The Darwinians

[Glenn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s

A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>
>A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.

Some of those quoted are not referring to Darwinian evolution, ex.
Keith Devlin.

Some of those quotes are quotemines, taken out of context to make it
appear to mean something other than what the author meant, ex. "Humans
are no better than bacteria".

The larger problem with your cited video is that it fails to
distinguish between "is" and "ought". For example, people caught in a
natural disaster might think it evil and ought not hurt them if only
they pray the right way to the right deity. But natural phenomena
like evolution act amorally aka without regard to who or what does or
doesn't get hurt.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >
> >A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> Some of those quoted are not referring to Darwinian evolution, ex.
> Keith Devlin.

You'd have me believe Devlin is not a Darwinian? Are you stupid or what?

>
> Some of those quotes are quotemines, taken out of context to make it
> appear to mean something other than what the author meant, ex. "Humans
> are no better than bacteria".

For you, anything you don't agree with or that bothers you is "out of context".
Not supporting your claim is out of context, bozo.
Here's some more context:

https://apologeticspress.org/implications-of-atheism-part-i-911/

>
> The larger problem with your cited video is that it fails to
> distinguish between "is" and "ought".

Oh fuck off, Darwinian.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:01:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>> >
>> >A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>> Some of those quoted are not referring to Darwinian evolution, ex.
>> Keith Devlin.
>
>You'd have me believe Devlin is not a Darwinian? Are you stupid or what?

Since you asked, both your questions have the same answer; "no". Only
village idiots assume that everything "Darwinians" say, whoever you
think they are, is about Darwinian evolution.

>> Some of those quotes are quotemines, taken out of context to make it
>> appear to mean something other than what the author meant, ex. "Humans
>> are no better than bacteria".
>
>For you, anything you don't agree with or that bothers you is "out of context".
>Not supporting your claim is out of context, bozo.

Your willfully stupid comments are typical of village idiots.

>Here's some more context:
>
>https://apologeticspress.org/implications-of-atheism-part-i-911/

You have no idea what "context" or "proof" mean. Your cited article
cites invalid links, and provides no actual context. And even if the
article's comments were technically correct, Pianka wasn't talking
about any kind of evolution, but asserted a metaphor about
overpopulation.

But it's ironic that the author of your cited article is "Kyle Butt".

>> The larger problem with your cited video is that it fails to
>> distinguish between "is" and "ought".
>
>Oh fuck off, Darwinian.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls. My impression is
the circle of jerks will welcome you with open hands.

[RonO]

On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>
> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>

These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
creationist rubes like yourself for over 20 years. Demonstrate that
they aren't scaming you with this junk. Darwinism is just a euphemism
for anything that the IDiots don't like about science in general, and
the vast majority of scientists are not like what they portray in this
video. The reason that they have to do this is because there turned out
to be no IDiotic creation science that they wanted to do, so all they
have left is to try to denigrate what is better than anything that they
can come up with. If they didn't know this, they would not have tried
to lie about doing the science and pretending that they could do what
real scientists do every day. You know this to be true because you have
been running from the Top Six for over half a decade and keep wallowing
in the second rate denial junk like this.

The ID perps have never produced any ID science worth talking about.
This is all that they can muster, and you keep bending over and lapping
up the crap.

ID Perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

No IDiotic science ever got done because IDiots do not want to know the
answers that they would get. The bait and switch keeps going down
because no creationist rubes want to teach what they actually have. If
you aren't going to teach the best evidence for the ID creationist scam
why teach anything at all?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You make my point very well, jillery.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >
> > A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> >
> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
> creationist rubes like yourself

You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.

[RonO]

Snip and run from the reality that you can't stand. Isn't it sad that
you have to distract the issue in this way. What does what you put up
have to do with what you are running from?

REPOST:

These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot

creationist rubes like yourself for over 20 years. Demonstrate that
they aren't scaming you with this junk. Darwinism is just a euphemism
for anything that the IDiots don't like about science in general, and
the vast majority of scientists are not like what they portray in this
video. The reason that they have to do this is because there turned out
to be no IDiotic creation science that they wanted to do, so all they
have left is to try to denigrate what is better than anything that they
can come up with. If they didn't know this, they would not have tried
to lie about doing the science and pretending that they could do what
real scientists do every day. You know this to be true because you have
been running from the Top Six for over half a decade and keep wallowing
in the second rate denial junk like this.

The ID perps have never produced any ID science worth talking about.
This is all that they can muster, and you keep bending over and lapping
up the crap.

ID Perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

No IDiotic science ever got done because IDiots do not want to know the
answers that they would get. The bait and switch keeps going down
because no creationist rubes want to teach what they actually have. If
you aren't going to teach the best evidence for the ID creationist scam
why teach anything at all?

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 10:12 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >>>
> >>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> >>>
> >> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
> >> creationist rubes like yourself
> >
> > You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
> >
> Snip and run from the reality that you can't stand. Isn't it sad that
> you have to distract the issue in this way. What does what you put up
> have to do with what you are running from?
>

This from a person trained in "science".

[Glenn]

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>
> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.

And what is "Science"? Could this provide a clue?

"But Darwin’s theory is no less applicable now than it was more than a century ago—specifically, we can use his ideas to gain insight into why women opt for abortion, and why the choice to abort can in fact sometimes, though not always, be the more ethical and humane decision. "

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/abortion-a-product-of-its-times/

[RonO]

This is the Snip and run tactic of someone with questionable mental
competency. You don't need much training to be Glen, but he obviously
has had a lot of practice. Why don't you try to put up something that
you actually want to understand and defend? How about that retroviral
insertion that changed placental development? Why not try to figure out
why you put it up when you don't want to believe in the designer
responsible for it. How do IDiots deceive themselves and why did you
put up this bit of stupidity about Darwinism, when you can't stand what
reality actually is? Self deception isn't any way to live a life.

REPOST what Glenn has to run from:
REPOST:

These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot

creationist rubes like yourself for over 20 years. Demonstrate that
they aren't scaming you with this junk. Darwinism is just a euphemism
for anything that the IDiots don't like about science in general, and
the vast majority of scientists are not like what they portray in this
video. The reason that they have to do this is because there turned out
to be no IDiotic creation science that they wanted to do, so all they
have left is to try to denigrate what is better than anything that they
can come up with. If they didn't know this, they would not have tried
to lie about doing the science and pretending that they could do what
real scientists do every day. You know this to be true because you have
been running from the Top Six for over half a decade and keep wallowing
in the second rate denial junk like this.

The ID perps have never produced any ID science worth talking about.
This is all that they can muster, and you keep bending over and lapping
up the crap.

ID Perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

No IDiotic science ever got done because IDiots do not want to know the
answers that they would get. The bait and switch keeps going down
because no creationist rubes want to teach what they actually have. If
you aren't going to teach the best evidence for the ID creationist scam
why teach anything at all?
END REPOST:

END REPOST of REPOST:



Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 11:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2022 10:12 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> >>>>>
> >>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
> >>>> creationist rubes like yourself
> >>>
> >>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
> >>>
> >> Snip and run from the reality that you can't stand. Isn't it sad that
> >> you have to distract the issue in this way. What does what you put up
> >> have to do with what you are running from?
> >>
> > This from a person trained in "science".
> >
> This is the Snip and run tactic of someone with questionable mental
> competency.

Says the guy who talks to himself about fantasies.

[RonO]

Projection is all that you have left. Fantasy is the only thing that
you keep putting up. You know the junk doesn't matter to reality, but
you can't help using it for self deception. Snipping and running and
projecting your own foibles onto someone else is just sad. Really
Glenn, just try to explain why you posted what you did to yourself,
rather than face what the ID perps are telling you what ID is and how
you should be defending it.

REPOST of REPOST:

This is the Snip and run tactic of someone with questionable mental

competency. You don't need much training to be Glen, but he obviously
has had a lot of practice. Why don't you try to put up something that
you actually want to understand and defend? How about that retroviral
insertion that changed placental development? Why not try to figure out
why you put it up when you don't want to believe in the designer
responsible for it. How do IDiots deceive themselves and why did you
put up this bit of stupidity about Darwinism, when you can't stand what
reality actually is? Self deception isn't any way to live a life.

REPOST what Glenn has to run from:
REPOST:

These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot

creationist rubes like yourself for over 20 years. Demonstrate that
they aren't scaming you with this junk. Darwinism is just a euphemism
for anything that the IDiots don't like about science in general, and
the vast majority of scientists are not like what they portray in this
video. The reason that they have to do this is because there turned out
to be no IDiotic creation science that they wanted to do, so all they
have left is to try to denigrate what is better than anything that they
can come up with. If they didn't know this, they would not have tried
to lie about doing the science and pretending that they could do what
real scientists do every day. You know this to be true because you have
been running from the Top Six for over half a decade and keep wallowing
in the second rate denial junk like this.

The ID perps have never produced any ID science worth talking about.
This is all that they can muster, and you keep bending over and lapping
up the crap.

ID Perp Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

No IDiotic science ever got done because IDiots do not want to know the
answers that they would get. The bait and switch keeps going down
because no creationist rubes want to teach what they actually have. If
you aren't going to teach the best evidence for the ID creationist scam
why teach anything at all?
END REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST:

End REPOST of REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:05:20 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 6:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2022 11:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 6/25/2022 10:12 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
> >>>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Snip and run from the reality that you can't stand. Isn't it sad that
> >>>> you have to distract the issue in this way. What does what you put up
> >>>> have to do with what you are running from?
> >>>>
> >>> This from a person trained in "science".
> >>>
> >> This is the Snip and run tactic of someone with questionable mental
> >> competency.
> >
> > Says the guy who talks to himself about fantasies.
> >
> Projection is all that you have left. Fantasy is the only thing that
> you keep putting up.

Actually your crystal ball is showing. And has for years. You're insane.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

What was your point? And how did I "make it"? You don't say.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>>
>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>
>And what is "Science"? Could this provide a clue?

Since you asked, anytime anybody talks about "Darwinians", it's almost
certain they're clueless about science. You're welcome.

>"But Darwin’s theory is no less applicable now than it was more than a century ago—specifically, we can use his ideas to gain insight into why women opt for abortion, and why the choice to abort can in fact sometimes, though not always, be the more ethical and humane decision. "
>
>https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/abortion-a-product-of-its-times/

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-26 04:41:49 +0000, jillery said:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s>>>> A look at how
>>> they think, and in the name of Science.
>>
>> And what is "Science"? Could this provide a clue?
>
>
> Since you asked, anytime anybody talks about "Darwinians", it's almost
> certain they're clueless about science. You're welcome.

"Einsteinians" is used in almost exactly the same way at
sci.physics.relativity, with the same degree of cluelessness.

>
>> "But Darwin’s theory is no less applicable now than it was more than a
>> century ago—specifically, we can use his ideas to gain insight into why
>> women opt for abortion, and why the choice to abort can in fact
>> sometimes, though not always, be the more ethical and humane decision. "
>>
>> https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/abortion-a-product-of-its-times/


--

Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[RonO]

Projection really is destructive as you keep kicking yourself in the
butt. Why do you do it? Who won't say why he posted the junk that he
did in order to keep living in your fantasy world. Snipping and running
from reality doesn't change what you do.

REPOST again:

Projection is all that you have left. Fantasy is the only thing that

you keep putting up. You know the junk doesn't matter to reality, but
you can't help using it for self deception. Snipping and running and
projecting your own foibles onto someone else is just sad. Really
Glenn, just try to explain why you posted what you did to yourself,
rather than face what the ID perps are telling you what ID is and how
you should be defending it.

REPOST of REPOST:

This is the Snip and run tactic of someone with questionable mental

competency. You don't need much training to be Glen, but he obviously
has had a lot of practice. Why don't you try to put up something that
you actually want to understand and defend? How about that retroviral
insertion that changed placental development? Why not try to figure out
why you put it up when you don't want to believe in the designer
responsible for it. How do IDiots deceive themselves and why did you
put up this bit of stupidity about Darwinism, when you can't stand what
reality actually is? Self deception isn't any way to live a life.

REPOST what Glenn has to run from:
REPOST:

These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot

END REPOST again:

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:37:48 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-06-26 04:41:49 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s>>>> A look at how
>>>> they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>
>>> And what is "Science"? Could this provide a clue?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, anytime anybody talks about "Darwinians", it's almost
>> certain they're clueless about science. You're welcome.
>
>"Einsteinians" is used in almost exactly the same way at
>sci.physics.relativity, with the same degree of cluelessness.

True dat. But "Einsteinians" sounds to me like it might be a metric
for measuring genius; "you're worth +10 Einsteinians and he's worth
-2".

In practice, "Darwinians" and its synonym "Darwinists" are used to
refer to people whose opinions have nothing to do with biological
evolution. The words are polyglot catchall terms for people whose
opinions the speaker disagrees, regardless of topic.

>>> "But Darwin’s theory is no less applicable now than it was more than a
>>> century ago—specifically, we can use his ideas to gain insight into why
>>> women opt for abortion, and why the choice to abort can in fact
>>> sometimes, though not always, be the more ethical and humane decision. "
>>>
>>> https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/abortion-a-product-of-its-times/

--

[Burkhard]

jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:37:48 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-26 04:41:49 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s>>>> A look at how
>>>>> they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>>
>>>> And what is "Science"? Could this provide a clue?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you asked, anytime anybody talks about "Darwinians", it's almost
>>> certain they're clueless about science. You're welcome.
>>
>> "Einsteinians" is used in almost exactly the same way at
>> sci.physics.relativity, with the same degree of cluelessness.
>
>
> True dat. But "Einsteinians" sounds to me like it might be a metric
> for measuring genius; "you're worth +10 Einsteinians and he's worth
> -2".
>
> In practice, "Darwinians" and its synonym "Darwinists" are used to
> refer to people whose opinions have nothing to do with biological
> evolution. The words are polyglot catchall terms for people whose
> opinions the speaker disagrees, regardless of topic.

bit of a pet peeve tbh - Darwinian is a perfectly good term, as is Darwinism
Here Dawkins:

"I am a passionate Darwinian believing that natural selection is, if
not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known
force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes
all who contemplate nature"

and a certain John Wilkins:

"In contrast it is held that Darwinian, and post-Darwinian, biology
relies upon variation as important and inevitable properties of taxa,
and that taxa are not, therefore, kinds but historical individuals."
(Wilkins, John S. "Essentialism in biology." The Philosophy of Biology.
Springer, Dordrecht, 2013. 395-419)

Or Dennet: "This was most recently brought home to me when my friend
Stephen Gould, who is as convinced a Darwinist as I am..."
(Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, p. 266)


and Dawkins again:
"My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is
in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life."
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker p 287

Or Huxley, in the "Modern Synthesis": "The death of Darwinism has been
proclaimed not only from the pulpit, but also from the biological
laboratory, but as in he case of Mark Twain, the reports seem to have
been greatly exaggerated since today Darwinism is very much alive"

Or Marjorie Grene who used it in the title of her "Dimensions Of
Darwinism : Themes And Counterthemes In Twentieth-Century Evolutionary
Theory"?

couple of more people who I'd say are not "clueless about science" by
any measure ;o) :

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "On some fundamental concepts of Darwinian
biology." Evolutionary biology. Springer, Boston, MA, 1968. 1-34.

Gould, Stephen Jay. "Darwinian fundamentalism." New York Review of Books
44 (1997): 34-37.

Ghiselin, Michael T. The triumph of the Darwinian method. Univ of
California Press, 1969.

Denison, R. Ford. "Darwinian agriculture." Darwinian Agriculture.
Princeton University Press, 2012.

Kohn, David, ed. The darwinian heritage. Vol. 10. Princeton University
Press, 2014.

Simonton, Dean Keith. Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on
creativity. Oxford University Press, 1999.

and here finally one that discussed the very use of the concept, and why
the decided to keep it - no reason to leave a perfectly good term just
because some, mainly US based folks, abuse it the way to indicate

Stephan, Taylorlyn, et al. "Darwinian genomics and diversity in the tree
of life." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.4 (2022):
e2115644119.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

For one awful moment I thought you were referring to Marjorie Taylor
Green. I don't know if she could spell all those long words.

>
> couple of more people who I'd say are not "clueless about science" by
> any measure ;o) :
>
> Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "On some fundamental concepts of Darwinian
> biology." Evolutionary biology. Springer, Boston, MA, 1968. 1-34.
>
> Gould, Stephen Jay. "Darwinian fundamentalism." New York Review of
> Books 44 (1997): 34-37.
>
> Ghiselin, Michael T. The triumph of the Darwinian method. Univ of
> California Press, 1969.
>
> Denison, R. Ford. "Darwinian agriculture." Darwinian Agriculture.
> Princeton University Press, 2012.
>
> Kohn, David, ed. The darwinian heritage. Vol. 10. Princeton University
> Press, 2014.
>
> Simonton, Dean Keith. Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on
> creativity. Oxford University Press, 1999.
>
> and here finally one that discussed the very use of the concept, and
> why the decided to keep it - no reason to leave a perfectly good term
> just because some, mainly US based folks, abuse it the way to indicate
>
> Stephan, Taylorlyn, et al. "Darwinian genomics and diversity in the
> tree of life." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.4
> (2022): e2115644119.

All that is correct, of course, but I'm pretty sure that when Glenn and
others talk about Darwinism they're not talking about the same thing
that you are.

[Glenn]

Of course you're pretty sure, since those like me are clueless. May I borrow your
eyebrow comb?

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 15:04:24 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

As usual, you make excellent and comprehensive points. You refer to
people who are discussing Darwinian theory, as contrasted to other
evolutionary theories, or other topics which have nothing to with
evolution or theories or science. Almost none of the quotes in
Glenn's cited video refer to Darwinian theory. Which means what you
describe doesn't inform the video's use of "Darwinians".

>>>>> "But Darwin’s theory is no less applicable now than it was more than a
>>>>> century ago—specifically, we can use his ideas to gain insight into why
>>>>> women opt for abortion, and why the choice to abort can in fact
>>>>> sometimes, though not always, be the more ethical and humane decision. "
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/13/abortion-a-product-of-its-times/

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.

[J. J. Lodder]

Why should Darwin have done any work at all on peas,
or even on the quantitative mechanisms of heredity?
Inheritance with variation was all he needed,
and that was well established experimentally.

Darwin (and his pigeon fancying friends)
did do a lot of work breeding fancy pigeons.

They even betted on being able to produce a pigeon
with some appearance given beforehand,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-28 13:35:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>>>>>
>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>>>
>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
>>>
>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
>>
>> It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.

Just saying what? On the one hand something completely obvious that no
one has ever doubted. On the other hand something utterly irrelevant to
Darwin's achievement. Until the appearance of the New Synthesis -- well
into the 20th century -- Mendel's and Darwin's ideas were thought to be
in opposition to one another.

>
> Why should Darwin have done any work at all on peas,
> or even on the quantitative mechanisms of heredity?
> Inheritance with variation was all he needed,
> and that was well established experimentally.
>
> Darwin (and his pigeon fancying friends)
> did do a lot of work breeding fancy pigeons.
>
> They even betted on being able to produce a pigeon
> with some appearance given beforehand,
>
> Jan

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:58:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-06-28 13:35:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>>>>
>>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
>>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
>>>>
>>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
>>>
>>> It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.
>
>Just saying what?

It was a light-hearted poke at Glenn's asinine comment; apparently,
humour isn't the strongest suit for you or Lodder.

P.S. When you want to ask me a question, it would be so much nicer and
more polite to ask me directly rather than in a reply to another
poster.

[J. J. Lodder]

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:58:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> >On 2022-06-28 13:35:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >
> >> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
> >>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
> >>>>
> >>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
> >>>
> >>> It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.
> >
> >Just saying what?
>
> It was a light-hearted poke at Glenn's asinine comment; apparently,
> humour isn't the strongest suit for you or Lodder.
>
> P.S. When you want to ask me a question, it would be so much nicer and
> more polite to ask me directly rather than in a reply to another
> poster.

Humour isn't much fun when it is obvious that you missed the point,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-28 20:34:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:58:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-06-28 13:35:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
>>>>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.
>>>
>>> Just saying what?
>>
>> It was a light-hearted poke at Glenn's asinine comment; apparently,
>> humour isn't the strongest suit for you or Lodder.
>>
>> P.S. When you want to ask me a question, it would be so much nicer and
>> more polite to ask me directly rather than in a reply to another
>> poster.

Maybe, but I don't see your posts unless someone answers them.

>
> Humour isn't much fun when it is obvious that you missed the point,
>
> Jan

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:10:16 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-06-28 20:34:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:58:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-06-28 13:35:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 6:48 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLkvoj5TTc&t=121s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A look at how they think, and in the name of Science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are the ID perps that have run the bait and switch on IDiot
>>>>>>>> creationist rubes like yourself
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You and jillery are like two peas in one Darwinian pod.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was Mendel who did the real work on peas, not Darwin. Just sayin'.
>>>>
>>>> Just saying what?
>>>
>>> It was a light-hearted poke at Glenn's asinine comment; apparently,
>>> humour isn't the strongest suit for you or Lodder.
>>>
>>> P.S. When you want to ask me a question, it would be so much nicer and
>>> more polite to ask me directly rather than in a reply to another
>>> poster.
>
>Maybe, but I don't see your posts unless someone answers them.

Killfiling or equivalently ignoring someone is a bit pointless if you
are going to reply to them or otherwise comment on them anyway. You
really should make your mind up one way or the other.

I realize you won't see this unless someone else replies to it.