> he uses examples of adaptation i.e. peppered moths.
> When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
> sorry whale and horse examples.

Now I not only have no idea what you mean by "Darwinism", I don't know
what you mean by "Darwinian evolution". You seems to be alleging some
kind of nefarious attempt to put one over on you, which is paranoid. The
peppered moth is presented as an example of natural selection. The
horses and whales are presented as examples of long-term evolution and
common descent. None of these are examples of the definition of
evolution. The only example of that was increase in height in the human
population.

Could you answer my questions? When you say his only examples of

evolution are cases of simple adaptation, do you include horses and

whales in that? Are horses one "kind"? Are whales?

[John Harshman]

The first video doesn't have anything about the "horse lineage". It has
moths and squirrels only.

>>>> There of course is no such thing as "the horse lineage", because the
>>>> horses form a tree, not a single line. But how is that an objection to
>>>> the story?
>>>
>>> If you don't think there is a "horse" lineage, I can't help you.
>>
>> Well of course you can't help me. You are incapable of helping anyone
>> with anything. Your ignorance is near complete, and your arrogance
>> armors you against learning.
>>
>>>> Also, how many different "kinds" do you think horses are?
>>>
>>> That's irrelevant.
>>
>> No it isn't. The question is whether horse evolution is what you call
>> "adaptation" and claim to have no problem with, or whether it's what you
>> call "macroevolution", which you reject. So please answer.
>
> Still irrelevant.

You're avoiding the question because it's uncomfortable for you. But I
think you're doing what you have previously denied: claiming to accept
what you call "adaptation" while rejecting evidence that it has actually
happened in specific cases.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

[mercy snip]

>> >The videos are all in the "preview" section. I gave the title of the video I was discussing:
>> >"Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution".
>>
>>
>> Why can't you post a direct link? For those who want to know what
>> Noor really says, here it is:
>>
>> <https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g>
>>
>> This lecture discusses horses. Peppered moths are covered in a
>> previous lecture, which I also provided a direct link elsethread. Your
>> welcome.
>>
>> Now that I did that part of your job, where's your coherent
>> explanation of what you think is the problem with his lectures? The
>> gibberish you posted previously doesn't parse.
>

>Thank you, Jillery. You're a technical wizard.

I did nothing you shouldn't have done.

>Now start from the first one and go through it. I am currently on the second one.
>Noor's "disclaimer" of the horse lineage is in the first one.

I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation of what you think is
the problem with his lectures. Apparently you have no idea what a
coherent explanation looks like. But don't let that upset you; most
village idiots don't.

[jillery]

My impression is that Steadly's comments here, and his evasion of
defining what he means by "adaptation", are strikingly similar to
Ray's comments and behavior when I recently challenged him on this
same point.

>>>>>> The problem with THAT is:
>>>>>> ANY fossil found in the same layers as these specimens were CONTEMPORARIES of the supposed real
>>>>>> horse ancestor that was presumed to be there at the time.
>>>>>> SO WHAT?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you have any comprehension of the claims being made here.
>>>>
>>> And that much is clear from the video.
>>

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:47:49 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 4/25/16 11:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:24:51 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was eventually able to find what you're talking about, though no
>>> thanks to you. So the prediction was that we should be able to find
>>> examples of gradual change over time.
>>
>> Just to satisfy my curiosity, will you say if you had to enroll in the
>> course to watch the videos?
>
>I didn't. Though I imagine it's only a selection of what you would get
>in the full course.

Ok. Thanks.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:58:07 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 4/25/16 11:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:24:51 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was eventually able to find what you're talking about, though no
>>> thanks to you. So the prediction was that we should be able to find
>>> examples of gradual change over time.
>>
>>
>> Just to satisfy my curiosity, will you say if you had to enroll in the
>> course to watch the videos?
>>

>Ah, here we are:
>
>"Can I preview the course content before I enroll and pay?
>
>You can preview a selection of the course content (usually the first
>week’s lectures) by selecting the “Preview Course” option. Once you
>enroll and purchase the course, you’ll have access to all content once
>the session begins (for session-based course) or immediately (for
>self-paced courses). If you choose to explore the course without
>purchasing, you may not be able to access certain assignments."

That's very strange. I don't see the above anywhere on the
Introduction page. AIUI that would be contrary to standard Coursera
practice.

This is what I see:

"What happens if I don’t verify or register for a Course Certificate?

You can still take this course for free and your grade will be saved
in your course records. However you won’t get a Course Certificate,
and if you decide you want one later you’ll need to redo all
assignments with verification."

And in fact, I have enrolled (again) for this course. I was never
asked for money either the first time or now. As far as I can tell, I
have access to all of its assignments.

IOW the only obligations Coursera courses require are to invest one's
time and mind.

[jillery]

How are these examples of adaptation not also examples of evolution?

>When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
>sorry whale and horse examples.

What do you think is wrong with these examples?

[John Harshman]

Similar in avoidance, perhaps. But Ray claims that species are
immutable, so either all the horses are the same species or he thinks
they were separately created. And I don't think Ray believes that all
horses are the same species. We don't know what Eddie thinks.

[John Harshman]

How odd. I see a series of 7 FAQs, of which the one I quote above is the
first, and none of which is the one you quote.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:25:49 -0700, John Harshman

Are you looking at:

<https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/>

I see no FAQs there at all. Curiosier and curiosier.

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:27:18 -0700, John Harshman

According to Ray, his definition of "immutable" is consistent with his
definition of "adaptation", and he refused to explain how that could
be. According to Steadly, his definition of "evolution" excludes his
definition of "adaptation", and he refuses to explain how that could
be. A similarity being they both use personal definitions of
"adaptation", neither of which are what biologists mean by it.

[John Harshman]

Not quite. https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution#preview

[John Harshman]

>A similarity being they both use personal definitions of
> "adaptation", neither of which are what biologists mean by it.

How can you tell? Eddie might conceivably mean the same thing. Ray,
probably not, but how can you be sure when it isn't clear what he means?

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:14:46 -0700, John Harshman

When I click on your link, I am redirected to my link, which is of
course the link from Steadly

I expect to see a white rabbit running late any minute now. It might
even be a preCambrian rabbit.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:17:01 -0700, John Harshman

That's why I said it's my impression, from his claim that adaptation
isn't involved with Evolution. The only way to tell for sure is if
Steadly ever makes himself clear. That's why I asked him. My
impression is that's why he refuses to answer.

[John Harshman]

When I click on my link, I go to the place I expect. Did it just now. Is
this something weird to do with caches? Try emptying your cache and see
what happens.

> I expect to see a white rabbit running late any minute now. It might
> even be a preCambrian rabbit.

I blame Bill Gates.

[John Harshman]

If you're waiting for either Eddie or Ray to make himself clear, you
might think of it as an opportunity to cultivate patience.

[jillery]

I ask Steadly et al questions not because I think they will give clear
answers, but to give them an explicit opportunity to do so. I even
repeat my questions and the opportunity when they don't reply, just in
case they honestly missed them instead of dishonestly evading them.
It's a "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" thingie. My
impression is you do that on occasion yourself.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:42:24 -0700, John Harshman

No difference. Sorry. I believe you. I'm just getting different
results.

>> I expect to see a white rabbit running late any minute now. It might
>> even be a preCambrian rabbit.
>
>I blame Bill Gates.

He's a cunning rascal.

[John Harshman]

I cultivate patience also.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:34:52 -0700, John Harshman

If you say so, but my impression is they haven't noticed it either.

[John Harshman]

And that requires even more patience.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:22:31 -0700, John Harshman

Let me know when you get any that makes a difference.

[Steady Eddie]

They are, idiot.
Can't you follow a simple conversation without trying to conflate its meaning?

> >When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
> >sorry whale and horse examples.

They're not examples of what he SAID evolution was; adaptation within a "species" to help the species
survive. Here he slips you "The Pill":

"BELIEVE what I say, or you are STUPID", as Coyne likes to put it.
Without evidence, or even any comment, he pulls the bait-and-switch on his students.
"YOU AGREED that evolution (as I defined it - adaptation) is a MATHEMATICAL INEVITABILITY, so
that means that A LAND MAMMAL CHANGING INTO A WHALE is a mathematical inevitability.

It's a cheap illusionist's trick: the bait-and-switch.

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 25 April 2016 16:18:49 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

"Clearly, if it takes more than 50,000 coordinated morphological changes to change a land dwelling
creature into a whale, books that support the theory of evolution by the device of assuming it to be true in
the context of an explanation - such as "the baleen whale skull became modified to feed upon
concentrations of plankton" [r10] - are presenting only 0.002% of the picture. Extrapolating a completed
picture from single pieces of the puzzle may offer the appearance of a solution but can lead to an
incomplete or naïve understanding of the detailed issues at the biochemical level.
"
Unanswered Mathematical and Computational Challenges
facing Neo-Darwinism as a Theory of Origins
http://www.darwinsmaths.com

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 20:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

So show that it takes 50,000 coordinated morphological changes to
change a land dwelling creature into a whale. And show that those
changes could not have happened in 60 million years. IOW make your
case, and do your own work.

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:50:01 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Then you have no argument. Since you say they are examples of
adaptation *and* evolution, then that's not the distinction you said
you're making. So what distinction *are* you making?

>> >When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
>> >sorry whale and horse examples.
>
>They're not examples of what he SAID evolution was; adaptation within a "species" to help the species
>survive. Here he slips you "The Pill":

Of course, Noor said no such thing. What you say above is your
pathetic excuse of a misrepresentation of what he said.

>"BELIEVE what I say, or you are STUPID", as Coyne likes to put it.
>Without evidence, or even any comment, he pulls the bait-and-switch on his students.
>"YOU AGREED that evolution (as I defined it - adaptation) is a MATHEMATICAL INEVITABILITY, so
>that means that A LAND MAMMAL CHANGING INTO A WHALE is a mathematical inevitability.
>
>It's a cheap illusionist's trick: the bait-and-switch.

The illusion here is your failure to connect Noor's words to your
mangled misrepresentation of his words. What Noor said is evolution
is inevitable. That whales evolved from land mammals does not mean
that whale evolution was inevitable. It means only that whale
evolution is explained without invoking supernatural intervention.

[Steady Eddie]

If you contest it, then come up with your own number.
Show that you are aware that more is involved in morphing from a land animal to a whale than two or three
"intermediates".
And I don't have to re-do the work of scientists in the field. That's what the scientific community is for.
Try to keep up.

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 23:43:39 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

I'm making the distinction between Noor's correct, uncontested definition of evolution - simple
adaptation- and the meaning of the term evolution that he unveils in his second preview - the process
that "created" all life forms from scratch without intelligent design.

He first claims evolution only explains how species SURVIVE,
then insinuates that evolution explains how Species, Geni, Families, Orders, Classes, Phyla, and Kingdoms
ARRIVE.
There's a difference, you know.
Try to keep up.

> >> >When he shows examples of his REAL INTENDED MEANING of evolution (Darwinism), he trots out the
> >> >sorry whale and horse examples.
> >
> >They're not examples of what he SAID evolution was; adaptation within a "species" to help the species
> >survive. Here he slips you "The Pill":
>
>
> Of course, Noor said no such thing. What you say above is your
> pathetic excuse of a misrepresentation of what he said.

Please give the time-stamp from his first preview where he claims evolution does any more than help a
Species survive via adaptation.

> >"BELIEVE what I say, or you are STUPID", as Coyne likes to put it.
> >Without evidence, or even any comment, he pulls the bait-and-switch on his students.
> >"YOU AGREED that evolution (as I defined it - adaptation) is a MATHEMATICAL INEVITABILITY, so
> >that means that A LAND MAMMAL CHANGING INTO A WHALE is a mathematical inevitability.
> >
> >It's a cheap illusionist's trick: the bait-and-switch.
>
>
> The illusion here is your failure to connect Noor's words to your
> mangled misrepresentation of his words. What Noor said is evolution
> is inevitable. That whales evolved from land mammals does not mean
> that whale evolution was inevitable. It means only that whale
> evolution is explained without invoking supernatural intervention.

Bullshit. YOu're doing your Jillery Jiggle again.
Give your head a shake - the clear implication is exactly what I stated.
Remember, by your own sorry excuse for logic, because whales exist, the probability that they evolved
from land animals is ONE.
LOL!

[Steady Eddie]

One last point about the first video:
Mo demonstrates the "mathematical inevitability" of evolution by a fifth-grade level math problem
involving the 'evolution of Squirrels Who Fear Asphalt'.
LOL!
When will he show 'the evolution of Knights Who Say "Nee"'?

This charlatan proceeds in the second preview to apply this advanced calculus to the evolution of whales!

[John Harshman]

He was trying to dumb it down so even you could understand it. Clearly,
he failed. But that's the problem: you misunderstand nearly everything
he says and substitute your own distortions for what he says. It might
be that if you went in without the prior assumption that he must,
somehow, be full of shit, you would understand more of it.

[Steady Eddie]

I understand perfectly.
It is clear that he is segueing from "mathematical inevitability" to the evolution of whales to implant a very
specific idea in his students' minds, using RHETORIC to make an assertion that he can't support in plain
language.

Ahhh, RHETORIC. The stock-in-trade of liars, thieves, and charlatans.
Oh, and DARWINISTS.
LOL!

[John Harshman]

This is your paranoia talking.