Dickinsonia is very likely an animal

[erik simpson]

"Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246

The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
inconsistent with all but metazoa.

In another thread I carelessly misread the following article:

"Algal origin of sponge sterane biomarkers negates the oldest evidence for animals in the rock record" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01334-7?proof=t

The subject of this article is the previous identification of
24-isopropylcholestanes and other C30 fossil sterol molecules in much
older rocks (pre-Cryogenian, >635 Mya). The previous interpretation of
these markers is that they derived from demosponges, and thus indication
the presence of metazoa. Geological processes can modify sterols from
chlorophyte algea (known to have been present pre-Cryogenian). This has
no impact on the determination of the metazoan affinity of Dickinsonia.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:23:03 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)
>
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>
> The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
> Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
> sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
> the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
> inconsistent with all but metazoa.
>

Bobs is a student. Ask him if you could join him in mainlining your fantasies.

" This does not mean that Dickinsonia and Andiva were necessarily animals, because a third fungal phylum, Glomeromycota, also produces cholesterol without ergosterol"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246/tab-e-letters

And it is simply not true that only animals produce cholesterol. Plants, protists, bacteria and probably more do produce cholesterol or would have cholesterol around after death.

[Glenn]

Read the Incomplete Homework section:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:52:37 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:23:03 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
>> > "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)
>> >
>> > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>> >
>> > The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
>> > Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
>> > sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
>> > the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
>> > inconsistent with all but metazoa.
>> >
>> Bobs is a student. Ask him if you could join him in mainlining your fantasies.

Bobrovskiy aka "Bobs" is a student in the sense that he is a Caltech
postdoctoral fellow working on biomarker and isotopic records of
Precambrian life. He might also be a student of life. If so, these
would make him more qualified on this topic than you are.

>> " This does not mean that Dickinsonia and Andiva were necessarily animals, because a third fungal phylum, Glomeromycota, also produces cholesterol without ergosterol"
>>
>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246/tab-e-letters
>>
>> And it is simply not true that only animals produce cholesterol. Plants, protists, bacteria and probably more do produce cholesterol or would have cholesterol around after death.

While your "simply not true" is technically correct, it is also
misleading. Bobrovskiy's conclusion is based not on the mere presence
of cholesteroids from Dickinsonia fossils, but by their great
abundance *and* the relative lack of other sterols. OTOH non-animal
organisms also produce small amounts of cholesteroids and large
amounts of other sterols, a pattern distinctly different than found
from Dickinsonia fossils.

>Read the Incomplete Homework section:
>
>https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

Paula Welander's statement about Bobrovskiy's study is incorrect, as
proved by the following from his paper previously cited:
**************************************
The deposits immediately above and below Dickinsonia are characterized
by a monoaromatic steroid distribution of 10.6 to 11.9% cholesteroids,
13.4 to 16.8% ergosteroids, and 71.3 to 76.0% stigmasteroids, which is
consistent with the general steroid distribution of sediments at the
Lyamtsa locality (Fig. 1). The strong stigmasteroid predominance is
typical for the Ediacaran period and presumably related to green algae
(Chlorophyta) inhabiting benthic mats or the water column (25). In
these and all other Ediacaran sediment samples from the White Sea
region, the carbon-number distribution of saturated steranes is nearly
identical to the distribution of monoaromatic steroid homologs and
always dominated by green algal stigmasteroids (Table 1).
By contrast, biomarkers extracted from the isolated organic matter of
the largest Dickinsonia specimen had a monoaromatic steroid
distribution of 93% cholesteroids, 1.8% ergosteroids, and 5.2%
stigmasteroids (Fig. 1A and Table 1). A general trend of increasing
monoaromatic cholesteroid abundance from 84.8 to 93.0% from the
smaller to the larger Dickinsonia specimens (Fig. 1D) reflects
decreasing contribution of the green algal background signal (fig.
S2).
************************************

IIUC the 10-12% of cholesteroids found around the fossils are from
Chlorophyta and other non-animal organisms.

Günter Bechly does not say if the non-animal organisms he identifies
as producing large amounts of cholesteroids are representative of what
are found in strata where Dickinsonia are found.

Finally, Günter Bechly's personal website emphasizes his bias:
*********************************
I was a staunch atheist and materialist until my early 40ies, but
after a spiritual journey that took several years I finally embraced a
world view of philosophical theism based on axiarchic Neoplatonism and
quantum idealism as metaphysics. I now strongly reject atheism,
naturalism, materialism, reductionism, and scientism. I did not become
a theist in spite of being a scientist but because of it, based on a
careful and critical evaluation of empirical data and rational
arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads.
***********************************

The above does not imply that the opinions and conclusions he wrote in
your cited article are necessarily incorrect, but it does show that
his critical evaluations are not purely objective.

[jillery]

You split your posts about this subject among several topics and two
froups. I'm sure you have your reasons, but it does provide an
additional challenge to anybody trying to follow your train of
thought.

[erik simpson]

Sloppy work by me, for sure. My intention is mainly to post paleo stuff here,'
rather than TO, but I may post there if relevant to other discussions. I'm not
trying to ditch the pusuers. If I could ditch Glenn, I would, but I obviously
can't.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 1:55:02 PM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:52:37 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:23:03 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> >> > "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)
> >> >
> >> > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> >> >
> >> > The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
> >> > Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
> >> > sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
> >> > the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
> >> > inconsistent with all but metazoa.
> >> >
> >> Bobs is a student. Ask him if you could join him in mainlining your fantasies.
> Bobrovskiy aka "Bobs" is a student in the sense that he is a Caltech
> postdoctoral fellow working on biomarker and isotopic records of
> Precambrian life. He might also be a student of life. If so, these
> would make him more qualified on this topic than you are.

Actually you do not know what my qualifications are. And your opinion is incorrect, as are all appeals to authority
In any event, he is no more qualified than any other that differs in opinion, and considerably less than Retallack.

> >> " This does not mean that Dickinsonia and Andiva were necessarily animals, because a third fungal phylum, Glomeromycota, also produces cholesterol without ergosterol"
> >>
> >> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246/tab-e-letters
> >>
> >> And it is simply not true that only animals produce cholesterol. Plants, protists, bacteria and probably more do produce cholesterol or would have cholesterol around after death.
> While your "simply not true" is technically correct, it is also
> misleading. Bobrovskiy's conclusion is based not on the mere presence
> of cholesteroids from Dickinsonia fossils, but by their great
> abundance *and* the relative lack of other sterols. OTOH non-animal
> organisms also produce small amounts of cholesteroids and large
> amounts of other sterols, a pattern distinctly different than found
> from Dickinsonia fossils.

You are not qualified to dispute Retallack.

> >Read the Incomplete Homework section:
> >
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> Paula Welander's statement about Bobrovskiy's study is incorrect, as
> proved by the following from his paper previously cited:

For one not qualified to dispute authorities, you seem to think your opinion is worthy of consideration.

> **************************************
> The deposits immediately above and below Dickinsonia are characterized
> by a monoaromatic steroid distribution of 10.6 to 11.9% cholesteroids,
> 13.4 to 16.8% ergosteroids, and 71.3 to 76.0% stigmasteroids, which is
> consistent with the general steroid distribution of sediments at the
> Lyamtsa locality (Fig. 1). The strong stigmasteroid predominance is
> typical for the Ediacaran period and presumably related to green algae
> (Chlorophyta) inhabiting benthic mats or the water column (25). In
> these and all other Ediacaran sediment samples from the White Sea
> region, the carbon-number distribution of saturated steranes is nearly
> identical to the distribution of monoaromatic steroid homologs and
> always dominated by green algal stigmasteroids (Table 1).
> By contrast, biomarkers extracted from the isolated organic matter of
> the largest Dickinsonia specimen had a monoaromatic steroid
> distribution of 93% cholesteroids, 1.8% ergosteroids, and 5.2%
> stigmasteroids (Fig. 1A and Table 1). A general trend of increasing
> monoaromatic cholesteroid abundance from 84.8 to 93.0% from the
> smaller to the larger Dickinsonia specimens (Fig. 1D) reflects
> decreasing contribution of the green algal background signal (fig.
> S2).
> ************************************
>
> IIUC the 10-12% of cholesteroids found around the fossils are from
> Chlorophyta and other non-animal organisms.

Anyone can quote from an article and make claims about it, as you do. I claim what you say is not supported by the quote you provide.

>
> Günter Bechly does not say if the non-animal organisms he identifies
> as producing large amounts of cholesteroids are representative of what
> are found in strata where Dickinsonia are found.

You don't say why he should say what you say he does not say.

>
> Finally, Günter Bechly's personal website emphasizes his bias:

No, it does not emphasize any bias with respect to the subject at hand. You're practicing deception.

> *********************************
> I was a staunch atheist and materialist until my early 40ies, but
> after a spiritual journey that took several years I finally embraced a
> world view of philosophical theism based on axiarchic Neoplatonism and
> quantum idealism as metaphysics. I now strongly reject atheism,
> naturalism, materialism, reductionism, and scientism. I did not become
> a theist in spite of being a scientist but because of it, based on a
> careful and critical evaluation of empirical data and rational
> arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads.
> ***********************************
>
> The above does not imply that the opinions and conclusions he wrote in
> your cited article are necessarily incorrect, but it does show that
> his critical evaluations are not purely objective.

Contradictions in deceptive language is not helpful to your cause.

The opinions and conclusions are his critical evaluations. You're really saying that he has a bias that influences his opinions and conclusions. I'm not surprised you were not aware of that. Everyone has a bias, including you. But unlike Bechly, you show your bias in your opinions and conclusions.

[Glenn]

That makes no sense at all.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 2:51:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:

Erik Simpson, would you call this an attempt to ditch me?

"When a lunatic commits mass murder, is your principle concern whether or not the murdered were
sex workers, mathematicians, musicians or any other class of "sinners"? Glenn seems to take
a similar perspective, and it's not an attractive one. "
- from the "Flinging" thread on talk.origins

Is this just an irresponsible accusation affected by bias, or an outright conscious lie?

Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.

You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye. Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.

I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.

Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:

https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 2:51:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:

...

> "When a lunatic commits mass murder, is your principle concern whether or not the murdered were
> sex workers, mathematicians, musicians or any other class of "sinners"? Glenn seems to take
> a similar perspective, and it's not an attractive one. "
> - from the "Flinging" thread on talk.origins
>
> Is this just an irresponsible accusation affected by bias, or an outright conscious lie?
>

No, first sentence is a question (to Peter). I assume and would hope that the answer is "no".
It was intended (presumptively) as a reminder that concern for the "worthiness" of victims
should be secondary to the fact that they were victims. The second sentence refers to your
taking up the same subject and using it to belabor others involved in the thread.

> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
>

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian. I have very little concern for what ID does or
does not say about that subject. The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.

> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye. Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.

"speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data? I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.

>
> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
>
> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
>
> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants

Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions. Stick with pictures.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 1:55:02 PM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
>> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:52:37 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:23:03 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
>> >> > "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)
>> >> >
>> >> > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>> >> >
>> >> > The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
>> >> > Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
>> >> > sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
>> >> > the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
>> >> > inconsistent with all but metazoa.
>> >> >
>> >> Bobs is a student. Ask him if you could join him in mainlining your fantasies.
>> Bobrovskiy aka "Bobs" is a student in the sense that he is a Caltech
>> postdoctoral fellow working on biomarker and isotopic records of
>> Precambrian life. He might also be a student of life. If so, these
>> would make him more qualified on this topic than you are.
>
>Actually you do not know what my qualifications are. And your opinion is incorrect, as are all appeals to authority

I make no appeals to authority. Instead I contradict your minimizing
his qualifications to speak on this subject. Stop lying.

>In any event, he is no more qualified than any other that differs in opinion, and considerably less than Retallack.
>
>> >> " This does not mean that Dickinsonia and Andiva were necessarily animals, because a third fungal phylum, Glomeromycota, also produces cholesterol without ergosterol"
>> >>
>> >> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246/tab-e-letters
>> >>
>> >> And it is simply not true that only animals produce cholesterol. Plants, protists, bacteria and probably more do produce cholesterol or would have cholesterol around after death.
>> While your "simply not true" is technically correct, it is also
>> misleading. Bobrovskiy's conclusion is based not on the mere presence
>> of cholesteroids from Dickinsonia fossils, but by their great
>> abundance *and* the relative lack of other sterols. OTOH non-animal
>> organisms also produce small amounts of cholesteroids and large
>> amounts of other sterols, a pattern distinctly different than found
>> from Dickinsonia fossils.
>
>You are not qualified to dispute Retallack.

Actually, I am as qualified to dispute Retallack as you are qualified
to dispute Bobrovskiy. Same for same.

Anyone can mindlessly handwave away a quote and claim what you claim.

>> Günter Bechly does not say if the non-animal organisms he identifies
>> as producing large amounts of cholesteroids are representative of what
>> are found in strata where Dickinsonia are found.
>
>You don't say why he should say what you say he does not say.

Since you didn't ask, if those organisms aren't representative of what
are found in Dickinsonia strata, then their metabolites are irrelevant
to the point he claims to be discussing. You're welcome.

>> Finally, Günter Bechly's personal website emphasizes his bias:
>

>> *********************************
>> I was a staunch atheist and materialist until my early 40ies, but
>> after a spiritual journey that took several years I finally embraced a
>> world view of philosophical theism based on axiarchic Neoplatonism and
>> quantum idealism as metaphysics. I now strongly reject atheism,
>> naturalism, materialism, reductionism, and scientism. I did not become
>> a theist in spite of being a scientist but because of it, based on a
>> careful and critical evaluation of empirical data and rational
>> arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads.
>> ***********************************
>>
>No, it does not emphasize any bias with respect to the subject at hand. You're practicing deception.

The above quote is Günter Bechly's words speaking about himself from
his own website.

>> The above does not imply that the opinions and conclusions he wrote in
>> your cited article are necessarily incorrect, but it does show that
>> his critical evaluations are not purely objective.
>
>Contradictions in deceptive language is not helpful to your cause.

Your comment is just more of your willfully stupid allusions.

>The opinions and conclusions are his critical evaluations. You're really saying that he has a bias that influences his opinions and conclusions.

Incorrect. Günter Bechly says he has a bias, and he stated his bias
explicitly

>I'm not surprised you were not aware of that. Everyone has a bias, including you. But unlike Bechly, you show your bias in your opinions and conclusions.

I'm not surprised you can't comprehend written English.

[John Harshman]

Just stop replying to him, at least in this group. Maybe he'll get bored
and go away.

[Glenn]

Please do.

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:24:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A voice of reason. I apologize to all for continuing this "discussion".

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 2:51:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> ...
> > "When a lunatic commits mass murder, is your principle concern whether or not the murdered were
> > sex workers, mathematicians, musicians or any other class of "sinners"? Glenn seems to take
> > a similar perspective, and it's not an attractive one. "
> > - from the "Flinging" thread on talk.origins
> >
> > Is this just an irresponsible accusation affected by bias, or an outright conscious lie?
> >
> No, first sentence is a question (to Peter). I assume and would hope that the answer is "no".
> It was intended (presumptively) as a reminder that concern for the "worthiness" of victims
> should be secondary to the fact that they were victims. The second sentence refers to your
> taking up the same subject and using it to belabor others involved in the thread.

So it was an outright lie, and now you're trying to cover it up with another.

> > Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >
> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian. I have very little concern for what ID does or
> does not say about that subject. The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.

It shouldn't matter what people are 'involved with', but in what they offer. As far as Günter Bechly is concerned,
he seems to be well suited for the characterization of being "well represented":
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%25C3%25BCnter_Bechly&prev=search&pto=aue
But you aren't simply "very curious", your title and argument claims "very likely animal". That's determinant. And that's just the latest in a long line of speculation, which is already challenged.

> > You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye. Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data? I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.

You know what it means, and I've posted some of the long lines of speculative claims about much of the Ediacaran mystery forms. You should care about that, and much of what I have posted is from an ID site, and is fact, not speculation.
You *do* argue with those you consider to be creationists, and I communicated to you that ID is not biased against the possibility of the existence of primitive animal life in the Ediacaran. You took one word I used "tolerate" and used it to ignore what I meant. Why should I care or believe you when you claim you are not biased?

> >
> > I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >
> > Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >
> > https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions. Stick with pictures.

What text, you mean the question "Are algae plants"?
You're a real piece of shit, Erik.

[Glenn]

You wouldn't recognize reason if it bit you in the ass.

[jillery]

No need to apologize for noting willful stupidity. If not now, then
when? If not you, then who?

[erik simpson]

Some stupidity is sufficient to let stand as is, as it notes itself.

[Glenn]

You'll feel better in that fantasy world.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson

I respect your opinion, but my experience is events in the U.S. and in
this froup show that happens far less often than I would like.

[Glenn]

Stupidity notes itself. Will wonders never cease! LOL.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:

Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.

This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
I hope Erik follows suit.

> > Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >
> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.

Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.

IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?

> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> does not say about that subject.

Nothing, AFAIK.

> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.

That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.

> > You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.

Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.

At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?

>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.


> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?

Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?

>I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.

Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
will tolerate within ID.

> > I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >
> > Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >
> > https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants


> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.

In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"

> Stick with pictures.

Where did you justify this comment?


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

[erik simpson]

I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard? I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
you to read the recent relevant material. I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).

Bygones are bygones. I suggest showing even more restraint.

[Peter Nyikos]

I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.

> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> you to read the recent relevant material.

I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?

Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.

> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).

So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.

It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.

[John Harshman]

It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.

But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.

[erik simpson]

It's the first thing by Bechly that I've ever read. It struck me that he sounds like Glenn in casting doubt generally,
but a highly educated Glenn, if you can imagine it.

[John Harshman]

Try this:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/questions-for-gunter-bechly-and-swamidass-on-unbelievable/13822

Quoting from Bechly's web site manifesto:

“I am convinced that the evidence strongly points towards a combination
of old earth and common ancestry with saltational development. The
latter I see as quantum computations based on entangled DNA that
collapses into non-random adaptive macro-mutations, which because of
their survival value populate and propagate more branches of the wave
function. Intelligent Design is instantiated not by supernatural
interventions within spacetime but by fine-tuned initial conditions,
fine-tuned laws of nature, and a fine-tuned fitness landscape. The
fitness landscape of evolutionary biology is a discernible set of
alternative possibilities and as such a subset of Hilbert space of the
universal wave function in quantum mechanics. Due to entanglement the
wave function of the universe represents a single integrated information
state that is equivalent with a universal consciousness (based on
Tononi’s IIT). Universal wave function (platonic abstract objects) and
universal mind (consciousness) are co-dependent in a strange loop: The
universal wave function “lives” in the universal mind, and the universal
mind is based on the integrated information of this wave function. This
unifies Neoplatonism with objective (monistic) idealism and
(panen)theism. Spacetime emerges from entangled quantum information and
thus from universal consciousness.”

[erik simpson]

Ah. I see. A strange loop indeed. I should have paid more attention when I took QM.
Of course, back then (60s) entanglement wasn't paid much attention. I too am impressed
by the fact of the richness of detail of the universe at all scales we observe, and I wonder
sometimes why it isn't all "grey goo", but then I wouldn't be wondering about it at all if it were.
I still wonder if Dickensonia is an "animal" or not, but not knowing its wave function, I'll never
know for sure.

[Peter Nyikos]

Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Why doesn't it belong here?

[erik simpson]

My perception of TO is that nothing belongs there, The SNR is neglible there. Anything even slightly informative
is immediately buried under an avalanche of dreck.

[Peter Nyikos]

It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.

> Why doesn't it belong here?

Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Then why has your output there over the last decade dwarfed your output in s.b.p.?

As for me, I've learned to make lemonade out of lemons in t.o. sufficiently often
so that I can still get some benefit from it. I've done a good long reply to you earlier
about this, both here and in talk.origins.

Documentation on request.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I rarely even look at TO because over the last decade (sometimes I learn slowly) I've learned there's
very rarely anything happening there that is of much interest to me. My ocaisional visits confirm my
opinion that it's getting worse, not better.

The lengthy quote John provided above from Bechly's website provides quite a bit of evidence that he
has picked up some of the mystic/philosophic quantum gibberish disease. Whether that discredits
him is another matter entirely. It's certainly not paleontology.

[John Harshman]

It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal. EN&V is a political site,
specifically a creationist site. Their treatment of science is strongly
biased, and you are better advised to go the original sources if you
want to see the science.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:

> > On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 2:51:25 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> ...
> > "When a lunatic commits mass murder, is your principle concern whether or not the murdered were
> > sex workers, mathematicians, musicians or any other class of "sinners"? Glenn seems to take
> > a similar perspective, and it's not an attractive one. "
> > - from the "Flinging" thread on talk.origins
> >
> > Is this just an irresponsible accusation affected by bias, or an outright conscious lie?
> >
> No, first sentence is a question (to Peter). I assume and would hope that the answer is "no".
> It was intended (presumptively) as a reminder that concern for the "worthiness" of victims
> should be secondary to the fact that they were victims. The second sentence refers to your
> taking up the same subject and using it to belabor others involved in the thread.

> > Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >
> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*

> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian. I have very little concern for what ID does or
> does not say about that subject. The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> > You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye. Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data? I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.

> >
> > I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >
> > Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >
> > https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants

> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions. Stick with pictures.

The text is not data, the pictures are. But how you treat a question as a confident assertion is beyond me.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 5:34:36 PM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 1:55:02 PM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
> >> <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:52:37 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:23:03 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> >> >> > "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals" (Bobrovskiy. et. al.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The article presents an analysis of biochemical markers derived from
> >> >> > Dickinsonia and morphologically similar fossils and their surrounding
> >> >> > sedimentary layers (all from the White Sea assemblage), and conclude that
> >> >> > the many other possibilities suggested (lichens, giant protists, fungi) are
> >> >> > inconsistent with all but metazoa.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Bobs is a student. Ask him if you could join him in mainlining your fantasies.
> >> Bobrovskiy aka "Bobs" is a student in the sense that he is a Caltech
> >> postdoctoral fellow working on biomarker and isotopic records of
> >> Precambrian life. He might also be a student of life. If so, these
> >> would make him more qualified on this topic than you are.
> >
> >Actually you do not know what my qualifications are. And your opinion is incorrect, as are all appeals to authority
> I make no appeals to authority. Instead I contradict your minimizing
> his qualifications to speak on this subject. Stop lying.
> >In any event, he is no more qualified than any other that differs in opinion, and considerably less than Retallack.
> >
> >> >> " This does not mean that Dickinsonia and Andiva were necessarily animals, because a third fungal phylum, Glomeromycota, also produces cholesterol without ergosterol"
> >> >>
> >> >> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246/tab-e-letters
> >> >>
> >> >> And it is simply not true that only animals produce cholesterol. Plants, protists, bacteria and probably more do produce cholesterol or would have cholesterol around after death.
> >> While your "simply not true" is technically correct, it is also
> >> misleading. Bobrovskiy's conclusion is based not on the mere presence
> >> of cholesteroids from Dickinsonia fossils, but by their great
> >> abundance *and* the relative lack of other sterols. OTOH non-animal
> >> organisms also produce small amounts of cholesteroids and large
> >> amounts of other sterols, a pattern distinctly different than found
> >> from Dickinsonia fossils.
> >
> >You are not qualified to dispute Retallack.
> Actually, I am as qualified to dispute Retallack as you are qualified
> to dispute Bobrovskiy. Same for same.
> >> >Read the Incomplete Homework section:
> >> >
> >> >https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >> Paula Welander's statement about Bobrovskiy's study is incorrect, as
> >> proved by the following from his paper previously cited:
> >
> >For one not qualified to dispute authorities, you seem to think your opinion is worthy of consideration.
> >> **************************************
> >> The deposits immediately above and below Dickinsonia are characterized
> >> by a monoaromatic steroid distribution of 10.6 to 11.9% cholesteroids,
> >> 13.4 to 16.8% ergosteroids, and 71.3 to 76.0% stigmasteroids, which is
> >> consistent with the general steroid distribution of sediments at the
> >> Lyamtsa locality (Fig. 1). The strong stigmasteroid predominance is
> >> typical for the Ediacaran period and presumably related to green algae
> >> (Chlorophyta) inhabiting benthic mats or the water column (25). In
> >> these and all other Ediacaran sediment samples from the White Sea
> >> region, the carbon-number distribution of saturated steranes is nearly
> >> identical to the distribution of monoaromatic steroid homologs and
> >> always dominated by green algal stigmasteroids (Table 1).
> >> By contrast, biomarkers extracted from the isolated organic matter of
> >> the largest Dickinsonia specimen had a monoaromatic steroid
> >> distribution of 93% cholesteroids, 1.8% ergosteroids, and 5.2%
> >> stigmasteroids (Fig. 1A and Table 1). A general trend of increasing
> >> monoaromatic cholesteroid abundance from 84.8 to 93.0% from the
> >> smaller to the larger Dickinsonia specimens (Fig. 1D) reflects
> >> decreasing contribution of the green algal background signal (fig.
> >> S2).
> >> ************************************
> >>
> >> IIUC the 10-12% of cholesteroids found around the fossils are from
> >> Chlorophyta and other non-animal organisms.
> >
> >Anyone can quote from an article and make claims about it, as you do. I claim what you say is not supported by the quote you provide.
> Anyone can mindlessly handwave away a quote and claim what you claim.
> >> Günter Bechly does not say if the non-animal organisms he identifies
> >> as producing large amounts of cholesteroids are representative of what
> >> are found in strata where Dickinsonia are found.
> >
> >You don't say why he should say what you say he does not say.
> Since you didn't ask, if those organisms aren't representative of what
> are found in Dickinsonia strata, then their metabolites are irrelevant
> to the point he claims to be discussing. You're welcome.
> >> Finally, Günter Bechly's personal website emphasizes his bias:
> >
> >> *********************************
> >> I was a staunch atheist and materialist until my early 40ies, but
> >> after a spiritual journey that took several years I finally embraced a
> >> world view of philosophical theism based on axiarchic Neoplatonism and
> >> quantum idealism as metaphysics. I now strongly reject atheism,
> >> naturalism, materialism, reductionism, and scientism. I did not become
> >> a theist in spite of being a scientist but because of it, based on a
> >> careful and critical evaluation of empirical data and rational
> >> arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads.
> >> ***********************************
> >>
> >No, it does not emphasize any bias with respect to the subject at hand. You're practicing deception.
> The above quote is Günter Bechly's words speaking about himself from
> his own website.
> >> The above does not imply that the opinions and conclusions he wrote in
> >> your cited article are necessarily incorrect, but it does show that
> >> his critical evaluations are not purely objective.
> >
> >Contradictions in deceptive language is not helpful to your cause.
> Your comment is just more of your willfully stupid allusions.
> >The opinions and conclusions are his critical evaluations. You're really saying that he has a bias that influences his opinions and conclusions.
> Incorrect. Günter Bechly says he has a bias, and he stated his bias
> explicitly

What is incorrect? Bechly has not explicitly stated that his bias influences his opinions and conclusions.

> >I'm not surprised you were not aware of that. Everyone has a bias, including you. But unlike Bechly, you show your bias in your opinions and conclusions.
> I'm not surprised you can't comprehend written English.

So you think to make "not knowing everyone has a bias" stick on me, than claim you're not surprised.

This constant bullshit of yours is what makes talk.origins a hellhole, and you're the biggest contributor by far. Since you see fit to bring it here, so be it.

[Glenn]

The original sources are almost always provided. You obviously feel threatened.

[Glenn]

in the two weeks since Eric posted the OP, there has been zero discussion of the science behind this attempt to place animals evolving millions of years before the Cambrian Explosion. A google search will find hundreds of claims, many in the titles, that Dickinsonia has been proven to be an animal. Wiki describes it as a "basal" animal.

Yet, for instance,

'‘We’re not saying it wasn’t sponges or it wasn’t protists [non-animal organisms that also produce small amounts of C30 steranes]3, we just say we have to be agnostic in this regard,’ says Hallmann." "‘We think that the safest thing to do right now is to indeed not use molecular fossils anymore as a collaboration point for earliest animals, but to revert back to the earliest [body] fossils."

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/steroid-fossilisation-discovery-opens-new-chapter-in-debate-around-oldest-animal/4012869.article

As I said earlier, no one in this thread has directed their attention and discussion to what I said in my first post, and as another impetus now this:

"But now, two research teams have discovered that C30 steranes might not be of animal origin but might come from ancient algae, with the compounds’ unusual substitution pattern byproducts of geological alteration."

(From the previous url)

I think for now that Bechly's article is a fair and balanced skepticism of the loud voices cheering for the early origin of animals.

But even that article was thrown out by default by the "conversers" of science here.

[erik simpson]

The point of the first reference in the OP (Bobrovskiy et al) is the differential chemistry seen in on- and off-fossil samples, NOT
simply detection of steranes. As for the "cheering", it may matter to you if Dickinsonia is an animal, but I have no emotional
investment. A conculsive determination of its affinities would be equally ineresting either way.

[Glenn]

Argue with the quotes provided as much as you wish, including your own and your own claims. No one said the speculations are from simple detection of steranes. In fact, there is no such thing.

>As for the "cheering", it may matter to you if Dickinsonia is an animal, but I have no emotional
> investment. A conculsive determination of its affinities would be equally ineresting either way.

Actually it doesn't really matter to anyone, and there can be no conclusive determination. As far as that goes, many have already assumed a conclusive determination. Sorry, I don't believe that you are "just interested". If you can't see how far people are going to try to pin that label on to such a fossil, you don't want to see. And I can see only one reason for that, and it *is* an obvious reason.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:31:21 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 5:08:57 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:53:45 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > >> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:

> > > > > >>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> > > > > >>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> > > > > >>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> > > > > >>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> > > > > >>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?

Nobody has commented on this question.

> > > > > >>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> > > > > >>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> > > > > >>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> > > > > >>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> > > > > >>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> > > > > >>>>>> will tolerate within ID.

Did I guess right here about your meaning, Glenn?

> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> > > > > >>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> > > > > >>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> > > > > >>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > >>>>>> University of South Carolina
> > > > > >>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> > > > > >>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> > > > > >>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> > > > > >>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> > > > > >>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> > > > > >>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> > > > > >>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.

Notice how cantankerous Erik is here. Here and later, he reminds me of the Shakesperian quote, "The lady
doth protest too much, methinks."

> > > > > >>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> > > > > >>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.

Yesterday was a lot more productive than I thought it would be in talk.origins, and the thread I started
here on gliding mammals is also more productive than expected, so the debut of this new thread
will be tomorrow (or Thursday at the latest).

> > > > > >>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> > > > > >>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> > > > > >>>>> angry meltdown.

"most likely" reminds me of "very likely" in the thread title, and there is much less reason to think it is correct.

> (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> > > > > >>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> > > > > >>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> > > > > >>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.

And I did, too. Have you seen it, Glenn?

> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Peter Nyikos
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> > > > > >>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> > > > > >> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> > > > > >> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> > > > > >> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> > > >
> > > > > > Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> > > > It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> > > > The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> > > > or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> > > > > Why doesn't it belong here?
> > > > Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> > > > containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> > > > are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> > > >
> > > in the two weeks since Eric posted the OP, there has been zero discussion of the science behind this attempt to place animals evolving millions of years before the Cambrian Explosion. A google search will find hundreds of claims, many in the titles, that Dickinsonia has been proven to be an animal. Wiki describes it as a "basal" animal.

It does not, however, dismiss the alternatives out of hand.

> > >
> > > Yet, for instance,
> > >
> > > '‘We’re not saying it wasn’t sponges or it wasn’t protists [non-animal organisms that also produce small amounts of C30 steranes]3, we just say we have to be agnostic in this regard,’ says Hallmann." "‘We think that the safest thing to do right now is to indeed not use molecular fossils anymore as a collaboration point for earliest animals, but to revert back to the earliest [body] fossils."
> > >
> > > https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/steroid-fossilisation-discovery-opens-new-chapter-in-debate-around-oldest-animal/4012869.article
> > >
> > > As I said earlier, no one in this thread has directed their attention and discussion to what I said in my first post, and as another impetus now this:
> > >
> > > "But now, two research teams have discovered that C30 steranes might not be of animal origin but might come from ancient algae, with the compounds’ unusual substitution pattern byproducts of geological alteration."
> > >
> > > (From the previous url)
> > >
> > > I think for now that Bechly's article is a fair and balanced skepticism of the loud voices cheering for the early origin of animals.

I tend to think you are right about this, Glenn.

> > > But even that article was thrown out by default by the "conversers" of science here.
> > The point of the first reference in the OP (Bobrovskiy et al) is the differential chemistry seen in on- and off-fossil samples, NOT
> > simply detection of steranes.
> Argue with the quotes provided as much as you wish, including your own and your own claims. No one said the speculations are from simple detection of steranes. In fact, there is no such thing.
> >As for the "cheering", it may matter to you if Dickinsonia is an animal, but I have no emotional
> > investment. A conculsive determination of its affinities would be equally ineresting either way.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

> Actually it doesn't really matter to anyone, and there can be no conclusive determination. As far as that goes, many have already assumed a conclusive determination. Sorry, I don't believe that you are "just interested". If you can't see how far people are going to try to pin that label on to such a fossil, you don't want to see. And I can see only one reason for that, and it *is* an obvious reason.

Animals are not only more popular than plants [compare the number of books of paleontology of animals with books on paleobotany],
but animals represent a higher grade of organization than plants, and Dickinsonia is often touted to be of a higher grade
than sponges, placozoans, ctenophores, or cnidarians.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

As soon as I hit "Post" I regretted replying to Glenn. Now I regret having replied to you as well. That didn't take
long, did it?

[Peter Nyikos]

IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
"What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.

> EN&V is a political site,
> specifically a creationist site.

That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
on the basis of the worldview it promotes.

More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
the place where it appears.


It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.

But that misses the big picture of readers, including lurkers, who are dependent on knowledgeable people
to put scientific weapons against creationism (and not just individual creationists, of whom the Dr. Dr. was an
unusually nasty example). If someone like you refuses to argue scientifically against them,
the natural inference is that he is not competent enough to argue against creationists scientifically.

I argued especially against Kleinman's lie that only a psychotic could think reptiles grew feathers.
I used his own mathematical analyses against him, in those papers that he managed to publish in a
reputable statistical journal. I gave realistic numbers on how 20 mutations, in the course of 40 million years,
could produce feathers if each mutation "amplified" [his word] from generation to generation. For that
I gave the insulating power of each step exceeding the previous one.

I squeezed him so tightly into the corner that, in order to avoid conceding defeat, he had to make
up a transparent lie: that I was assuming that the mutants involved are magically immune
to disease, weather, starvation, etc. I made it clear in my reply that this was completely false,
and he disappeared from the thread. Anyone lurking could draw the obvious inference.

> Their treatment of science is strongly biased,

Unlike you, I am an expert in separating wheat from chaff [fact from opinion, sound
arguments from specious ones, etc.] and can handle even the most biased piece of
propaganda and pick out valid points, if any. It comes partly from wide reading on all kinds
of spectra, including the political.

It also comes from debate and discussion on a wide range of forums.
For instance, I know how the mRNA in the Pfizer vaccine absolutely cannot do the terrible things the anti-vaxxers
claim; the knowledge comes mostly from persistently grilling an expert vaccine researcher, Sanjay Mishra,
until he gave me exactly the scientific details that clinched the matter. And then a much more enthusiastically
helpful researcher filled in a few minor details on another article in The Conversation.

> and you are better advised to go the original sources if you
> want to see the science.

I can do both, and having dozens of diverse facts incorporated in an article, with sources given
for most of them, can save a tremendous amount of time.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

It would be nice to know what caused your regret. If you regret the cantankerousness of your replies,
that would be welcome news.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/15/21 1:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> Nobody has commented on this question.
>

Sure. There are three general ideas that I'm aware of: 1) the loose
genes theory, 2) the empty barrel theory, and 3) the taxonomic artifact
theory.

Under the "loose genes" theory, developmental programs since the
Cambrian have become increasingly integrated, interconnected, buffered,
and canalized so that fundamental changes are unlikely.

Under the "empty barrel" theory, there were more opportunities to find
unoccupied major niches before life filled them up.

Under the taxonomic artifact theory, it's just that the ancestors of
phyla must pre-date the ancestors of their included classes, which must
pre-date ancestors of included orders, etc. Thus phyla come early, not late.

Of course it could be all three or something else entirely.

Or are you wondering why gains of readily preserved skeletons have been
rare in earth history but fairly common in the early Cambrian? That's a
different question, and there are certainly many examples of
skeletonization after the Cambrian, and not just bryozoans. But they
aren't considered new phyla.

[John Harshman]

Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.

>> EN&V is a political site,
>> specifically a creationist site.
>
> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.

Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.

> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> the place where it appears.

Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet. Would you cite
an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?

> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.

You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman. But here
you're going off on a wide tangent, and I'm going to snip the rest of it.

[erik simpson]

A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055

(already mentioned in another thread, subsequently derailed by a visiting troll).

[John Harshman]

Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
we have.

[erik simpson]

Pretty near anything we can say about Ediacaran critters is open to discussion. I like
the fact that the review points out the controversial items and gives references to them. I'll
have to say I don't inderstand why the idea that taxon X (Dickinsonia in this case) might be an
animal raises hackles among some creationists (and others). Would the assertion "Dickinsonia is
probably a fungus" cause the same reaction? If not, why not? But that's not of much concern to me
anyway.

[Glenn]

Then why ask? Since as well you know anyway.

[Peter Nyikos]

It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.

> >> EN&V is a political site,
> >> specifically a creationist site.
> >
> > That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> > on the basis of the worldview it promotes.

> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.

There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.

You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.

> > More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> > the place where it appears.

> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet.

Yes, I can bet that you will not approach the reasoning I cite in my upcoming thread
on its own merits, but will be looking to read the mind of Bechly.

I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't think I will, given your attitude.

> Would you cite
> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?

I'd investigate it further. You, I surmise, would not even look at it and thereby miss out
on some amazing facts, like a population of plovers where each makes its way from Alaska
to one of the Hawiian islands without sight of land for thousands of miles.

> > It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> > examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> > to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.

> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman.

You explicitly said what I call "Your excuse." And I stand by what I wrote, because you aren't
trying to come up with a single example of you trying to argue science with him.

>But here
> you're going off on a wide tangent,

It's highly germane to the subject of what is political and what is not, where paleontology and evolution are concerned.

> and I'm going to snip the rest of it.

Is that because you are unable to remember ever putting the scientific screws to Kleinman like I recounted
in the part you snipped?

Jealousy is a powerful motivator. Don't fall prey to it.

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

PS It looks like I need to put the upcoming thread on Dickinsonia off until next week. Unless there is some
softening of your attitude, I would have to choose my words very, very, very carefully to keep you from derailing
the scientific discussion.

[John Harshman]

What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one, while
you bend over backwards to avoid it.

>>>> EN&V is a political site,
>>>> specifically a creationist site.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
>
>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
>
> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
>
> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.

Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement. EN&V is a
political web site.

>>> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
>>> the place where it appears.
>
>> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet.
>
> Yes, I can bet that you will not approach the reasoning I cite in my upcoming thread
> on its own merits, but will be looking to read the mind of Bechly.
>
> I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't think I will, given your attitude.

What do you know about Bechly? Have you read other things he's written?
Have you read his web site manifesto?

>> Would you cite
>> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
>
> I'd investigate it further. You, I surmise, would not even look at it and thereby miss out
> on some amazing facts, like a population of plovers where each makes its way from Alaska
> to one of the Hawiian islands without sight of land for thousands of miles.

Already knew that, so I'm not missing out. AiG is a poor place to get
your scientific information, even though they manage to get the
occasional fact correctly. But I see that you have avoided an answer to
the question.

>>> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
>>> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
>>> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
>
>> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman.
>
> You explicitly said what I call "Your excuse." And I stand by what I wrote, because you aren't
> trying to come up with a single example of you trying to argue science with him.

I have no interest in convincing you. Your bias against me is showing,
and I don't see any point in trying to overcome it.

>> But here
>> you're going off on a wide tangent,
>
> It's highly germane to the subject of what is political and what is not, where paleontology and evolution are concerned.
>
>
> > and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
>
> Is that because you are unable to remember ever putting the scientific screws to Kleinman like I recounted
> in the part you snipped?

No.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

> A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at

... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:

> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055


Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
but now has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,

"Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."

This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
of a rough bilateral symmetry.


What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
authors are not creationists?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."

[Peter Nyikos]

Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?

> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.

Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
provide a good definition.

> >>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>> specifically a creationist site.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >
> >> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >
> > There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> > Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >
> > You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.

> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.

I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but before I start the thread on Dickinsonia.

This means that I will only start it next week; hopefully, on Monday already.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

You can't seem to spot your own subtext, so taking your inferences seriously is not recommended.

> >>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>> specifically a creationist site.

No more than any other site, or for matter many journal articles.
Moran's site is political, Panda's Thumb is political. Your posts are political.

> >>>
> >>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >
> >> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >
> > There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> > Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >
> > You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement. EN&V is a
> political web site.

Atheism, as a public thing, is a political movement. You're repeating yourself.

> >>> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> >>> the place where it appears.
> >
> >> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet.
> >
> > Yes, I can bet that you will not approach the reasoning I cite in my upcoming thread
> > on its own merits, but will be looking to read the mind of Bechly.
> >
> > I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't think I will, given your attitude.
> What do you know about Bechly? Have you read other things he's written?
> Have you read his web site manifesto?

You the question bird now? I've read many manifestos. For instance, I've read you, atheist.

> >> Would you cite
> >> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
> >
> > I'd investigate it further. You, I surmise, would not even look at it and thereby miss out
> > on some amazing facts, like a population of plovers where each makes its way from Alaska
> > to one of the Hawiian islands without sight of land for thousands of miles.
> Already knew that, so I'm not missing out. AiG is a poor place to get
> your scientific information, even though they manage to get the
> occasional fact correctly. But I see that you have avoided an answer to
> the question.

Actually, no he didn't, as you yourself confirm.

> >>> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> >>> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> >>> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
> >
> >> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman.
> >
> > You explicitly said what I call "Your excuse." And I stand by what I wrote, because you aren't
> > trying to come up with a single example of you trying to argue science with him.
> I have no interest in convincing you. Your bias against me is showing,
> and I don't see any point in trying to overcome it.

Bias against bullshit should show.

> >> But here
> >> you're going off on a wide tangent,
> >
> > It's highly germane to the subject of what is political and what is not, where paleontology and evolution are concerned.
> >
> >
> > > and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
> >
> > Is that because you are unable to remember ever putting the scientific screws to Kleinman like I recounted
> > in the part you snipped?
> No.

Do you accept one word answers from Peter?

[Peter Nyikos]

<small snip>

> > Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
> > system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
> > size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
> > alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
> > without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
> > we have.
> Pretty near anything we can say about Ediacaran critters is open to discussion. I like
> the fact that the review points out the controversial items and gives references to them.

Wrong. See my reply to you a short while ago.

> I'll have to say I don't inderstand why the idea that taxon X (Dickinsonia in this case) might be an
> animal raises hackles among some creationists (and others).

No hackles here, just an open mind and a look at the track record of misinterpretations of Ediacaran organisms by
non-creationist scientists, like the widespread early notion that Dickinsonia was an annelid.

> Would the assertion "Dickinsonia is
> probably a fungus" cause the same reaction?

Any overconfident assertion would cause the same reaction in me, until I saw very strong evidence.

I was highly suspicious of Adolf Seilacher's theory of Vendobionta being giant protists,
until I learned about some amazing present day giant protists hundreds of times bigger
than the biggest foraminiferan I ever heard of.

> If not, why not? But that's not of much concern to me
> anyway.

You spend a fair amount of time complaining about people and then distancing yourself from the complaints like this.

Not my style at all.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:

https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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

The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.

The previous thread is here:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJ

[John Harshman]

No. Bechly has managed to keep subtext out of his professional
publications, as far as I know. But it's certainly there in everything
on EN&V.

>> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.
>
> Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
> provide a good definition.

It's often known as "reading between the lines". Are you sure you don't
know this word?

>>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
>>>>>> specifically a creationist site.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
>>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
>>>
>>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
>>>
>>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
>>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
>>>
>>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
>
>> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
>
> I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.

No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:46:42 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/12/21 8:54 AM, erik simpson wrote:

> > On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:08:53 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:

> >>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
> >>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
> >>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> >>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
> >>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
> >>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> >>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
> >>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
> >>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> >>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
> >>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.

> >>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

> >>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>
> >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>
> >>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>
> >>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.

Not obvious at all, unless John is quoting a highly non-representative portion of his manifesto

Keep reading.

> >> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >> including human relationships to chimps.

"human relationships to chimps" is too vague. It could include a belief that
chimps are descended from australopithecines. Heterodox, yet still within
scientific respectability.

>>> He's all over the place.
> >>

> >> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.

What I read in his manifesto suggests that you are being very narrow-minded.

Keep reading.

> > It's the first thing by Bechly that I've ever read. It struck me that he sounds like Glenn in casting doubt generally,
> > but a highly educated Glenn, if you can imagine it.
> >
> Try this:
> https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/questions-for-gunter-bechly-and-swamidass-on-unbelievable/13822
>
> Quoting from Bechly's web site manifesto:
>
> “I am convinced that the evidence strongly points towards a combination
> of old earth and common ancestry with saltational development.

IOW, not a creationist at all. Read Gould's chapter "Return of the hopeful monster"
(IIRC, in The Panda's Thumb) if you think saltation has anything to do with creationism.

> The latter I see as quantum computations based on entangled DNA that
> collapses into non-random adaptive macro-mutations, which because of
> their survival value populate and propagate more branches of the wave
> function. Intelligent Design is instantiated not by supernatural
> interventions within spacetime but by fine-tuned initial conditions,
> fine-tuned laws of nature, and a fine-tuned fitness landscape.

Sounds like the butterfly effect. Not a hint of creationism here.

> The fitness landscape of evolutionary biology is a discernible set of
> alternative possibilities and as such a subset of Hilbert space of the
> universal wave function in quantum mechanics.

Speculative, but no more speculative than some of the ideas that the physicist/cosmologist
Steven Carlip takes seriously. You could ask Erik Simpson about them if you want to know more:
he seems to think the world of Steven Carlip.


> Due to entanglement the
> wave function of the universe represents a single integrated information
> state that is equivalent with a universal consciousness (based on
> Tononi’s IIT). Universal wave function (platonic abstract objects) and
> universal mind (consciousness) are co-dependent in a strange loop: The
> universal wave function “lives” in the universal mind, and the universal
> mind is based on the integrated information of this wave function. This
> unifies Neoplatonism with objective (monistic) idealism and
> (panen)theism. Spacetime emerges from entangled quantum information and
> thus from universal consciousness.”

This looks like a lot of what goes on in the Sadhu Sanga group. "swamidass" [see url above] seems to ring a bell.
Their leaders think of the Vedas with the same reverence as evangelical Christians think of the Bible.

But not all evangelical Christians are creationists, and although Bechly may have
absorbed some things from Sadhu Sanga, it doesn't mean he subscribes to all the ideas
of the people who run the group.

You've led me on a wild goose chase by letting me think Bechly is a creationist, John.

He may very well have published in Evolution News because he found a sympathetic ear
for some of his ideas, and will take any reasonable opportunity to disseminate them.
EN editors might like the way he does not go along with some of the
prevailing "conventional wisdom" about biota.


Who knows, he might publish an article in Evolution News challenging the "consensus"
that birds are dinosaurs.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-) :-)


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

You're right, it is a political site, specifically an atheist site, within the movement.

[Peter Nyikos]

The definition of "subtext" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the following:

: the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text)

There is no way that "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" can be a metaphorical or implicit meaning of
"Dickinsonia is probably not an animal".

Where did YOU find your definition ("reading between the lines")? _The Devil's Dictionary_, by Ambrose Bierce, perhaps?

> > Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?
> No. Bechly has managed to keep subtext out of his professional
> publications, as far as I know. But it's certainly there in everything
> on EN&V.

Until you can demonstrate that you can validly read this between the lines, your allegation is null and void.
Right now, what I wrote yesterday evening (to which you haven't made a response yet) is powerful evidence
that the correct expression for what you are doing here is "guilt by association."

> >> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.

I do bend over backwards to avoid indulging in guilt by association. Do you have a problem with that?

> > Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
> > provide a good definition.
> It's often known as "reading between the lines". Are you sure you don't
> know this word?

I have come across it from time to time, but IIRC it always conformed to the Merriam-Webster definition.

Not only is the M-W dictionary second only to the OED in authoritativeness, but according to it the
word has a long history, going back to 1726. So perhaps you've picked up your usage
by hobnobbing with polemicists and propagandists (in talk.origins?) who employ the
word for tendentious purposes.


Concluded in next reply, soon after I see that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> >>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>>>> specifically a creationist site.

I've left this slide until now, but unless &V makes the site completely different from
Evolution News & Science Today, you are dead wrong: it is an ID site, and
that includes a lot besides creationism, including at least three of the articles in the Top Six that
Ron Okimoto keeps ranting and raving about in talk.origins.

These are articles 3, 4 and 5. They are part of ID theory that adheres to the strict methodology of science. In the original
2017 version Luskin quotes Stephen Meyer using the word "materialistic" when he should be using "undirected"
in article 5. I could rewrite articles 1 and 2 so that they also adhere to secular scientific methodology.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >>>
> >>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> >>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
> >
> >> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
> >
> > I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> > with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.

> No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

Glenn agreed with you on this and corrected me thus:

"You're right, it is a political site, specifically an atheist site, within the movement."

I get the impression that you have killfiled Glenn, so I will be quoting things from
him on this thread from time to time, until I hear otherwise from you.

Glenn is right, except that he does not identify "the movement". I think the
movement that best fits the context is the movement of secular humanism, which even
has its own manifesto, updated from time to time.

However, just as only a small minority of secular humanists are actively part of
secular humanism, as a public thing, so only a small minority
of creationists are part of "Creationism, as a public thing," whatever that means.
[How should I use the expression "secular humanism, as a public thing" so that
it is the precise analogue of creationism, as a public thing?]

It would be best if you could give a usable definition of "_________________ as a public thing"
for anything that can go in the blank and still be a movement when thus modified.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

I simply stayed within the bounds John provided. Creationism as a movement to counter atheism and evolutionism
is swamped by the anti-creationism movement. My spell checker recognizes "anti-creationism" but not "evolutionism".

"Political movement, a coordinated group action focused on a political issue or ideology
Social movement, a coordinated group action focused on a social issue
Religious movement, a coordinated group action focused on a religious ideology"

They don't list "scientific movement".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement

"Coordinated" may not be the best word in such definitions.

[Peter Nyikos]

That's how it loves to style itself, but I think it is more accurate to call it the anti-ID movement.
ID is what is behind the siege mentality you see in talk.origins, and Harshman has
transported it to sci.bio.paleontology.

The siege mentality is evident in the way everyone is afraid to debate abiogenesis and
evolution with me. I really put my finger on it on Friday on the thread, "Gaining Function,"
that you began.

That reminds me: I also did hard-hitting posts earlier last week on two other threads that
you began, "Wonder" and one with an even shorter title that I can't recall right now.
The one on "Wonder" was IMO the strongest reply I ever did to Ron Okimoto. Did you see it?

> My spell checker recognizes "anti-creationism" but not "evolutionism".

I believe only creationists like the word "evolutionism." ID theorists should much prefer
"evolutionary theory" because when that is properly defined, ID theory doesn't do
too badly in comparison with it. In fact, it's a level playing field IMO when one takes into account
the 4-fold head start that evolutionary theory has over ID theory. I mentioned this to Oo Tiib on "Gaining Function".

>
> "Political movement, a coordinated group action focused on a political issue or ideology
> Social movement, a coordinated group action focused on a social issue
> Religious movement, a coordinated group action focused on a religious ideology"
>
> They don't list "scientific movement".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement
>
> "Coordinated" may not be the best word in such definitions.

Yes. Anti-ID is a noisy, disorganized political movement that is ultimately dependent on a scientific issue:
did intelligent design play a role in either earth OOL or earth evolution?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.

Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
"Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?

>
> The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.

That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
is far better than Bechly's review.

>
> The previous thread is here:
>

> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY

Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Oh I don't know about that. In the title of the thread, 'very likely" seems trollish to me, even in this group. Especially in this group, supposedly a science group.

[Peter Nyikos]

For some reason, I don't expect Erik to answer these questions.

> > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > >
> > > The previous thread is here:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> >
> > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> >
> Oh I don't know about that. In the title of the thread, 'very likely" seems trollish to me, even in this group. Especially in this group, supposedly a science group.

Simpson does get trollish fairly frequently here in s.b.p., but I wouldn't call him a troll on that account.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I see my link doesn't work. Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874

It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
summarize. If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
may expect no further communications from me.

[Peter Nyikos]

This was, in fact, the only use of the word "glide" anywhere in the article.

> > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?

<crickets>

> > >
> > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > >
> > > The previous thread is here:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> >
> > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos


> I see my link doesn't work.

It worked just fine for me. On the other hand, the link you gave below doesn't show the text at all,
and nothing happens when I click on "Download PDF". I did get a practically unreadable XML document,
but not the pdf that your earlier link gave me right off the bat.

> Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874
>
> It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
> summarize.

I believe, from what you write next, and what I have read of the article,
that you are hoping I will make some nasty remarks about what you've written just now.

> If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
> your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
> may expect no further communications from me.

Do you imagine that you are displaying civility here?

You and I made a commitment to civility here in April of 2015, along with John Harshman,
joined later by Richard Norman. Less than a year after Richard disappeared, you unilaterally
broke it in early 2018. Do you deny this?

If you do, please tell me how you define the word "civility" in a way that distinguishes it
from "being a doormat".


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Try this from my dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0

If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

[Peter Nyikos]

I can see from your response that you have been your usual mischievous self in these last two
posts. It's nice to know that all your talk of "civility" was just flippant banter.

> Try this from my dropbox:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0
>
> If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

Who cares whether it works or not? You are mischievously disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked.

And so, I also believe now that your comment,

> > > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results ​more completly than I care to
> > > summarize.

was just you pulling my leg (and Glenn's too) about a summary that takes 0 keystrokes to type.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

?? Bye.

[Peter Nyikos]

Simulated incomprehension noted.

> Bye.

My logic should have been readily understandable from the following sentence:

"You are mischievously disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked."

If anyone reading this does not see why, I suggest that such a person scroll up to read this quoted sentence in context.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

So sorry, but bye anyway. Have fun with Glenn.

[Peter Nyikos]

An appropriate word with which to end your presence: Glenn, who made the odds
against you and Harshman 2-2, which was so unbearable for Harshman that he
vanished from this thread almost a week ago and has never returned. [1]

Even the 2-1 odds that you and he had against me without Glenn were enough to
make you uncomfortable, weren't they? Both of you sorely missed that rabid anti-Nyikos fanatic, Oxyaena, didn't you?

[1] Harshman suddenly showed up in talk.origins a couple of days ago, secure in the knowledge
that at least a dozen people there have his back. But his dereliction
of duty here, with three or more posts by me left unanswered, is catching
up to him on the thread,
A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Sorry, I was in Iceland for 2 weeks. What are you on about now?

[erik simpson]

I don't think it matters where you've been. I think he's moving further out of touch all the time.

[Peter Nyikos]

If so, all the posts you did this month were done from Iceland, beginning with one on Jun 12, 2021, 5:08:53 AM.
And you neglected to tell us anything about any internet downtime or power outage before you
played dumb with your next comment:

> What are you on about now?

Why ask? The obvious conclusion from what you said and didn't say in your preceding sentence
is that you couldn't see what went on because you didn't want to know what was going on. Why start now?

And I told Erik Simpson about the highly probable reason you didn't want to see what was going on,
right in the post to which you are replying. Are you too scrolling-impaired to look at it now?

And Erik made a monkey out of himself with the reply he did to your disingenuous question,
falsely accusing me of drifting further and further of touch -- when he couldn't even figure out that you
had to be doing all your June posts from Iceland.


The only sensible thing Erik has done here after June 17 was to wish me to have fun with Glenn.
When Glenn sees what bumbling and fumbling the two of you have done in just two posts (one apiece),
he's bound to have a lot of fun, and it'll be fun for me too.

But you'll both hate both of us all the more for that, won't you?


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

So this group isn’t about discussing paleontology is it? Unless instead
paleontology is the practice of unearthing and classifying interpersonal
vendettas of old vintage. Is that the tale of two newgroups pinned? The
actual subject matter is occasional backdrop for habitual name drop
chatter.

Why didn’t Harshman notify everyone of his travel plans?

[erik simpson]

the group is about dead, then Peter came back. "Nuff said.

[Peter Nyikos]

It is, and I've been intending to start a paleontology thread on Dickinsonia,
but Harshman kept poisoning the wells by aggressively insinuating that the author
of one of the articles that I'd be copying facts --- data, not reasoning -- from was
a creationist.

> Unless instead
> paleontology is the practice of unearthing and classifying interpersonal
> vendettas of old vintage.

I take it anything before June 19, 2021 is "old vintage," judging from the post to
which you are replying. :)

> Is that the tale of two newgroups pinned?

Yes, and it only has to do with posts after June 11, 2021. Do you ever stop and think
before you try to put me in a bad light? As here:

> The
> actual subject matter is occasional backdrop for habitual name drop
> chatter.

Where do you see more than one of that above? Erik even avoided dropping Glenn's name,
instead referring to him as "a troll" who "derailed" a thread. The "derailing"
took the form of Glenn being as sensitive to "insults" as Erik himself was,
right in the text that you have preserved above, going back through
each of 5 (five) successive posts.

> Why didn’t Harshman notify everyone of his travel plans?

He didn't need to -- it was irrelevant. And you'd know that, if you had actually bothered
to read the post to which you are replying.


I suggest you not linger any longer in this thread, lest you make as big a monkey
of yourself as Erik made of himself in his reply to Harshman's post. I'd say
you are more than halfway there already.


Peter Nyikos

PS Don't take Erik's silliness about this group being "almost dead," etc. seriously.
He's just suffering from a temporary case of sour grapes.

[John Harshman]

Yes, that was from Iceland.

>> What are you on about now?
>
> Why ask? The obvious conclusion from what you said and didn't say in your preceding sentence
> is that you couldn't see what went on because you didn't want to know what was going on. Why start now?

Because I was wondering what you were on about now.

> And I told Erik Simpson about the highly probable reason you didn't want to see what was going on,
> right in the post to which you are replying. Are you too scrolling-impaired to look at it now?

More like caring-impaired. You must understand that it's often painful
to read your rants, even enough to tell whether it's another rant or an
attempt at reason. I may miss some actual content that way, but it also
saves sanity, so worth the risk.

> And Erik made a monkey out of himself with the reply he did to your disingenuous question,
> falsely accusing me of drifting further and further of touch -- when he couldn't even figure out that you
> had to be doing all your June posts from Iceland.

Just the ones before June 13.

> The only sensible thing Erik has done here after June 17 was to wish me to have fun with Glenn.
> When Glenn sees what bumbling and fumbling the two of you have done in just two posts (one apiece),
> he's bound to have a lot of fun, and it'll be fun for me too.
>
> But you'll both hate both of us all the more for that, won't you?

Again, this is crazy talk. You have worked yourself into a snit out of
your own imagination. Take a few days to cool off. Perhaps longer.

[John Harshman]

Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, with
a bunch of quantum-mechanics mumbo-jumbo to make it more sciencey. But
he's constantly writing to attack evolutionary science of various sorts,
including at times human evolution. And he makes elementary mistakes in
communicating paleontological data, always in the direction of attacking
evolution. Puzzling.

Erik is apparently the current bete noir, who must be mentioned and
attacked in every post, even if he has to be shoehorned in.

[Peter Nyikos]

.

> >>>>>>>>> I can see from your response that you have been your usual
> >>>>>>>>> mischievous self in these last two
> >>>>>>>>> posts. It's nice to know that all your talk of "civility" was just flippant banter.
.
> >>>>>>>>>> Try this from my dropbox:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If that doesn't work, you're on your own.
.
> >>>>>>>>> Who cares whether it works or not? You are mischievously
> >>>>>>>>> disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked.
.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And so, I also believe now that your comment,

.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ​more completly than I care to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> summarize.

.
> >>>>>>>>> was just you pulling my leg (and Glenn's too) about a summary that
> >>>>>>>>> takes 0 keystrokes to type.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>

.
> >>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>> Simulated incomprehension noted.
.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bye.

> >>>>>>>
.
> >>>>>>> My logic should have been readily understandable from the following sentence:
> >>>>>>> "You are mischievously disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked."
> >>>>>>> If anyone reading this does not see why, I suggest that such a person
> >>>>>>> scroll up to read this quoted sentence in context.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>

.

> >>>>>> So sorry, but bye anyway. Have fun with Glenn.
> >>>>>
.
> >>>>> An appropriate word with which to end your presence: Glenn, who made the odds
> >>>>> against you and Harshman 2-2, which was so unbearable for Harshman that he
> >>>>> vanished from this thread almost a week ago and has never returned. [1]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even the 2-1 odds that you and he had against me without Glenn were enough to
> >>>>> make you uncomfortable, weren't they? Both of you sorely missed that
> >>>>> rabid anti-Nyikos fanatic, Oxyaena, didn't you?

.

> >>>>> [1] Harshman suddenly showed up in talk.origins a couple of days ago,
> >>>>> secure in the knowledge
> >>>>> that at least a dozen people there have his back. But his dereliction
> >>>>> of duty here, with three or more posts by me left unanswered, is catching
> >>>>> up to him on the thread,
> >>>>> A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg
> >>>

.

And you keep complaining about *me* being unclear! This generalization
is far more vague than anything I've written.

> including at times human evolution.

Bite your tongue! What you've been able to document does NOT call into
question the evolution humans from other primates.

> And he makes elementary mistakes in
> communicating paleontological data,

Unsupported, and hopelessly vague, allegation of "elementary mistakes" noted.

> always in the direction of attacking evolution.

Weasel wording "in the direction of" noted. The next time I throw a pine cone in the direction
of the moon, I'll remember what you wrote here.


<snip for focus>

> >> The
> >> actual subject matter is occasional backdrop for habitual name drop
> >> chatter.
> >
> > Where do you see more than one of that above? Erik even avoided dropping Glenn's name,
> > instead referring to him as "a troll" who "derailed" a thread. The "derailing"
> > took the form of Glenn being as sensitive to "insults" as Erik himself was,
> > right in the text that you have preserved above, going back through
> > each of 5 (five) successive posts.
> >
> >
> >> Why didn’t Harshman notify everyone of his travel plans?
> >
> > He didn't need to -- it was irrelevant. And you'd know that, if you had actually bothered
> > to read the post to which you are replying.
> >
> >
> > I suggest you not linger any longer in this thread, lest you make as big a monkey
> > of yourself as Erik made of himself in his reply to Harshman's post. I'd say
> > you are more than halfway there already.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS Don't take Erik's silliness about this group being "almost dead," etc. seriously.
> > He's just suffering from a temporary case of sour grapes.

> Erik is apparently the current bete noir, who must be mentioned and
> attacked in every post, even if he has to be shoehorned in.

Erik shoehorned his mischief into this thread, and I've been calling him out on it.
Apparently you have been so conditioned by your favoritism towards him
from the get-go in talk.origins, and here in sci.bio.paleontology ever since he sabotaged the
civility that reigned here from April 2015 to early 2018, that you are no longer able to read what went on in
the oodles of text above where you came in with an open mind.

Anyway, you will finally get your chance to make good on your allegations about Bechly
when I start a thread on Dickinsonia: I'll begin by focusing on his long article about whether
it is an animal.


Early next week, hopefully Monday already. I'm sufficiently concerned about the lack of
on-topic discussion here to give it priority over everything in talk.origins, unless something
totally unexpected comes along.


Peter Nyikos