True science vs. False science

[Alpha Beta]

All of true science was developed by creation scientists.
All of fake science was developed by Evolutionists.

Examples of false science:
- Primordial soup
- Universe from nothing
- Billions of years
- Genetic errors over vast ages made humans
- Infinite universe

Examples of true science:
- Mathematics
- Thermodynamics (especially the first two laws)
- Electromagnetism
- Classical mechanics (excluding gravity)
- Genetics (excluding mutations)

Paul Dirac: "God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."

Galileo: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.".

Isaac Newton: "It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion."

Werner Heisenberg: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

Lord Kelvin: "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe science excludes atheism."

Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Glenn]

Nicholas Copernicus
Giuseppe Mercalli
Carolus Linnaeus
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Sir James Young Simpson
Robert Boyle
Antoine Lavoisier
Leonhard Euler
Michael Faraday
James Clerk Maxwell
Gregor Mendel
Arthur Compton
Ronald Fisher
Bernhard Riemann
Georges Lemaître
Charles Townes
Willard Gibbs
John Dalton
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Charles Barkla
George Washington Carver
Francis Collins
Ernest Walton
Florence Nightingale
J. J. Thomson
Alessandro Volta
Blaise Pascal
Charles Babbage
Albrecht von Haller
Nicolas Steno
Humphry Davy
Arthur Eddington
John Ambrose Fleming
Samuel Morse
John Eccles
René Descartes
Johannes Kepler
Lise Meitner
Andrew Pinsent

and many, many more.

[is sad]

Examples of false science:
The Standard Model:
Quarks, Tetraquarks, Pentaquarks, . . .

[Robert Carnegie]

We're supposed to explain when you are talking rubbish
but I prefer to assume that you already know.

Regarding mutations, do you drink milk?
Or take cream in coffee perhaps?

[RonO]

What science did Dirac ever do to support your religious beliefs? I
cannot think of any, but you might have something in mind.

Galileo and Newton demonstrated that the Christian belief in geocentrism
was wrong. After Newton the church never burned another heretic branded
with a counter claim to geocentrism. These two are known for their
science and not their support of your religious beliefs.

What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.

Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old. He lived to
understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
the discovery was announced.

What science did Einstein ever do to support your religious beliefs?
Really, How long has that light been traveling in order to see the
gravitational lens effects of concentrations of mass in the universe?
E=mc^2 is one of the reasons Kelvin underestimated the age of the earth
by billions of years.

How tragically lame are your claims about this?

Ron Okimoto

[Dexter]

___________________________________________

Well, bless your little heart.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 23:03:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by is sad
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

> Examples of false science:
>The Standard Model:
>Quarks, Tetraquarks, Pentaquarks, . . .

So what, in your opinion, is "true" science?

And since the things you cite above heave objective evidence
in support, what is the evidence, which overrides those in
the usual way, that you're correct?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

Please do tell us all about it.

[William Hyde]

Which is ironic, in that Newton's religious beliefs could have had him burned at the stake a century earlier - as was another scholar, Michael Servetus, in 1553 (both Catholics and Protestants wanted to burn him).

Even in his enlightened times, if his Arianism was known he'd have been unable to hold his professorship or any public office. Perhaps he would have done really good work down on the farm, but would it have been published? I don't think the royal society accepted heretical members.

These two are known for their
> science and not their support of your religious beliefs.

Newton spent a significant fraction of his productive time showing that both the doctrine of the trinity and that of Christ's godhood were fabrications.

Had his faith been allowed, perhaps he'd have put that time to more productive use.

>
> What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
> I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.
>
> Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
> with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old.

I think he eventually cut it down to 30 million. Still a factor of 500 past the good archbishop's estimate.

He lived to
> understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
> much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
> before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
> the discovery was announced.

Rutherford himself described this. He said he was careful to point out that radioactivity hadn't been known when earlier estimates were made, and Kelvin was satisfied with that.

William Hyde

[jillery]

I hope these comments about the religious having burned people at the
stake don't raise jerky knees from their metaphorical grave.

>Even in his enlightened times, if his Arianism was known he'd have been unable to hold his professorship or any public office. Perhaps he would have done really good work down on the farm, but would it have been published? I don't think the royal society accepted heretical members.


> These two are known for their
>> science and not their support of your religious beliefs.
>
>Newton spent a significant fraction of his productive time showing that both the doctrine of the trinity and that of Christ's godhood were fabrications.
>
>Had his faith been allowed, perhaps he'd have put that time to more productive use.
>>
>> What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
>> I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.
>>
>> Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
>> with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old.
>
>I think he eventually cut it down to 30 million. Still a factor of 500 past the good archbishop's estimate.
>
> He lived to
>> understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
>> much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
>> before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
>> the discovery was announced.
>
>Rutherford himself described this. He said he was careful to point out that radioactivity hadn't been known when earlier estimates were made, and Kelvin was satisfied with that.
>
>William Hyde
>
>

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

[Robert Carnegie]

Milk (human and cow) contains a sugar called lactose.
Most humans can only safely digest lactose in infancy,
by producing an enzyme called lactase, as God intended.
A minority of people possess any of several mutations
that cause lactase production to continue life long.
So, most habitual milk drinkers are mutants.

Note that under "true science", please.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Alpha Beta <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Werner Heisenberg: "The first gulp from the glass of natural
> sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the
> glass God is waiting for you."

Unlikely:

https://fauxtations.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/heisenberg-at-the-bottom-of-the-glass/

Andrew.

[is sad]

For Indians the cow is an image of a holy god,
if you hit cow . . . you insulted all Indian people
(and most alcohol drinkers are more mutants than habitual milk drinkers)

[jillery]

You get neither milk nor alcohol by hitting cows. Just sayin'.

In any case, your comment above puts mutations in the "true science"
catgegory, contrary to your earlier statement.

Will you defend as stupidly your opinion about gravity?

[is sad]

> Will you defend as stupidly your opinion about gravity?
>

Gravity is an effect of cosmic milk-energy/masses

[Oxyaena]

On 8/3/2020 2:40 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> All of true science was developed by creation scientists.

There's no such thing as "true" or "fake" sciences, there is only science.

> All of fake science was developed by Evolutionists.
>
> Examples of false science:
> - Primordial soup

The primordial soup is just one hypothesis out of many concerning the
origins of life on Earth, odds are that all of these hypotheses are true
to some degree.

> - Universe from nothing

No one says the universe "came" from nothing, rather it was always here,
just in a different form than what it is now. It's okay to say "I don't
know" and leave it at that, there are some things we just don't know the
answers to, and may never will.

> - Billions of years

Numerous independent dating methods have each confirmed, completely
separately from each other mind you, an age of the earth of 4.5 Ga, and
an age for the solar system of 4.6 Ga.

> - Genetic errors over vast ages made humans

Strawman noted, it's been pointed out to you so many damn times that
evolutionary theory is not just "genetic errors." Even you should have
at least grasped that much by now.

> - Infinite universe

How so? As far as we can tell, wherever we look into the void it just
stretches on and on and on for eternity in all directions, what truly
lies beyond the reaches of the observable universe nobody knows, nor to
its size and extent, it could be infinite, it could be finite, point
being, it's a hell of a lot bigger than our mortal minds can even dare
to comprehend.

>
> Examples of true science:
> - Mathematics > - Thermodynamics (especially the first two laws)

The first law of thermodynamics is a conservation law, funny how you
think it's true when it would rule out creation *ex nihilo*.

> - Electromagnetism
> - Classical mechanics (excluding gravity)

Gravity is the cornerstone of classical mechanics, you twit.

> - Genetics (excluding mutations)

Mutations are the cornerstone of genetics, you twit.

[snip argument from authority]

[is sad]

--------------
and quantum gravity is the cornerstone of Existence

[William Hyde]

I've, I think, met people who would light the pyre. This must of course remain an opinion, as I wasn't eager to put it to the test.

William Hyde

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 11:25:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 23:03:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by is sad
><socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Examples of false science:
>>The Standard Model:
>>Quarks, Tetraquarks, Pentaquarks, . . .
>
>So what, in your opinion, is "true" science?
>
>And since the things you cite above heave objective evidence
>in support, what is the evidence, which overrides those in
>the usual way, that you're correct?

[Crickets...]

As expected...

[Peter Nyikos]

Regarding mutations, do you know that you are setting
up a straw man?

All knowledgeable creationists believe in microevolution.
Some say it leaves off on the genus level, others take it
as high as Linnean families, like the horse family.


Once in a while a rare bird like Ray Martinez bills
himself as a "species immutabilist," and viciously
attacks other creationists in a "holier than thou"
manner. Yet even he had no trouble believing mutations whose effect
stayed within a species.


And I believe even the most ignorant racist
nowadays knows that the black Masai and all other lactose-tolerant
mutants are members of the same species as themselves.
Why else would there have been laws against "miscegnation"
in the Jim Crow South?


Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
This post has a good scientific component,
and is highly relevant for some of the topics for which talk.origins was set up.

[Glenn]

I don't know what God intended, and neither do you. Perhaps mother's milk is all that God intended humans to drink. Milk may not be good for you, especially if you drink much of it.

But apparently you think that for most people after childhood, mutations occur which prevent the production of lactase.

By "mutation" I assume you mean genetic mutations, since that is what you are championing.

> A minority of people possess any of several mutations
> that cause lactase production to continue life long.
> So, most habitual milk drinkers are mutants.
>

Apparently you think single-nucleotide polymorphisms are impressive examples of evolutionary change.

> Note that under "true science", please.

No, I might note what you claim when you can support it with science.

Here's an example, albeit "soft" evidence:

"New evidence suggests that this decline occurs not because the genetic code is changed, but because the DNA is chemically modified so that the lactase gene is switched off."

https://biology.indiana.edu/news-events/news/2019/foster-lactose-intolerance.html

And you may not get this from Wiki:

"Recently researchers have shown that one of the SNPs changes the level of epigenetic modification of the DNA in the lactase gene control regions."

Perhaps this isn't one of evolution's best examples.

"That the trait persisted and spread in these populations indicates that the ability to digest milk beyond infancy had a significant selective advantage."

Does "indicate" indicate "true science"?

[Peter Nyikos]

No, of course not. The popularizer whom you are quoting sounds like a
true believer in ...

Darwin of the Gaps:

Well, y'know, it's natural selection. The ones that did/had/could ___________
had a selective advantage over those who didn't/hadn't/couldn't and
so those are the ones you see today.

This is the one-size-fits-all, utterly unfalsifiable explanation
for any and all biological phenomena.


Anyway, Glenn, it's good to see you in such good scientific form.
I'm starting a file in my laptop called "hemidactylus," lower case,
for those posts in which you outshine anything I've seen from your
biggest denigrator as far as on-topic scientific thinking goes.
If Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase continues true to form, I don't
think I'll be scrubbing any posts from it any time soon.

Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG

Though mostly personal as far as my contribution goes,
this post has a scientific component, and is relevant to topics for which talk.origins was set up.

[Glenn]

I chose that article specifically for that last quote. I doubt the evolutionists would agree with you.

> The popularizer whom you are quoting sounds like a
> true believer in ...
>
> Darwin of the Gaps:
>
> Well, y'know, it's natural selection. The ones that did/had/could ___________
> had a selective advantage over those who didn't/hadn't/couldn't and
> so those are the ones you see today.
>
> This is the one-size-fits-all, utterly unfalsifiable explanation
> for any and all biological phenomena.
>
>
> Anyway, Glenn, it's good to see you in such good scientific form.
> I'm starting a file in my laptop called "hemidactylus," lower case,
> for those posts in which you outshine anything I've seen from your
> biggest denigrator as far as on-topic scientific thinking goes.
> If Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase continues true to form, I don't
> think I'll be scrubbing any posts from it any time soon.
>

The argument about milk has a history. For a real knee-slapper with respect to "true science", see this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/

"Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence"

"The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported."

In other words, nothing to see here, move along and drink milk.

For the knee-slapper, read the "Conflicts of interest and funding" section.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 7:25:04 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 8/3/2020 1:40 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > All of true science was developed by creation scientists.
> > All of fake science was developed by Evolutionists.
> >
> > Examples of false science:
> > - Primordial soup
> > - Universe from nothing
> > - Billions of years

That third item is an example of over-the-top false "science" by Alpha Beta,
as you so convincingly demonstrate below, Ron O.

> > - Genetic errors over vast ages made humans
> > - Infinite universe
> >
> > Examples of true science:
> > - Mathematics
> > - Thermodynamics (especially the first two laws)
> > - Electromagnetism
> > - Classical mechanics (excluding gravity)

The parenthetical bit makes me suspicious of Alpha Beta.


> > - Genetics (excluding mutations)

Earlier, I accused Robert Carnegie of setting up this "excluding mutations"
straw man, and I retract that. I should have realized that it is Alpha Beta,
like a true troll, who set it up. Robert merely knocked it down.
it up.
man for

> >
> > Paul Dirac: "God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."
> >
> > Galileo: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.".
> >
> > Isaac Newton: "It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion."
> >
> > Werner Heisenberg: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
> >
> > Lord Kelvin: "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe science excludes atheism."
> >
> > Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
> >
>
> What science did Dirac ever do to support your religious beliefs? I
> cannot think of any, but you might have something in mind.
>
> Galileo and Newton demonstrated that the Christian belief in geocentrism
> was wrong. After Newton the church never burned another heretic branded
> with a counter claim to geocentrism.

When did it ever burn a heretic for that?

Don't say Giordano Bruno. He was not burned for geocentrism,
and you know it.
And no amount of denunciations by you for not replying in
detail to a one-post thread by you which can refute that [1].

You know that the June 6 post doesn't prove a single
claim you make in it or about it, but your success in having
Kleinman banned seems to have gone to your hate-ravaged head.

[1] Comments like these are a near-necessity to take a bit
the wind out of the sails of the inevitable and thoroughly
predictable denunciations you make in every post where I reply to you.

Perhaps <gasp> this one will actually make you acknowledge the truth
about Giordano Bruno.

> These two are known for their
> science and not their support of your religious beliefs.
>
> What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
> I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.
>
> Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
> with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old.

He killed that of Ray Martinez, who abided by Lord Kelvin's estimate in
talk.origins, and was nowhere near as close to being certifiably
insane as you are.

> He lived to
> understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
> much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
> before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
> the discovery was announced.
>
> What science did Einstein ever do to support your religious beliefs?
> Really, How long has that light been traveling in order to see the
> gravitational lens effects of concentrations of mass in the universe?
> E=mc^2 is one of the reasons Kelvin underestimated the age of the earth
> by billions of years.
>
> How tragically lame are your claims about this?

I suspect Alpha Beta is a "loki," someone whose creationist
claims are so over the top that they seem designed to make
people disgusted with creationism.

You know I've harbored similar suspicions about your claims
to believe in a creator. You are diametrically opposite from
lokis: you loathe the whole spectrum of the Argument from Design so much that
you are a Useful Idiot [2] in the hands of militant atheists
like jillery and Oxyaena.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

So the above is not just "yes", but "Hell yes!"

[jillery]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:17:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

It's a common phrase. Don't get your knickers in a twist over it.

>Perhaps mother's milk is all that God intended humans to drink. Milk may not be good for you, especially if you drink much of it.
>
>But apparently you think that for most people after childhood, mutations occur which prevent the production of lactase.

Incorrect. Robert Carnegie suggested nothing of the kind. In fact,
what he refers to is a standard developmental path among mammals.
Turning off the lactase gene is a regulatory process during maturation
of individuals, and not a consequence of mutation. The genes don't
change, but their expression does.

>By "mutation" I assume you mean genetic mutations, since that is what you are championing.
>
>> A minority of people possess any of several mutations
>> that cause lactase production to continue life long.
>> So, most habitual milk drinkers are mutants.
>>
>Apparently you think single-nucleotide polymorphisms are impressive examples of evolutionary change.

You're confused. The mutations don't turn off the lactase gene.
Instead, the mutations turn off the regulatory genes which turn off
the lactase gene.

And why do you continue to pretend to read minds? Robert Carnegie
said nothing about "impressive".

>> Note that under "true science", please.
>
>No, I might note what you claim when you can support it with science.

GIYF.

>Here's an example, albeit "soft" evidence:
>
>"New evidence suggests that this decline occurs not because the genetic code is changed, but because the DNA is chemically modified so that the lactase gene is switched off."
>
>https://biology.indiana.edu/news-events/news/2019/foster-lactose-intolerance.html

And so switching off the lactase gene is *not* a mutation, as you
claimed.

>And you may not get this from Wiki:
>
>"Recently researchers have shown that one of the SNPs changes the level of epigenetic modification of the DNA in the lactase gene control regions."
>
>Perhaps this isn't one of evolution's best examples.

Since you asked, yes, lactose tolerance is a very good example of how
evolution works. You would know this if you had any idea what you're
talking about. You're welcome.

>"That the trait persisted and spread in these populations indicates that the ability to digest milk beyond infancy had a significant selective advantage."
>
>Does "indicate" indicate "true science"?

That you even ask that question shows you're proud of your willful
stupidity.

NOTE TO THE PETER PERSONA: Is Glenn's post above an example of what
you mean when you said he provides "useful scientific data and
information about the inconsistencies of scientists"?

[jillery]

On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:25:47 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

ADDENDUM: The peter persona already replied to Glenn's post, and gave
it a big thumbs' up review, which answers my question in the
affirmative. So "willful stupidity" is a trait common among trolls.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I note you made no contribution to scientific discussion here but instead
used the bulk of your post to take a potshot at me. Did you actually read
the article he quoted? Glenn’s use of the article was biased in its quoting
and ignorant of the details found by actually reading articles cited
within. It was NOT “scientific thinking”. Neither of you appear interested
in nuance. Glenn is making a lackluster attempt to discredit evolution and
you are encouraging him. And you are admittedly keeping a file on me, which
is not a good look.

[jillery]

As you likely know, what you describe above are typical responses from
both parties. IMO your description is an understatement wrt Glenn's
response. Not only is he ignorant of what his cited article said,
what he wrote actually contradicted specific points, which I
identified in another post.

As you may know, the population genetics of lactose tolerance among
adult mammals is well studied. The molecular and genetic mechanisms
for it in humans have been known at least since 2003. And T.O. has
hosted several discussions of the topic. So both parties have no
reason to think what they wrote is true.

The following is a link to a comprehensive review of the population
genetics, molecular genetics, and genetic mechanisms of lactose
tolerance:

<https://bioinfo2.ugr.es/PDFsClase/EvolMol/Genetics%20of%20lactase%20persistence%20and%20lactose%20intolerance.pdf>

<https://tinyurl.com/y5kaf4z8>

Glenn's cited article cited studies which showed it was possible to
establish in lactose-intolerant humans a microbiome that digested
lactose.

However, the article also pointed out that such microbiomes didn't
persist unless the humans were constantly fed probiotics and/or
complex sugars which maintained the microbiome. The article also
pointed out that the microbiome would be lost in cases of antibiotic
treatments or substantial intestinal disease. The article also
pointed out that these microbiomes converted lactose to lactic acid,
and so humans gained no nutritional benefit from any lactose they
digested.

I acknowledge the possibility that some prehistoric human cultures may
have adopted a tradition which supported the establishment and
maintenance of lactose-digesting microbiomes.

Another cultural solution to lactose intolerance, and one that is well
documented, is cheese technology, where milk and its sugars are
predigested by bacteria outside the human body.

However, these cultural solutions are in addition to the documented
genetic changes which enabled lactose tolerance, and so do nothing to
either minimize their evolution or to refute it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yeah that notion had come to mind as a way to get human populations through
the hurdle to lactase persistence. But alongside epigenetics and niche
construction, microbiome speculation seems all the rage lately.

>
> Another cultural solution to lactose intolerance, and one that is well
> documented, is cheese technology, where milk and its sugars are
> predigested by bacteria outside the human body.
>

Yeah that was an interim pathway I had read about before. Seems reasonable.
Or yogurt.

>
> However, these cultural solutions are in addition to the documented
> genetic changes which enabled lactose tolerance, and so do nothing to
> either minimize their evolution or to refute it.
>

Thanks for the link and detailed analysis Jillery.

[Peter Nyikos]

Your narcissism is showing. And it caused you to walk into a trap
I didn't even try to set for you.

You ignored the way I characterized a Dunning-Kruger
remark about "selective advantage." Evidently you don't realize
that "Darwin of the Gaps" perfectly describes your blind faith in
microevolution explaining the spectacular mega-evolution of the last 600
million years.

The only "justification" I've seen from you is an empty polemical
insult when I tried to impress on you the huge difficulties of this
idea. Instead of trying to refute what I wrote, you idiotically
dismissed it with the words "nice try."

> Did you actually read
> the article he quoted?

Glenn didn't give a reference. Are you suggesting that it was YOU
who wrote that Dunning-Kruger sentence?

If so, then I can understand your comment: I unwittingly took
a pot shot at you. A completely deserved one.

> Glenn’s use of the article was biased in its quoting
> and ignorant of the details found by actually reading articles cited
> within.

I've had this cheap polemical device ("Peter, PLEASE read that article")
hurled at me before, and Burkhard was caught red-handed lying due to it.

IOW, your claim is devoid of credibility until you demonstrate
it by showing you know what the hell you are talking about.

Anyway, it ignores an undeniable fact: Glenn shows sophisticated knowledge
of the difference between genetic and epigenetic phenomena. And with it, he upstaged Robert Carnegie -- something to which you are willfully blind.


> It was NOT scientific thinking.

Your bootlicking of Robert Carnegie is not necessarily appreciated by him.

>Neither of you appear interested in nuance.

And you are not interested in providing it, and are probably bluffing
about it making a dime's worth of difference.

> Glenn is making a lackluster attempt to discredit evolution

On which thread? Certainly not this one, you insufferable jerk.

> and you are encouraging him. And you are admittedly keeping a file on me, which
> is not a good look.

Your file on me goes back a long ways, and caused you to make a sickeningly dishonest glorification of your hypocritical behavior. {keywords: Galen
Hekhuis}.


You may rest assured that my file on you will not be used in that way.

Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG

Though mostly accusatory, this post has a scientific component which Hemi ignores,
and is highly relevant to several topics for which talk.origins was set up.
of yourself

[RonO]

Bruno was convicted of his non geocentric views. He was not pardoned of
those heresies before they burned him. Lying about this issue like this
is stupid. All that matters for the argument is that the church views
had to change. Newton was born the year that Galileo died under house
arrest, and what was one of his heresies?

Reality is no longer a heresy. Newton and Galileo are not known for any
science that suppported church doctrine.

>
> You know that the June 6 post doesn't prove a single
> claim you make in it or about it, but your success in having
> Kleinman banned seems to have gone to your hate-ravaged head.

Why keep lying about the June 6th post when you are still running from
it? Kleinman wasn't banned for heresy. He was banned because he was a
disruptive asshole like you with so few redeeming qualities that it was
time for him to go. He couldn't even stop when faced with what he was
doing was not sane and rational. That may worry you, but you don't have
to keep being like Kleiman. You could face the June 6th post,
understand that you have been lying about the Top Six issue for 2
months, and move on to something else, but what are you doing?

The IDiot/creationist issue with the Top Six has been going on for over
2 and a half years. The issue is still the same as it was years ago.
It is not what you claim. You can't even get Glenn to admit that there
is an issue. What does that tell you about how wrong you are?

>
> [1] Comments like these are a near-necessity to take a bit
> the wind out of the sails of the inevitable and thoroughly
> predictable denunciations you make in every post where I reply to you.

Your stupid lies never do much of anything, but brand you as the lying
asshole that you are, and have been for the last decade.

>
> Perhaps <gasp> this one will actually make you acknowledge the truth
> about Giordano Bruno.
>

What heresies was Bruno convicted of? He was not pardoned for his non
geocentric views before he was burned alive by the church.

What were among the reasons that Galileo was sentenced to his house arrest?

Why aren't heretics charged with having heliocentric views anymore?

That is all you and AB need to understand about my statement.

Lying about the past will not change the past.

>
>
>> These two are known for their
>> science and not their support of your religious beliefs.
>>
>> What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
>> I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.
>>
>> Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
>> with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old.
>
> He killed that of Ray Martinez, who abided by Lord Kelvin's estimate in
> talk.origins, and was nowhere near as close to being certifiably
> insane as you are.

Projection is really stupid coming from you. Who was the saddistic
poster out to hurt someone else in your second knockdown? Who is insane
enough to continue to lie about the bait and switch even though it went
down as the Top Six were being produced by the IDiots Nov. 2017, and the
ID perps updated their teach ID scam propaganda pamphlet on teaching ID
in the public schools a year later?

Now on page 6.
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/EducatorsBriefingPacket-Web-Condensed.pdf

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

You can lie about the past, but how insane is it to continue to lie
about this when you claim to understand what Phillip Johnson admitted
back in 2006? You lied about the Johnson quote back then, but what do
you claim just recently? The teach ID scam was a major part of the
Wedge strategy cooked up by Phillip Johnson, and there is no question
that the ID scam unit was adhering to that strategy. They created the
Wedge IDiot video, and used to give out their teach ID propaganda guide
book with the video to legislators and school boards before Ohio in 2002.

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

The ID perps produced this guide book in 1999. Ohio was March 2002.
Where do you think that the Ohio IDiots got the idea to teach IDiocy in
their public schools?

Insanity is only an excuse for being the lying asshole that you are.
You are still that lying asshole no matter how insane you are.

>
>
>> He lived to
>> understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
>> much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
>> before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
>> the discovery was announced.
>>
>> What science did Einstein ever do to support your religious beliefs?
>> Really, How long has that light been traveling in order to see the
>> gravitational lens effects of concentrations of mass in the universe?
>> E=mc^2 is one of the reasons Kelvin underestimated the age of the earth
>> by billions of years.
>>
>> How tragically lame are your claims about this?
>
> I suspect Alpha Beta is a "loki," someone whose creationist
> claims are so over the top that they seem designed to make
> people disgusted with creationism.

So why lie about reality to support him?

>
> You know I've harbored similar suspicions about your claims
> to believe in a creator. You are diametrically opposite from
> lokis: you loathe the whole spectrum of the Argument from Design so much that
> you are a Useful Idiot [2] in the hands of militant atheists
> like jillery and Oxyaena.
>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

You have to project your own bogus religious beliefs onto others. It is
part of your insanity. You understand what you are, and have to claim
that others are like that. It is supposed to be some type of defense
mechanism, but it should be more like punching yourself in the face or
beating your head against a brick wall. It is sad that you have to keep
doing it. You are the church going Catholic agnostic, who supports
Pascal's wager, so what could my religious beliefs possibly be in order
to be worse than that? What kind of religious IDiot believes that they
can lie to God and get away with it?

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ironymeter nearing red zone.

>
> You ignored the way I characterized a Dunning-Kruger
> remark about "selective advantage." Evidently you don't realize
> that "Darwin of the Gaps" perfectly describes your blind faith in
> microevolution explaining the spectacular mega-evolution of the last 600
> million years.
>

If you had a grasp of the relevant topic, lactase persistence in humans,
you would exercise your self-restraint and proportion your response to the
topic at hand. Lactase persistence in some human populations would show
that humans have evolved more recently than the EEA of the Pleistocene.
This is entirely about “microevolution” and not some verboten extrapolation
to cover mega-evolution. You are projecting hyperbole setting up a strawman
that doesn’t exist.

>
> The only "justification" I've seen from you is an empty polemical
> insult when I tried to impress on you the huge difficulties of this
> idea. Instead of trying to refute what I wrote, you idiotically
> dismissed it with the words "nice try."
>

In this thread?

>
>> Did you actually read
>> the article he quoted?
>
> Glenn didn't give a reference. Are you suggesting that it was YOU
> who wrote that Dunning-Kruger sentence?
>

Read for comprehension much? Glenn posted this link:

https://biology.indiana.edu/news-events/news/2019/foster-lactose-intolerance.html

>
> If so, then I can understand your comment: I unwittingly took
> a pot shot at you. A completely deserved one.
>

In your little ego-bubble impervious to proportionality.

>
>> Glenn’s use of the article was biased in its quoting
>> and ignorant of the details found by actually reading articles cited
>> within.
>
> I've had this cheap polemical device ("Peter, PLEASE read that article")
> hurled at me before, and Burkhard was caught red-handed lying due to it.
>

So you’re not interested in the topic and satisfied by taking Glenn at face
value?

>
> IOW, your claim is devoid of credibility until you demonstrate
> it by showing you know what the hell you are talking about.
>

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-017-1847-y

“The genetic trait of lactase persistence (LP) is associated with at least
five independent functional single nucleotide variants in a regulatory
region about 14 kb upstream of the lactase gene [−13910*T (rs4988235),
−13907*G (rs41525747), −13915*G (rs41380347), −14009*G (rs869051967) and
−14010*C (rs145946881)].”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23957-4

“In humans the expression of lactase changes during post-natal development,
leading to phenotypes known as lactase persistence and non-persistence.
Polymorphisms within the lactase gene (LCT) enhancer, in particular the
−13910C > T, but also others, are linked to these phenotypes.”

>
> Anyway, it ignores an undeniable fact: Glenn shows sophisticated knowledge
> of the difference between genetic and epigenetic phenomena. And with it,
> he upstaged Robert Carnegie -- something to which you are willfully blind.
>

His “knowledge” ain’t that sophisticated. Mine isn’t a whole lot better but
I would hazard that this is a case of parallel instead of convergent
evolution as each case is a modification associated with the ancestral
state involving epigenetic downregulation of lactase expression. There
arose differing allelic based ways of preventing methylation in an upstream
regulatory region.

The methylation that seems to be an epigenetic modification that reduces
expression of lactase appears to have a genetic (allelic) basis.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340

“Lactase persistence—the ability of adults to digest the lactose in
milk—varies widely in frequency across human populations. This trait
represents an adaptation to the domestication of dairying animals and the
subsequent consumption of their milk. Five variants are currently known to
underlie this phenotype, which is monogenic in Eurasia but mostly polygenic
in Africa.”

And: “To date, five different SNPs have been strongly associated with
lactase persistence, and another 10 or so have been found in isolated
populations. The estimated times of appearance of these SNPs in different
cultures range from 3,000 (Tanzania) to 12,000 (Finland) years ago.” From
Glenn’s link, an article more concerned with putative effects of a
microbiome on lactose levels in the gut.

>
>> It was NOT scientific thinking.
>
> Your bootlicking of Robert Carnegie is not necessarily appreciated by him.
>

How the hell am I bootlicking?

>
>> Neither of you appear interested in nuance.
>
> And you are not interested in providing it, and are probably bluffing
> about it making a dime's worth of difference.
>

From Jillery’s (who to date provided the most comprehensive overview) link:


https://bioinfo2.ugr.es/PDFsClase/EvolMol/Genetics%20of%20lactase%20persistence%20and%20lactose%20intolerance.pdf

“Lactase persistence behaves as a dominant trait because half levels of
lactase activity are sufficient to show significant digestion of
lactose...”

Heterozygotes may have issues under certain conditions.

“Most authors assume that selection has played a major role in determining
the very variable frequencies of lactase persistence in different human
populations. The possible selective factors suggested were nutritional
benefit of milk, source of water in desert zones (9, 10), and in
Northwestern Europe where there is low solar irradiation, improved calcium
absorption (5, 19), on the assumption that rickets and osteomalacia were
strong selective forces... Most of the models require high selection
coefficients, typically 5%, and a reasonable starting gene frequency to
reach a frequency of 0.70 in 6000–9000 years. However, genetic drift
followed by later selection is perhaps a more probable explanation (56) of
present-day frequencies, and the relevant mutation may have originated
before the geographical expansion of modern humans.”

Even genetic drift is evolution no?

>
>> Glenn is making a lackluster attempt to discredit evolution
>
> On which thread? Certainly not this one, you insufferable jerk.
>

This one. But given you didn’t realize he had provided a link, maybe you
didn’t read him very closely.

>
>> and you are encouraging him. And you are admittedly keeping a file on me, which
>> is not a good look.
>
> Your file on me goes back a long ways, and caused you to make a
> sickeningly dishonest glorification of your hypocritical behavior. {keywords: Galen
> Hekhuis}.
>

Weirdest application of set theory ever.

>
> You may rest assured that my file on you will not be used in that way.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
> Though mostly accusatory, this post has a scientific component which Hemi ignores,
> and is highly relevant to several topics for which talk.origins was set up.
> of yourself
>

You ignored Glenn’s link. The irony is priceless.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You didn’t scratch the surface of the science behind lactase persistence.
You merely made snarky commentary based on biased quotes.

>
>> The popularizer whom you are quoting sounds like a
>> true believer in ...
>>
>> Darwin of the Gaps:
>>
>> Well, y'know, it's natural selection. The ones that did/had/could ___________
>> had a selective advantage over those who didn't/hadn't/couldn't and
>> so those are the ones you see today.
>>
>> This is the one-size-fits-all, utterly unfalsifiable explanation
>> for any and all biological phenomena.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, Glenn, it's good to see you in such good scientific form.
>> I'm starting a file in my laptop called "hemidactylus," lower case,
>> for those posts in which you outshine anything I've seen from your
>> biggest denigrator as far as on-topic scientific thinking goes.
>> If Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase continues true to form, I don't
>> think I'll be scrubbing any posts from it any time soon.
>>
> The argument about milk has a history. For a real knee-slapper with
> respect to "true science", see this:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/
>
> "Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of
> the totality of scientific evidence"
>
> "The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of
> milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and
> may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few
> adverse effects have been reported."
>
> In other words, nothing to see here, move along and drink milk.
>

I don’t drink dairy milk. In these days of overabundance it is unnecessary.
I drink soy or almond/cashew milk instead.

Even if drinking dairy milk in the ancestral past of lactase persistent
people could have negative long term effects, if its consumption
contributed to people in a population having better chances to make it to
reproductive age and thus have children that is all the advantage needed.

>
> For the knee-slapper, read the "Conflicts of interest and funding" section.
>

Big Milk wasn’t around to spread propaganda during the days of pastoralism.
Milk can confer nutritional benefits (protein and fat) for a population
that warrants its usage either as a drink or in cheese or yogurt form.

And check this out:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17459189/

“The results of the present study suggest that milk can be an effective
post-exercise rehydration drink and can be considered for use after
exercise by everyone except those individuals who have lactose
intolerance.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817142849.htm

“Children become dehydrated during exercise, and it's important they get
enough fluids, particularly before going into a second round of a game. A
new study by researchers in Canada found that milk is better than either a
sports drink or water because it is a source of high quality protein,
carbohydrates, calcium and electrolytes.”

[*Hemidactylus*]

Irrelevant to our ancestral past where long-term consequences of dairy
consumption would be salient well into adulthood after multiple spawnings.
People usually didn’t live long enough for that to be a problem.

>
> But apparently you think that for most people after childhood, mutations
> occur which prevent the production of lactase.
>

Apparently? You are deliberately imposing a silly view on him he didn’t
convey. Maybe you think that?

>
> By "mutation" I assume you mean genetic mutations, since that is what you are championing.
>
>> A minority of people possess any of several mutations
>> that cause lactase production to continue life long.
>> So, most habitual milk drinkers are mutants.
>>
> Apparently you think single-nucleotide polymorphisms are impressive
> examples of evolutionary change.
>

Impressive enough to get the job of disrupting the status quo of epigenetic
downregulation via methylation. Not quite a Goldschmidt event. Pretty
routine.

>
>> Note that under "true science", please.
>
> No, I might note what you claim when you can support it with science.
>

As you attempt below?

>
> Here's an example, albeit "soft" evidence:
>
> "New evidence suggests that this decline occurs not because the genetic
> code is changed, but because the DNA is chemically modified so that the
> lactase gene is switched off."
>

Easily confused. The decline is in lactase production due to some typical
epigenetic change that predates pastoralism as a cultural trait.

>
> https://biology.indiana.edu/news-events/news/2019/foster-lactose-intolerance.html
>
> And you may not get this from Wiki:
>
> "Recently researchers have shown that one of the SNPs changes the level
> of epigenetic modification of the DNA in the lactase gene control regions."
>
> Perhaps this isn't one of evolution's best examples.
>

Why not? Much is still not well known, but to me a genetic change resulting
in five different alleles across various populations that disrupts the
ancestral state of methylation (if truly so) is a pretty impressive case of
recent human adaptive evolution.

>
> "That the trait persisted and spread in these populations indicates that
> the ability to digest milk beyond infancy had a significant selective advantage."
>
> Does "indicate" indicate "true science"?
>

What would you know? This was an informal but informative article citing
interesting research and actually was geared more toward the trendy field
of microbiomes, even suggestive of microbiomes mediating lactose tolerance:


“Recent studies have shown that the symptoms of lactose intolerance can be
relieved in some people by changing the population of their intestinal
microbes, called the microbiome, to encourage lactose-digesting bacteria.
Specifically, bacteria, called “lactic acid bacteria,” eat the lactose but
produce the byproduct lactic acid instead of gas. While lactic acid has no
nutritional value, it does not produce the unpleasant symptoms of lactose
intolerance. This adaptation of the intestinal microbiome may be how some
ancient pastoral populations with no genetic evidence of lactase
persistence tolerated a dairy-rich diet.”

You and Peter (who didn’t know you provided a link and punted on reading
the article may have missed that).

Lactase persistence may be unnecessary to tolerate lactose in some
populations. Perhaps microbiome shifts preceded the allelic changes
facilitating adaptive lactase persistence. After the allelic shifts the
microbiome would lose its symbiotic utility.

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> The methylation that seems to be an epigenetic modification that reduces
> expression of lactase appears to have a genetic (allelic) basis.
>

Ughh! Should read: “The disruption in methylation that itself seems to be

an epigenetic modification that reduces

expression of lactase appears to have a genetic (allelic) basis. “ Still
ugly.

[Glenn]

"Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[5] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul/reincarnation.

"historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his astronomical views but rather a response to his philosophical and religious views"

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

snip more expressions of stupidity

[Glenn]

I disagree that the claim is unfalsifiable, although the "indicates" claim is too general and subjective.

Another interesting article:

"Joachim Burger, a geneticist Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany told Science— “Why is there a signal of natural selection at all if there was already a cultural solution?”

https://www.newsclick.in/how-did-mongolians-manage-consume-dairy-products-despite-lactose-intolerance

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/how-can-you-eat-dairy-if-you-lack-gene-digesting-it-fermented-milk-may-be-key-ancient

[jillery]

However it's phrased, the bottom line is, the expression of lactase in
most humans, as in almost all mammal species, is age related, an
effect of development, in that sense similar to the expression of sex
hormones, and so *not* a consequence of mutations, epigenetic or
otherwise.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well...maybe I was previously thinking along other lines and wasn’t wrong
to begin with. That an upstream region of the lactase gene is susceptible
to downregulating methylation at some point in a child’s life when milk is
typically no longer consumed should have a genetic basis as does the
allelic variants that disrupt said epigenetic modification.

https://gut.bmj.com/content/68/11/2080.full#xref-ref-24-1

“Methylation patterns in the region of the LCT-13’910:C/T polymorphism in
small intestinal enterocytes strongly differ dependent on the genotype,
from >80% modification with the LNP genotype to 20% with the LP genotype
(figure 5B). It has also been shown that LCT promotor methylation is low
after birth but increases in childhood in the presence of LCT-13’910:C but
not LCT-13’910:T.26 Thus, LNP is a good example of a condition in which DNA
sequence variations set the stage for age-dependent methylation which later
results in a clinical phenotype, a mechanism that might be applicable also
to complex diseases.27”

I will NEVER second guess myself in such a retrospectively awkward manner
again. Still the sentence was a frickin’ abomination.

This article did have a good explanation of gain of function and T allele
dominance.

“In the Caucasian population, lactase persistence (LP) is due to a
gain-of-function mutation 13.9 kb upstream of the lactase gene
(LCT-13’910:C→T, ‘‘T’ for tolerance’) on chromosome 2. This single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is far upstream of the protein forming unit
within the intron of an unrelated gene (figure 5A).23 This mutation creates
a new binding site for the transcription factor that promotes persistent
lactase expression after infancy.24”

But: “In Africa and the Middle East, different mutations in the same
genetic region are responsible for LP1 29 (table 3), indicating convergent
evolution.”

https://youtu.be/D5llATiCgkI

‘Parallel evolution...two species with a common ancestor evolve similar
traits independent of each other...Often due to similar environments’

That these human populations (not different species) each carries a lactase
gene and suppressed lactase production would make similar modifications not
quite convergent. The possession of the lactase gene in common is an
internal constraint on outcome. I’m channeling a point made by Gould in his
Brick.

And returning to genetic basis of methylation state:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899171/

“Genetic factors contribute to epigenetic changes occurring with age at the
regulatory elements, as lactase persistence- and non-persistence-DNA
haplotypes demonstrated markedly different epigenetic aging. Thus, genetic
factors facilitate a gradual accumulation of epigenetic changes with age to
affect phenotypic outcome.”

[*Hemidactylus*]

No I backpedal on my backpedal. That upstream regions exhibit an age
related susceptibility to epigenetic modification would have a genetic
basis. See my next reply to myself. The default state is just as genetic as
the allelic variants that reduce susceptibility to methylation. The default
susceptibility is passed to offspring just as the lactase persistent
variants are. The epigenetic capping is secondary.

[Glenn]

Hemi will likely swallow this crap.

Having and losing the ability to produce lactase is epigenetic and genetic at any and all stages of development, and in no sense similar to the expression of sex hormones.

"The cause of the GnRH rise is unknown. Leptin might be the cause of the GnRH rise. Leptin has receptors in the hypothalamus which synthesizes GnRH.[17] Individuals who are deficient in leptin fail to initiate puberty.[18] The levels of leptin increase with the onset of puberty, and then decline to adult levels when puberty is completed. The rise in GnRH might also be caused by genetics. A study[19] discovered that a mutation in genes encoding both neurokinin B as well as the neurokinin B receptor can alter the timing of puberty. The researchers hypothesized that neurokinin B might play a role in regulating the secretion of kisspeptin, a compound responsible for triggering direct release of GnRH as well as indirect release of LH and FSH. "

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

[jillery]

My understanding is what you wrote agrees with what I wrote;
"age-related susceptibility" is equivalent to "age-related, an effect
of development"; "the default state is just as genetic" is equivalent
to "and so *not* a consequence of mutations".

My point above is to emphasize the expressed but incorrect
understanding of Glenn et al. on this specific point.

[RonO]

This has been discussed on TO before.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't the main reason the Inquisition decided
to press the matter. He was convicted of his astronomical heresies. He
was not pardoned from those before he was burned alive. The whole point
is to demonstrate that Newton and Galileo are not known for their
science supporting church doctrine. In fact they were instrumental in
making Bruno's astronomical views acceptable. Why aren't you and AB
geocentric Christians? Why was Pagano stuck out there all by himself
for decades on TO?

Understanding that fact shouldn't stress what brain power you might have
left.

You should tell your asshole buddy why you are running from the Top Six
so that he doesn't have to keep lying about the subject for the next
decade. Every time he lies about the subject you will just have to run
from it again. All you have to tell him is that you can't face them and
that should be that.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:40:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:22:21 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> The methylation that seems to be an epigenetic modification that reduces
>> >> expression of lactase appears to have a genetic (allelic) basis.
>> >>
>> >Ughh! Should read: “The disruption in methylation that itself seems to be
>> >an epigenetic modification that reduces
>> >expression of lactase appears to have a genetic (allelic) basis. “ Still
>> >ugly.
>>
>>
>> However it's phrased, the bottom line is, the expression of lactase in
>> most humans, as in almost all mammal species, is age related, an
>> effect of development, in that sense similar to the expression of sex
>> hormones, and so *not* a consequence of mutations, epigenetic or
>> otherwise.
>>
>Hemi will likely swallow this crap.

The only crap here is yours.

>Having and losing the ability to produce lactase is epigenetic and genetic at any and all stages of development, and in no sense similar to the expression of sex hormones.

Since you're so confident of your understanding of endocrinology and
genetics, you should have no problem explaining how lactase expression
is "epigenetic and genetic at any and all stages of development". And
also explain how two processes which both routinely occur during
individuals' development are "in no sense similar".

>"The cause of the GnRH rise is unknown. Leptin might be the cause of the GnRH rise. Leptin has receptors in the hypothalamus which synthesizes GnRH.[17] Individuals who are deficient in leptin fail to initiate puberty.[18] The levels of leptin increase with the onset of puberty, and then decline to adult levels when puberty is completed. The rise in GnRH might also be caused by genetics. A study[19] discovered that a mutation in genes encoding both neurokinin B as well as the neurokinin B receptor can alter the timing of puberty. The researchers hypothesized that neurokinin B might play a role in regulating the secretion of kisspeptin, a compound responsible for triggering direct release of GnRH as well as indirect release of LH and FSH. "
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

[Glenn]

Goody for you.

>
> It doesn't matter that it wasn't the main reason the Inquisition decided
> to press the matter. He was convicted of his astronomical heresies.

You claimed above that "Bruno was convicted of his non geocentric views".

Now you generalize that because you think it better fits your argument.

> He
> was not pardoned from those before he was burned alive.

There is no evidence that he was accused or tried for "those". There is evidence that he was not, or at the least that "those" were not what got him burned.

The above is just another example, a simple one, of Ron's practice of "true science".

[Glenn]

Oh no. You invoke "development", and it is up to you to describe in detail the amazingly complex web of systems which control development and influence specific events. Such a task would likely require years of study to accomplish.

That your simple minded biased naked claim is not supported to any degree, you might want to put a sheet over your head when you go out in public, instead of challenging me to support the obvious.

>
>
> >"The cause of the GnRH rise is unknown.

You *did* read this, at least. Maybe you are so deluded you think that supports your claim that the development between lactose tolerance or intolerance is " similar to the expression of sex hormones".

Or maybe you just say "development" three times while clicking your heels three times before you post nonsense.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don’t discount that lactase persistence isn’t the only game in town.
Yogurt and cheese are long standing ways to reduce lactose.

From your interesting article: “They [Mongolians] milk seven kinds of
mammals, yielding diverse cheeses, yogurts, and other fermented milk
products, including alcohol made from mare’s milk.”

I’m trying to picture milking a horse. A Russian friend said she had drank
this stuff:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Mare_milking_Suusamyr.jpg/1280px-Mare_milking_Suusamyr.jpg

“Rinchingiin Indra, writing about Mongolian dairying, says "it takes
considerable skill to milk a mare" and describes the technique: the milker
kneels on one knee, with a pail propped on the other, steadied by a string
tied to an arm. One arm is wrapped behind the mare's rear leg and the other
in front. A foal starts the milk flow and is pulled away by another person,
but left touching the mare's side during the entire process.[10]”

Reminds me of Ben Stiller’s character in Meet the Parents telling Robert De
Niro about his cat dairying days.

https://youtu.be/bXNwzKo5Yps

Oddly enough I recall the myth of cats drinking milk:

https://www.purina.com/articles/cat/nutrition/can-cats-drink-milk

And do adult rats or mice really need to be eating cheese?

[RonO]

I just used the phrasing that your Wiki quote used. It was his
heliocentric views along with some others that didn't jive with the
Catholic cosmology.

He was convicted of those heresies, and was not pardoned. It ended up
as part of what he was burned alive for. If they were not considered
heresies why bother to charge him with them and find him guilty?

>
>> He
>> was not pardoned from those before he was burned alive.
>
> There is no evidence that he was accused or tried for "those". There is evidence that he was not, or at the least that "those" were not what got him burned.

That isn't what came up before. Where do you get that there was no
evidence that he was not accused nor tried for his heretical
cosmological views?

Last time it was the guy that was claiming that he wasn't burned for his
heliocentric views that cited the source that claimed that he was
convicted of those heresies, but that wasn't the reason that the
Inquisition hunted him down and incarcerated him.

This from your own wiki source:
QUOTE:
The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well
as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy
in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic
doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology.
END QUOTE:

>
> The above is just another example, a simple one, of Ron's practice of "true science".
>

You can't seem to get much of anything correct, and that isn't on me,
but on your own willful ignorance.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:38:37 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

So you think "development" necessarily refers to specific biochemical
pathways. I would post a definition for you, but the last time I did,
you ignored it. So look it up for yourself, or not, the results will
be the same.

>Maybe you are so deluded you think that supports your claim that the development between lactose tolerance or intolerance is " similar to the expression of sex hormones".

You should give up trying to quote others, you can't even copy what is
written, nevermind understand what it means.

>Or maybe you just say "development" three times while clicking your heels three times before you post nonsense.

Do you think playing a scarecrow with no brains is a step up from
village idiot?

[Glenn]

Because there isn't, and you don't provide any.

>
> Last time it was the guy that was claiming that he wasn't burned for his
> heliocentric views that cited the source that claimed that he was
> convicted of those heresies, but that wasn't the reason that the
> Inquisition hunted him down and incarcerated him.

Some guy, huh.

>
> This from your own wiki source:
> QUOTE:
> The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well
> as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy
> in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic
> doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology.
> END QUOTE:
>

You just want to believe that heliocentrism was one of his cosmological beliefs that he may have been charged with, for some reason. It is irrational.

Bruno held many odd positions with regard to cosmology which conflicted with basic doctrines of the Church. One as I recall was that the Earth was a living thing, that the Universe was infinitely old (no beginning), that aliens lived on other planets around other stars, and so on.

> >
> > The above is just another example, a simple one, of Ron's practice of "true science".
> >
>
> You can't seem to get much of anything correct, and that isn't on me,
> but on your own willful ignorance.
>

I would suggest that you read all the Wiki article, but it wouldn't do you any good. In response to "He was not burned for geocentrism, you claim "Bruno was convicted of his non geocentric views", and is simply false and irrational.

[Glenn]

You forget who I am replying to. Maybe you don't believe yourself -

"However it's phrased, the bottom line is, the expression of lactase in
most humans, as in almost all mammal species, is age related, an
effect of development, in that sense similar to the expression of sex
hormones, and so *not* a consequence of mutations, epigenetic or
otherwise."
>
>

> >Maybe you are so deluded you think that supports your claim that the development between lactose tolerance or intolerance is " similar to the expression of sex hormones".
>
> You should give up trying to quote others, you can't even copy what is
> written, nevermind understand what it means.
>

Look up. Your claim that I don't understand is simply a childish response in lack of a substantive one.

>
> >Or maybe you just say "development" three times while clicking your heels three times before you post nonsense.
>
>
> Do you think playing a scarecrow with no brains is a step up from
> village idiot?
>

In your case I would. But since you play both roles well, it's a hard call.

[Peter Nyikos]

Mindless "I know you are but what am I?" style retort noted.

> >
> > You ignored the way I characterized a Dunning-Kruger
> > remark about "selective advantage."

That had nothing to do with you, so you lied when you alleged

"you made no contribution to scientific discussion here but instead
used the bulk of your post to take a potshot at me."

That was you walking into a trap I hadn't set for you: you got so
irate over my later compliment to Glenn that you didn't even realize
that this DID contribute to the scientific discussion.

> > Evidently you don't realize
> > that "Darwin of the Gaps" perfectly describes your blind faith in
> > microevolution explaining the spectacular mega-evolution of the last 600
> > million years.
> >
> If you had a grasp of the relevant topic, lactase persistence in humans,
> you would exercise your self-restraint and proportion your response to the
> topic at hand.

The topic at hand has to do with lots of things, one of which is that
you were shamelessly insincere and hypocritical when you posted the
following:

Where is Gilligan’s ethic of care or nurturance? Nothing nurturing to see
here. Just another downward spiral of vendetta reflective of an obsolete
honor culture.

If this place has become an outpost of the mythic Wild West with its cowboy
showdown ethic, no wonder tumble weeds are taking over what has become a
ghost town.

Yet your own vendetta against Glenn is second only to Ron O's
against me in sheer maniacal hatred. You are no more against personal
attacks than Jane Fonda was against the Vietnam War.

It wasn't the war she was against, but only against American involvement in it.
And you are against my involvement in trying to get justice for
Glenn in the wake of a campaign of denigration that borders on dehumanization.
Your phony "can't we all just get along?" spiel was exclusively aimed at me,
and you never even mentioned the idea to anyone else.

I showed how phony it was in direct replies to you, and you ran away,
and here you are back to your Glenn-loathing ways.

> Lactase persistence in some human populations would show
> that humans have evolved more recently than the EEA of the Pleistocene.
> This is entirely about “microevolution” and not some verboten extrapolation
> to cover mega-evolution.

You, who who make a habit of rambling on in flights of fancy instead
of sticking to the subject at hand, are now doing a jillery and trying
to dictatorially tell me what the subject at hand HAS to be.

It WAS about microevolution until you showed up, and then I realized
just how appropriate your presence was: "Darwin of the Gaps" is all your
knowledge of evolutionary THEORY ever amounted to.

> >
> > The only "justification" I've seen from you is an empty polemical
> > insult when I tried to impress on you the huge difficulties of this
> > idea. Instead of trying to refute what I wrote, you idiotically
> > dismissed it with the words "nice try."
> >
> In this thread?

You can stop aping jillery in your inimitable way now.

> >
> >> Did you actually read
> >> the article he quoted?
> >
> > Glenn didn't give a reference. Are you suggesting that it was YOU
> > who wrote that Dunning-Kruger sentence?
> >
> Read for comprehension much? Glenn posted this link:
>
> https://biology.indiana.edu/news-events/news/2019/foster-lactose-intolerance.html

He quoted from it BEFORE he gave that link. You are pretending
I am the mind reader that your allies keep denying I am.

> > If so, then I can understand your comment: I unwittingly took
> > a pot shot at you. A completely deserved one.
> >
> In your little ego-bubble impervious to proportionality.

You just can't refrain from personal denigrations as a substitute
for refutations. So much for your spiel on that other thread.

> >> Glenn’s use of the article was biased in its quoting
> >> and ignorant of the details found by actually reading articles cited
> >> within.
> >
> > I've had this cheap polemical device ("Peter, PLEASE read that article")
> > hurled at me before, and Burkhard was caught red-handed lying due to it.
> >
> So you’re not interested in the topic and satisfied by taking Glenn at face
> value?

How quickly you go to cheap polemic against me instead of justifying the claim
you made of "bias." My point was that you cannot just allege bias and
ignorance and let it go at that.

I made that point indirectly up there and then I made it directly:

> >
> > IOW, your claim is devoid of credibility until you demonstrate
> > it by showing you know what the hell you are talking about.

Now come some new references, instead of the quotes from the
article Glenn linked. If Ron O were 5% as critical of you
as he is of the DI, he would accuse you of a "switch scam"
at this point.

> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-017-1847-y

>
> “The genetic trait of lactase persistence (LP) is associated with at least
> five independent functional single nucleotide variants in a regulatory
> region about 14 kb upstream of the lactase gene [−13910*T (rs4988235),
> −13907*G (rs41525747), −13915*G (rs41380347), −14009*G (rs869051967) and
> −14010*C (rs145946881)].”
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23957-4
>
> “In humans the expression of lactase changes during post-natal development,
> leading to phenotypes known as lactase persistence and non-persistence.
> Polymorphisms within the lactase gene (LCT) enhancer, in particular the
> −13910C > T, but also others, are linked to these phenotypes.”
> >
> > Anyway, it ignores an undeniable fact: Glenn shows sophisticated knowledge
> > of the difference between genetic and epigenetic phenomena. And with it,
> > he upstaged Robert Carnegie -- something to which you are willfully blind.
> >
> His “knowledge” ain’t that sophisticated.

What part of "upstaged" didn't you understand? I also replied to Robert,
but in another way, reminding him that he was knocking down a straw
man. Countless others arguing against creationism have knocked that
same straw man down, including Trudeau in "Doonesbury."


<snip of text devoid of quotes from Robert Carnegie>

> >> It was NOT scientific thinking.
> >
> > Your bootlicking of Robert Carnegie is not necessarily appreciated by him.
> >
> How the hell am I bootlicking?

By fallaciously attacking Glenn to take the attention off him. It's the
preferred *modus operandi* of yourself and of all too many others:
"The best defense of ________ is a dirty attack against his critics,"
to adapt a Vincent Lombardi adage to the cesspool that you
and your kind have made of talk.origins.

> >
> >> Neither of you appear interested in nuance.
> >
> > And you are not interested in providing it, and are probably bluffing
> > about it making a dime's worth of difference.
> >
> From Jillery’s (who to date provided the most comprehensive overview) link:

That's not about nuance, you bait and switch artist. Let alone
nuance that you were alleging to be in the article Glenn linked.


<snip straightforward and unmistakably clear text>

> >> Glenn is making a lackluster attempt to discredit evolution
> >
> > On which thread? Certainly not this one, you insufferable jerk.
> >
> This one.

Then you are completely illogical.

> But given you didn’t realize he had provided a link, maybe you
> didn’t read him very closely.

I saw the link, and you are again using insult to cover up for
your inability to justify a bare faced lie.

What's more, your only "justification" would have to consist of
you not only knocking down the same straw man that Robert Carnegie
knocked down, but also driving a stake through its heart.

> > Though mostly accusatory, this post has a scientific component which Hemi ignores,
> > and is highly relevant to several topics for which talk.origins was set up.
> > of yourself
> >
> You ignored Glenn’s link. The irony is priceless.

Laugh, clown, laugh.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

You don't have to worry it obvously wasn't you.

>>
>> This from your own wiki source:
>> QUOTE:
>> The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well
>> as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy
>> in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic
>> doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
> You just want to believe that heliocentrism was one of his cosmological beliefs that he may have been charged with, for some reason. It is irrational.

You just want to believe that it isn't. Where do you think all those
planets are. Bruno is the guy that thought that other stars were suns
like ours with planets around them.

Why don't you learn something from the Wiki entry.

QUOTE:
In 1584, Bruno published two important philosophical dialogues (La Cena
de le Ceneri and De l'infinito universo et mondi) in which he argued
against the planetary spheres (Christoph Rothmann did the same in 1586
as did Tycho Brahe in 1587) and affirmed the Copernican principle.

In particular, to support the Copernican view and oppose the objection
according to which the motion of the Earth would be perceived by means
of the motion of winds, clouds etc., in La Cena de le Ceneri Bruno
anticipates some of the arguments of Galilei on the relativity
principle.[47] Note that he also uses the example now known as Galileo's
ship.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Bruno's cosmology distinguishes between "suns" which produce their own
light and heat, and have other bodies moving around them; and "earths"
which move around suns and receive light and heat from them.[50] Bruno
suggested that some, if not all, of the objects classically known as
fixed stars are in fact suns.[50] According to astrophysicist Steven
Soter, he was the first person to grasp that "stars are other suns with
their own planets."[51]
END QUOTE:

The heresies for which he was convicted included his many planet's
cosmology that included the belief that other solar systems existed with
other planets that orbited their suns just like earth did ours.

QUOTE:
The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well
as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy
in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic

doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo speculates the
charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition were:[33

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it
and its ministers;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity,
divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as
Christ;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity
of Mary, mother of Jesus;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both
Transubstantiation and Mass;

claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;

believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul
into brutes;

dealing in magics and divination.
END QUOTE:

You should not miss the "claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds
and their eternity"

QUOTE:
Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted
the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his
philosophy. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the plurality
of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was
overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full
recantation, which Bruno eventually refused.
END QUOTE:

That should be enough for even you, if you don't snip it out and run or
just run.

>
> Bruno held many odd positions with regard to cosmology which conflicted with basic doctrines of the Church. One as I recall was that the Earth was a living thing, that the Universe was infinitely old (no beginning), that aliens lived on other planets around other stars, and so on.
>>>
>>> The above is just another example, a simple one, of Ron's practice of "true science".
>>>
>>
>> You can't seem to get much of anything correct, and that isn't on me,
>> but on your own willful ignorance.
>>
> I would suggest that you read all the Wiki article, but it wouldn't do you any good. In response to "He was not burned for geocentrism, you claim "Bruno was convicted of his non geocentric views", and is simply false and irrational.
>

I would suggest that you take your own advice. Willful ignorance is
dishonest and stupid. Try to learn something from your own reference.

My claim is backed up by the Wiki entry and obviously is not false, and
described in the wiki reference that you put up. Bruno refused to give
up his non geocentric views. What do you not understand. Think about
what Pagano still believed. Really how fast does a galaxy have to be
moving around the earth if it is 8 billion light years away, but still
visible using the Hubble telescope? Pags had the distant galaxies
whipping around the earth faster than light. If a galaxy that far away
was really orbiting the earth how fast would it have to be going to make
that orbit? Bruno had the stars as other suns with planets orbiting the
suns. The Catholic church did not like that at the time.

Don't run, just try to learn and understand something for once in your
life. How sad is it that you are telling me to read the wiki article
when it is obvious that you didn't know what was in it.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Idiot, the specific court records did not survive. Your claim is just an opinion, and an uninformed and irrational one.

Once again,

"Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[5] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul/reincarnation. ..."

"...although historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his astronomical views but rather a response to his philosophical and religious views.[7][8][9][10][11]"

This consensus can be found in many places.

I thought that behind your delusions and insanity, some intelligence lurked.
It appears I was wrong.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I’m passing over most of what you said above because it’s not pertinent to
the relevant subtopic. Jillery set the bar. I cited lots of science and
even Glenn cited interesting and relevant stuff about Mongolians fermenting
lactose away, showing lactase persistence is but one mode of being. Glenn
surpassed what you contributed above. Glenn! And I gave him props for that.

So Glenn contributed far more than you to this thread. I see nothing in the
above by you that nears Glenn’s effort however flawed it was in places. But
at least he inspired further discussion by Jillery and me. What exactly did
you contribute?

[RonO]

Willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest. What was he convicted of and
what was one of the things that he refused to recant? that is all you
have to know to understand the effect that Galileo and Newton had on the
church doctrine. What was one of the reasons that Galileo was under
house arrest? It wasn't the only reason, just one of them. Newton was
born the year that Galileo died under house arrest. The church did not
changed it's stance on geocentrism until after Newton.

This is what Alpha Beta was wrong about, and your stupid denial is not
going to change reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

jillery shit and fell back in it.

>I cited lots of science and

Anyone can.

> even Glenn cited interesting and relevant stuff about Mongolians fermenting
> lactose away, showing lactase persistence is but one mode of being. Glenn
> surpassed what you contributed above. Glenn! And I gave him props for that.

No, you didn't. Go milk a cat.

>
> So Glenn contributed far more than you to this thread. I see nothing in the
> above by you that nears Glenn’s effort however flawed it was in places. But
> at least he inspired further discussion by Jillery and me. What exactly did
> you contribute?

You wouldn't recognize an "effort" of mine as "flawed" if a ten foot post was stuck up your ass. You're a moron.

Peter contributed more than anyone, actually, by recognizing and characterizing the evolutionist crap as "Darwin of the Gaps".

But anything I post "inspires" morons like you and jillery to "further discussion", as you call it. You both would argue with anything I say and throw insults. And do. I doubt you are even capable of a real discussion or of even knowing what a real discussion is all about.

[Glenn]

Ron Okimoto, the "True Science" guy.

[Glenn]

> You know that the June 6 post doesn't prove a single
> claim you make in it or about it, but your success in having
> Kleinman banned seems to have gone to your hate-ravaged head.
>
> [1] Comments like these are a near-necessity to take a bit
> the wind out of the sails of the inevitable and thoroughly
> predictable denunciations you make in every post where I reply to you.
>
> Perhaps <gasp> this one will actually make you acknowledge the truth
> about Giordano Bruno.
>
Get a grip, Peter.
>
> > These two are known for their
> > science and not their support of your religious beliefs.
> >
> > What science did Heisenberg ever do to support your religious beliefs?
> > I can't think of any, but you might have something in mind.
> >
> > Lord Kelvin should have killed young earth creationism when he came up
> > with his estimate that the earth was 300 million years old.
>
> He killed that of Ray Martinez, who abided by Lord Kelvin's estimate in
> talk.origins, and was nowhere near as close to being certifiably
> insane as you are.
>
>
> > He lived to
> > understand that he had been wrong about that, and that the earth was
> > much older because radioactivity and isotope decay were discovered
> > before he died. The claim is that he was at the science meeting where
> > the discovery was announced.
> >
> > What science did Einstein ever do to support your religious beliefs?
> > Really, How long has that light been traveling in order to see the
> > gravitational lens effects of concentrations of mass in the universe?
> > E=mc^2 is one of the reasons Kelvin underestimated the age of the earth
> > by billions of years.
> >
> > How tragically lame are your claims about this?
>
> I suspect Alpha Beta is a "loki," someone whose creationist
> claims are so over the top that they seem designed to make
> people disgusted with creationism.
>
> You know I've harbored similar suspicions about your claims
> to believe in a creator. You are diametrically opposite from
> lokis: you loathe the whole spectrum of the Argument from Design so much that
> you are a Useful Idiot [2] in the hands of militant atheists
> like jillery and Oxyaena.
>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I mistakenly attributed human qualities to you. My bad.

[Glenn]

You should attribute some to yourself, jerk. And look at what your buttbuddy jillery constantly partakes of. Oh, that needs no light, you say?

[Burkhard]

If this is about the research Burger did with the CoMPLEX people at UCL,
the original article is here - v. interesting combination of archeology
with genetics:

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491

"Since adult consumption of fresh milk was only possible after the
domestication of animals, it is likely that lactase persistence
coevolved with the cultural practice of dairying, although it is not
known when lactase persistence first arose in Europe or what factors
drove its rapid spread. To address these questions, we have developed a
simulation model of the spread of lactase persistence, dairying, and
farmers in Europe, and have integrated genetic and archaeological data
using newly developed statistical approaches. We infer that lactase
persistence/dairying coevolution began around 7,500 years ago between
the central Balkans and central Europe, probably among people of the
Linearbandkeramik culture."

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Nope. I stand by what I wrote. Instead, more likely you forgot what
you're talking about, assuming you had any idea in the first place.

>"However it's phrased, the bottom line is, the expression of lactase in
>most humans, as in almost all mammal species, is age related, an
>effect of development, in that sense similar to the expression of sex
>hormones, and so *not* a consequence of mutations, epigenetic or
>otherwise."

So you *still* don't understand what "development" means, and you
*still* don't acknowledge your incorrect explanation of lactose
intolerance.

>> >Maybe you are so deluded you think that supports your claim that the development between lactose tolerance or intolerance is " similar to the expression of sex hormones".
>>
>> You should give up trying to quote others, you can't even copy what is
>> written, nevermind understand what it means.
>>
>Look up. Your claim that I don't understand is simply a childish response in lack of a substantive one.

Your replies show you don't understand. More to the point, you act as
if you're proud of your willful stupidity.

I have led you to water. It's up to you to drink it. Or you can just
sit on your ass like you usually do.

>> >Or maybe you just say "development" three times while clicking your heels three times before you post nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Do you think playing a scarecrow with no brains is a step up from
>> village idiot?
>>
>In your case I would. But since you play both roles well, it's a hard call.

"childish response" indeed.

>> >> Leptin might be the cause of the GnRH rise. Leptin has receptors in the hypothalamus which synthesizes GnRH.[17] Individuals who are deficient in leptin fail to initiate puberty.[18] The levels of leptin increase with the onset of puberty, and then decline to adult levels when puberty is completed. The rise in GnRH might also be caused by genetics. A study[19] discovered that a mutation in genes encoding both neurokinin B as well as the neurokinin B receptor can alter the timing of puberty. The researchers hypothesized that neurokinin B might play a role in regulating the secretion of kisspeptin, a compound responsible for triggering direct release of GnRH as well as indirect release of LH and FSH. "
>> >> >
>> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty
>> >>

[jillery]

Liar[1]. Everybody but the peter persona recognizes what is the the
actual topic here.

>>>> It WAS about microevolution until you showed up, and then I realized
>>>> just how appropriate your presence was: "Darwin of the Gaps" is all your
>>>> knowledge of evolutionary THEORY ever amounted to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only "justification" I've seen from you is an empty polemical
>>>>>> insult when I tried to impress on you the huge difficulties of this
>>>>>> idea. Instead of trying to refute what I wrote, you idiotically
>>>>>> dismissed it with the words "nice try."
>>>>>>
>>>>> In this thread?
>>>>
>>>> You can stop aping jillery in your inimitable way now.

Liar[1].

>>>>> region about 14 kb upstream of the lactase gene [?13910*T (rs4988235),
>>>>> ?13907*G (rs41525747), ?13915*G (rs41380347), ?14009*G (rs869051967) and
>>>>> ?14010*C (rs145946881)].”

>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23957-4
>>>>>
>>>>> “In humans the expression of lactase changes during post-natal development,
>>>>> leading to phenotypes known as lactase persistence and non-persistence.
>>>>> Polymorphisms within the lactase gene (LCT) enhancer, in particular the

>>>>> ?13910C?>?T, but also others, are linked to these phenotypes.”

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, it ignores an undeniable fact: Glenn shows sophisticated knowledge
>>>>>> of the difference between genetic and epigenetic phenomena. And with it,
>>>>>> he upstaged Robert Carnegie -- something to which you are willfully blind.
>>>>>>
>>>>> His “knowledge” ain’t that sophisticated.
>>>>
>>>> What part of "upstaged" didn't you understand? I also replied to Robert,
>>>> but in another way, reminding him that he was knocking down a straw
>>>> man. Countless others arguing against creationism have knocked that
>>>> same straw man down, including Trudeau in "Doonesbury."

The peter persona is confused. Robert Carnegie didn't knock down a
strawman. Instead he raised a milkman.

>>>> <snip of text devoid of quotes from Robert Carnegie>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It was NOT scientific thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your bootlicking of Robert Carnegie is not necessarily appreciated by him.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How the hell am I bootlicking?
>>>>
>>>> By fallaciously attacking Glenn to take the attention off him. It's the
>>>> preferred *modus operandi* of yourself and of all too many others:
>>>> "The best defense of ________ is a dirty attack against his critics,"
>>>> to adapt a Vincent Lombardi adage to the cesspool that you
>>>> and your kind have made of talk.origins.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of you appear interested in nuance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you are not interested in providing it, and are probably bluffing
>>>>>> about it making a dime's worth of difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>> From Jillery’s (who to date provided the most comprehensive overview) link:
>>>>
>>>> That's not about nuance, you bait and switch artist. Let alone
>>>> nuance that you were alleging to be in the article Glenn linked.

And ONCE AGAIN the peter persona wanders off into his own delusional
world.

>>>> <snip straightforward and unmistakably clear text>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Glenn is making a lackluster attempt to discredit evolution
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On which thread? Certainly not this one, you insufferable jerk.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This one.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are completely illogical.
>>>>
>>>>> But given you didn’t realize he had provided a link, maybe you
>>>>> didn’t read him very closely.
>>>>
>>>> I saw the link, and you are again using insult to cover up for
>>>> your inability to justify a bare faced lie.
>>>>
>>>> What's more, your only "justification" would have to consist of
>>>> you not only knocking down the same straw man that Robert Carnegie
>>>> knocked down, but also driving a stake through its heart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Though mostly accusatory, this post has a scientific component which Hemi ignores,
>>>>>> and is highly relevant to several topics for which talk.origins was set up.
>>>>>> of yourself
>>>>>>
>>>>> You ignored Glenn’s link. The irony is priceless.
>>>>
>>>> Laugh, clown, laugh.
>>>>
>>> I’m passing over most of what you said above because it’s not pertinent to
>>> the relevant subtopic. Jillery set the bar.
>>
>> jillery shit and fell back in it.

So Glenn *still* has no idea what he's talking about and blames
jillery for it. That's one reason why Glenn is a willfully stupid
village idiot.

>>> I cited lots of science and
>>
>> Anyone can.
>>
>>> even Glenn cited interesting and relevant stuff about Mongolians fermenting
>>> lactose away, showing lactase persistence is but one mode of being. Glenn
>>> surpassed what you contributed above. Glenn! And I gave him props for that.
>>
>> No, you didn't. Go milk a cat.

That cat got milked several times, above and below.

>>> So Glenn contributed far more than you to this thread. I see nothing in the
>>> above by you that nears Glenn’s effort however flawed it was in places. But
>>> at least he inspired further discussion by Jillery and me. What exactly did
>>> you contribute?
>>
>> You wouldn't recognize an "effort" of mine as "flawed" if a ten foot post
>> was stuck up your ass. You're a moron.
>>
>> Peter contributed more than anyone, actually, by recognizing and
>> characterizing the evolutionist crap as "Darwin of the Gaps".

Yes, future generations will laud the peter persona's contributions to
this discussion. Nobody knew before that Jane Fonda had anything to
do with lactase persistence. Too bad those future generations will
have to figure out for themselves what it could possibly be.

>> But anything I post "inspires" morons like you and jillery to "further
>> discussion", as you call it. You both would argue with anything I say and
>> throw insults. And do. I doubt you are even capable of a real discussion
>> or of even knowing what a real discussion is all about.
>>
>I mistakenly attributed human qualities to you. My bad.

That's what happens when village idiots are given the benefit of the
doubt.


[1] The persona named peter's personal definition of "lie":
***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************

[Robert Carnegie]

Glenn wrote:
> jillery shit and fell back in it.

I may have asked already: do you worship God
with that mouth?

Or with those hands, as may be.

[RonO]

The Idiocy of Glenn's statement in the face of his obvious failure is
that I wouldn't mind being put up with the scientists on the list. They
had their quirks, but the science that they are known for is solid.
Just because that science doesn't support Glenn's religious beliefs and
makes alpha beta's argument senseless is something that Glenn obviously
can't cope with. He can't even learn anything from his own wiki
reference. It states the same thing that had been put up on TO before.
Bruno's cosmology, that included his heliocentric views was one of the
heresies that he was convicted of and the Wiki reference claims that it
was one that he would not recant. It may not have been his major
heresy, but it was a heresy, and remained a heresy after Bruno was
burned alive.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

It would take the Catholic church 350 years to admit that it was wrong
about Galileo. Newton wasn't bugged by the Catholic church, but there
wasn't much that they could do to him since he was Anglican.

The Catholic church didn't give up on the geocentric notion until
centuries later.

https://www.wired.com/2008/09/sept-11-1822-church-admits-its-not-all-about-us-2/

They just stopped publicly harassing people about it very much after Newton.

This is what Glenn and Alpha Beta have to face and they obviously can't
deal with that reality.

Newton was born the year Galileo died under house arrest, and what were
among Galileo's heretical views?

Glenn makes noises about being an old earth creationists, but never
seems to be able to commit. Why are there still young earth
creationists like alpha Beta? To AB Glenn is the heretic. The closer
Glenn gets to ABs beliefs the worse type of heretic Glenn would be. So
why would Glenn want to be an old earth creationist heretic?

One (probably more) of Glenn's "true scientists" did not agree with
Glenn's old earth creationist views. Newton believed that the earth was
less than 10,000 years old. So what should Glenn make of that? Trash
one belief, but still support some others that would later be trashed by
other scientists.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/how-an-archbishop-calculated-the-creation-1.378556

QUOTE:
The Venerable Bede, for example, believed the Creation had happened in
3952 BC; Isaac Newton plumped for 3998 BC.
END QUOTE:

Glenn should learn that scientific progress did not stop with any of
these scientists, and that willful ignorance and stupidity will not
change the reality that exists today.

Glenn knows that Behe believes that biological evolution is a fact of
nature, but what does willful ignorance do to change that simple fact.

Denial is stupid, and willful ignorance is dishonest.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

In case this isn't sorted out:

Presumably before adult humans tried to consume milk
on a large scale, just about the whole population had
lactase nonpersistence, i.e. ceasing to produce lactase
at an early point in life. Lactase nonpersistence consists
of the gene for lactase being turned off although it is
not removed.

This applies to the person receiving milk. Without
domesticated animals, you could get milk from well fed
women possibly indefinitely, but this probably wasn't
happening in practice.

Lactase persistence consists of genetic mutation that
ignores the biological signal that turns off production
of lactase. The effect is that your body continues to
produce lactase.

The argument that lactase persistence isn't a genetic
mutation arises from confusion of these facts.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 06:02:39 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>In case this isn't sorted out:
>
>Presumably before adult humans tried to consume milk
>on a large scale, just about the whole population had
>lactase nonpersistence, i.e. ceasing to produce lactase
>at an early point in life. Lactase nonpersistence consists
>of the gene for lactase being turned off although it is
>not removed.
>
>This applies to the person receiving milk. Without
>domesticated animals, you could get milk from well fed
>women possibly indefinitely, but this probably wasn't
>happening in practice.
>
>Lactase persistence consists of genetic mutation that
>ignores the biological signal that turns off production
>of lactase. The effect is that your body continues to
>produce lactase.

Correct. Everybody but Glenn seems to understand this, while the
peter persona has a boner about Jane Fonda.

>The argument that lactase persistence isn't a genetic
>mutation arises from confusion of these facts.

FWIW nobody made that argument.

[Glenn]

This challenge requires that you identify your beliefs.
You'd better have some specific ones.

Or is "as God intended" just what you think I believe, and you are an atheist?

Maybe you should tend to your own mouth, and that of those you agree with here.

[Glenn]

Once again, you said

"Bruno was convicted of his non geocentric views. He was not pardoned of those heresies before they burned him".

I have repeatedly told you that the specific evidence of that has not survived.
It is unknown whether heliocentrism was one of the crimes charged.

I have repeatedly told you that historians agree that he was convicted and burned for his religious and philosophical views.

You have repeatedly claimed "He was convicted of those heresies, and was not pardoned", with reference to heliocentrism.

That heliocentrism was controversial, even heretical in the eyes of some in the Church, does not mean that Bruno must have been charged specifically with belief in heliocentrism among other heresies.

You've called me stupid, that I can't deal with reality, willfully ignorant, willfully stupid, dishonest, a failure, and probably more that escapes me at the moment, for claiming that Bruno was not convicted and burned because of his heliocentric views. That is all I have claimed and argued with you here.

From Wiki:

"According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."

Does this mean to you that the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are stupid, unable to deal with reality, willfully ignorant, willfully stupid, dishonest, a failure?


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

"Yates suggested that the itinerant Catholic priest Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for espousing the Hermetic tradition rather than his affirmation of heliocentricity. "

This is my position. Do you regard Frances Yates as having been stupid, unable to deal with reality, willfully ignorant, willfully stupid, dishonest, and a failure?

You must.

[Bill Rogers]

It seems to be pretty much a consensus among historians that Bruno was burned for heresies unrelated to heliocentrism. Had he been a geocentrist, but advocated all the other heresies he was charged with, he would likely have been burned just as crisply. Had he been otherwise orthodox and merely propounded heliocentrism, he might have been entirely left alone, or he might have been harassed like Galileo, but left unburnt. The Church was not friendly to heliocentrism, but it's a distortion to treat Bruno as a martyr to his heliocentric beliefs.

[erik simpson]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 9:55:04 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>
> It seems to be pretty much a consensus among historians that Bruno was burned for heresies unrelated to heliocentrism. Had he been a geocentrist, but advocated all the other heresies he was charged with, he would likely have been burned just as crisply. Had he been otherwise orthodox and merely propounded heliocentrism, he might have been entirely left alone, or he might have been harassed like Galileo, but left unburnt. The Church was not friendly to heliocentrism, but it's a distortion to treat Bruno as a martyr to his heliocentric beliefs.

Many decades ago a taught a couple of sections of Astronomy 1 at UCLA, and
that was the usual account presented in pretty much all of the standard
beginning astronomy texts. Bruno espoused lots of heretical and near-heritical
positions. Some of his beliefs were prescient, but probably not arrived at by
any process that could be considered "scientific".

[RonO]

Why was Bruno asked to recant?

What about the material that you sniped out. What did the Catholic
church appologize for 350 years late, and what did they give up on
several centuries after Galileo?

>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno_and_the_Hermetic_Tradition
>
> "Yates suggested that the itinerant Catholic priest Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for espousing the Hermetic tradition rather than his affirmation of heliocentricity."
>
> This is my position. Do you regard Frances Yates as having been stupid, unable to deal with reality, willfully ignorant, willfully stupid, dishonest, and a failure?
>
> You must.
>
>

SNP and run noted:

REPOST:

The Idiocy of Glenn's statement in the face of his obvious failure is

END REPOST:

Does your denial matter? The facts are that the churches position
changed and as far as I know no one was persecuted for their
heliocentric views after Newton.

Some things may be in doubt, but what happened afterwards? When did the
church give up on geocentrism? Look up the reference above that you
snipped and ran from.


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

QUOTE:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" (though he was never
formally charged with heresy, relieving him of facing corporal
punishment[97]), namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies
motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its
centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as
probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was
required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[98][99][100][101]

He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the
Inquisition.[102] On the following day, this was commuted to house
arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.[103]

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the
trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he
might write in the future.[104][105]
END QUOTE:

If it wasn't a heresy, what was the deal with Galileo, and why did the
church give up on it 2 centuries later? Galileo was after Bruno. Did
the church create the heresy after Bruno considering what Copernicus feared?

Face the facts. My interpretatation of the events seems to be more
consistent than yours.

Why would it be listed under the charges against Bruno, and noted that
Bruno would not recant? No one may really know what Bruno was charged
with, but what does the Galileo affair tell you about the heresy of
heliocentrism?

In the end it all doesn't matter because in the end the church changed
it's mind, and it wasn't due to a reinterpretation of the Bible. Those
Christians that were scientists made them give it up.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

That doesn't matter because he was not pardoned from his cosmological
heresies. All the charges burned with him, and he did not recant his
cosmological heresy before execution. The whole point that Glenn is
misdirecting the argument for is that Galileo and Newton may have been
Christians that were scientists, but they are not known for any science
that supported church doctrine. In fact they are known for being
instrumental in changing religious views on the matter.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I only mentioned Bruno with respect to the heresy that science of Newton
and Galileo participated in destroying. Glenn is the one in denial of
what the Bruno episode represents in terms of the cosmological heresies.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Thinking a little more about this "issue", it occurs to me that the majority of
contributors to this forum would have been in danger of being burnt by Cardinal
Bellarmine and his ilk. Considering that TO is a "hellhole" (according to one
of our academic contributors), maybe that would be appropriate. We can only
hope that Pope Francis might be more forgiving that "Clement" VIII.

[Burkhard]

Yup, very much so. There is a bit of controversy, due to the loss of the
actual indictment, and some historians have argued that helicentrism was
included as a charge, but the overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise
- most importantly, at the time of his trial heliocentrism had not yet
been declared heretical. These courts were not "common law" courts that
can decide what it heretical or not - that is outwith their purvey. They
only decided if an accused had committed a heresy "as prescribed by the
relevant authorities.

The idea of Bruno as a martyr to heliocentrism should have been laid to
rest in 2001 the latest, when Finnocchiaro reconstructed as much as it
is possible of the indictment (the analysis is in “Philosophy versus
Religion and Science versus Religion: The Trials of Bruno and
Galileo.” In Giordano Bruno: Philosopher of the Renaissance).

Now, that he espoused this theory may have been part of the case against
him - but not because he held a heliocentric view as such, but because
of the reasons he had for it, as indirect evidence for the heresies he
was actually charged with.

That is the other mistake people make when they see Bruno in the light
of Galileo's trial. Bruno did not argue for heliocentrism because of
anything we would recognize as scientific reasons. He believed the earth
moves because it has a soul, and things with soul move. And because it
has a perfect soul, it moves along the perfect mathematical forms, i.e.
cycles. That's hermetic ("magic") phytagorean thinking which at the time
was already long on its way out.

So a prosecutor may have mentioned his phytagorean reason for
geocentrism as evidence that he held the heresies he was actually
charged with - in the same way in which a prosecutor of someone accused
of killing his partner may mention in evidence that the police was
called on numerous times to the address for disturbances that did
however not result in charges being brought. Obviously, the accused is
not now charged for these events, but they are evidence for conduct.


There is a very good book by Alberto Martinez "Burned Alive: Bruno,
Galileo and the Inquisition" which also forcefully made that point: The
Inquisition perceived and treated Bruno as a Pythagorean magician, (and
by and large with good reasons, as this is what he advocated) On the
other hand, the Inquisition did not perceive, and also did not treat,
Galileo as a Pythagorean, hence he only got a much less severe sentence
even though helicentrism had by the time of his trial become an official
heresy.

Bruno wasn't a martyr for science, if anything, he was a martyr for
pre-modern magical thinking.

Looking through the exchange above, I'd say Glen is absolutely right, if
anything, he is too cautious this time.

[RonO]

Biological evolution is "more than an hypothesis" for the current
Catholic church and Catholics, even Catholic ID perp's like Behe, can be
Old earth theistic evolutionists. The age of the earth hasn't mattered
for quite some time. Nor the Big Bang and origin of our solar system.
The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic priest. The science discussed
on TO doesn't much matter to the current Catholic church. My guess is
that they have a negative opinion of intelligent design creationism, but
not so much from a religious perspective, but due to the bogus political
stupidity involved. It is likely something that they do not want to get
mixed up with.

It may matter to church going Catholic agnostics that that is associated
with making TO a hell hole, but the Catholic church likely doesn't care
about the science that is discussed here.

Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

So heliocentrism only became a heresy after Bruno was burned alive.
What did Copernicus have to worry about?

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

I meant no implication that the modern RCC would find many of us heretics, but
the Church ~1600 would have been much more severe.

[Glenn]

I'm not in denial of anything. All I have done here is to argue for what Peter claimed, that Bruno didn't burn because of a belief in heliocentrism. You make up stories you clearly believe, and make them foundational to more stories that are untrue or inaccurate. You're delusional and insane.

You have only one hat, and you wear it here and to work with you, in everything you do and say and argue.

Again, I wouldn't hire you to flip burgers.

[Burkhard]

Very much that too - he backed the right horse, but largely by accident.

Unless of course.... One could argue that heliocentrism is a prediction
of the neo-Pythagorean theory that the earth has a perfect soul, and
therefore moves on a perfect circle, whereas the sun doesn't and is
hence stationary. This means hermeticism is now scientifically
validated! We should try to get it taught in science classes - God, by
an act of will, created the primary matter from which he separated the
four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. These then were send into
the the seven heavens (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun,
and the Moon) which travel in circles and govern destiny. As a practical
assignment, we can ask students to predict each others grades from the
entrails of a cat (thus merging Pythagorean science, Popperian
falsificationism and pedagogically cutting edge ideas of peer-marking)

[Glenn]

Oh, one more, and one of your favorites, "lying".

[RonO]

They didn't understand as much science as they do today. The sad thing
is that Behe claimed that ID was science like astrology, and he came
back to claim that he meant the astrology practiced by IDiots that
existed in the 16th century and before. I think that he even named
Kepler at one time. Just think think how Dembski would have been
treated back then. Instead of having to apologize to his students to
keep his job what would he have been doing if he had claimed that the
earth was probably more than 10,000 years old and that the flood may
have been local.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 10:25:05 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:

This is nothing more than a childlike effort to dispel the claim that Bruno was one of many in the past that were religious and advanced science.

Blowing your horn, whether stolen or not, is no help.

Bruno's religious beliefs clearly clashed with the prevailing religious authority of his day. That doesn't mean he was not religious, or that his "natural philosophy" was equivalent to religion, or that he didn't inspire future "scientists", or that he didn't make observations...

In fact, it appears many of Bruno's claims are strikingly similar to modern day claims about the Universe, matter and life.

[RonO]

On 8/8/2020 1:18 PM, Burkhard wrote:

I have tried to get this article, but I am not going to pay to read it.
It is not cited by the Wiki article, and the only review of these papers
that I have found seems to be negative. I have only read the abstract
of the review, but I'm not going to pay for that paper either.

Do you have some evidence that this article settled the issues
mentioned. The abstract of the reveiw that I read claimed that the book
had only rehashed material that had been thoroughly gone over in the
last hundred years.

The author of the review was obviously not impressed with the book which
was a collection of talks delivered at some symposium in 2000.

There may be some people with a more positive outlook.

QUOTE:
It seems, however, that the sustained examination to which Bruno's life
and writings have been subjected over the past hundred years has
resolved the major problems and answered the most pressing questions.
Scholars nowadays are reduced to rehashing old disputes, quibbling over
details, grasping at the few straws of unexamined evidence or, more
promisingly, re-evaluating the overblown claims of previous generations.
That, at any rate, is the impression given by the papers published in
Giordano Bruno: Philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, which were
originally delivered at a conference held in 2000 at University College
London.
END QUOTE:

Giordano Bruno: Philosopher of the Renaissance (review)
Article in Journal of the History of Philosophy 43(3):357-358 · January
2005 with 55 Reads 
DOI: 10.1353/hph.2005.0141

Not that Wiki is the greatest, but if this was a seminal article in the
field, my guess is that it would have been cited. Is there evidence
that other historians agree with the author? It would be nice to get
this issue settled because it isn't even the issue that Glenn is running
from. It is just his misdirection from what he can't deal with.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You are just willfully ignorant, and can't deal with your own wiki
reference. The matter is obviously not settled because of the
conflicting statements in your own reference. The material that you ran
from comes from your own wiki source. I can't do anything about that.

Not only that, but Nyikos was just being Nyikos, and you know what that
means so why even bother?

Just imagine if it mattered to the point that I made in my post. The
only reason why I keep point out that you could be wrong is because the
evidence from your own source is the same junk that we have seen on TO
before. You wouldn't have to snip and run if you could deal with it.

If you had come up with evidence that I was wrong that would have been
it, but what did you come up with, and what can you not deal with. I
have to go with that same evidence. It is bad, but that is because no
one seems to know what actually happened.

You might want to start thinking of what reality will be like even if
you are correct in your interpretation of the material that you are
running from. Willful ignorance isn't going to do you much good.

Would that change anything about my statement about the scientists on
AB's list? It wouldn't matter because even if Burkhard is correct and
it wasn't an official heresy until after they burned bruno, it was still
a heresy for Galileo's and Newton's time, and what happened to it after
Newton? That was my point, and whatever the case is for Bruno that
reality isn't going to change. If Burkhard can come up with some
support for his claims that would be far better than anything that you
have come up with.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Hey, Glenn, Bruno didn't make Alpha Beta's nor your list of religious
scientists. I was only using him as an example representing how
religious beliefs had changed due to the science of some of those
religious scientists (Newton and Galileo). I could have used Galileo.
There is no doubt that the Catholic church got it's knickers in a knot
about the heliocentric alternative, but that obviously changed.

I was not saying that religious scientist did not do good science. I
was pointing out that the science that they did do blew away some of
those Christian religious beliefs that today we think do not matter.

Were you always OEC? Why did you change? Why is the Assembly of God
church trying to change over to OEC? Why is Behe a theistic
evolutionist? There are a lot of Christians that are scientists, but
that doesn't mean that their science has anything to do with their
religious beliefs. They can do the same science as everyone else and
get the same answers, because that is how science works.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 8 August 2020 at 16:30:05 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 5:15:04 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > jillery shit and fell back in it.
> >
> > I may have asked already: do you worship God
> > with that mouth?
> >
> > Or with those hands, as may be.
> This challenge requires that you identify your beliefs.
> You'd better have some specific ones.
>
> Or is "as God intended" just what you think I believe, and you are an atheist?

I am an atheist. If you hold to religious belief,
it is between you and your gods whether they tolerate
coarse language. I dislike coarse language, but
sometimes I fall into it. Some gods are coarse, although
their interpreters try to clean things up. Proverbs 26:11
comes to mind. (And while I check it, verses 4 and 5
are of general interest even to non-believers: of course
you must follow both.)

> Maybe you should tend to your own mouth, and that of those you agree with here.

I used "as God intended" because it occurs as a joke in
British television comedy "Blackadder". Lord Blackadder
Is a fictional immoral courtier of Queen Elizabeth I of
England and he receives his relatives Lord and Lady
Whiteadder to dinner, hoping that he will pass inspection
as presumed heir to their tremendous wealth. This is
doubtful because they apparently are intensely but also
eccentrically religious. A simple meal of mashed turnip
turns out to be a mistake: "Wicked child! Mashing is also
the work of Beelzebub - for Satan saw God’s blessed turnip,
and he envied it and mashed it to spoil its sacred shape.
I shall have my turnip as God intended." I don't know where
she got this, I don't remember the story from Sunday School,
but Blackadder starts to use the phrase himself.

I use it hereabouts to refer to "How God designed things,
if he did, which I doubt."

[Glenn]

For the grown-ups in the class that read Eric's proclamations above, an interesting account concerning Bruno, science and the times:

"Those commentators who are still to-day using Schiaparelli to eliminate Bruno from the scientific scene may, however, wish to reflect on..."

file:///C:/Users/berry/AppData/Local/Temp/3199-Article%20Text-8275-1-10-20151024.pdf

[Glenn]

Not that this will matter to Ron, but others may be interested.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_vlADgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&ots=j-KrlUa5PZ&sig=9tMgptw0mOUogLxAkX9jC5cPkIM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Claiming Jesus was a magician in my opinion was likely high at the top of the list of the religious charges that Bruno was initially willing to recant.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 August 2020 at 16:30:05 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 5:15:04 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > Glenn wrote:
> > > > jillery shit and fell back in it.
> > >
> > > I may have asked already: do you worship God
> > > with that mouth?
> > >
> > > Or with those hands, as may be.
> > This challenge requires that you identify your beliefs.
> > You'd better have some specific ones.
> >
> > Or is "as God intended" just what you think I believe, and you are an atheist?
>
> I am an atheist.

Big surprise.

>If you hold to religious belief,
> it is between you and your gods whether they tolerate
> coarse language.

But you decided to stick your nose into it.
I want to hear you explain why. You won't because you're an atheist.

>I dislike coarse language, but
> sometimes I fall into it.

I couldn't care less.

>Some gods are coarse, although
> their interpreters try to clean things up. Proverbs 26:11
> comes to mind. (And while I check it, verses 4 and 5
> are of general interest even to non-believers: of course
> you must follow both.)

Now you are telling me what I must do! And spouting biblical passages as well.
Again, answer the question.

>
> > Maybe you should tend to your own mouth, and that of those you agree with here.
>
> I used "as God intended" because it occurs as a joke in
> British television comedy "Blackadder". Lord Blackadder
> Is a fictional immoral courtier of Queen Elizabeth I of
> England and he receives his relatives Lord and Lady
> Whiteadder to dinner, hoping that he will pass inspection
> as presumed heir to their tremendous wealth. This is
> doubtful because they apparently are intensely but also
> eccentrically religious. A simple meal of mashed turnip
> turns out to be a mistake: "Wicked child! Mashing is also
> the work of Beelzebub - for Satan saw God’s blessed turnip,
> and he envied it and mashed it to spoil its sacred shape.
> I shall have my turnip as God intended." I don't know where
> she got this, I don't remember the story from Sunday School,
> but Blackadder starts to use the phrase himself.

You're a nut. And that doesn't answer the question. It avoids it.

>
> I use it hereabouts to refer to "How God designed things,
> if he did, which I doubt."

You think anyone here gives a shit about that?

[RonO]

Wiki already told us that Bruno refused to recant his cosmological
views. It stated that he had recanted on other issues with church
dogma, but not all and one of the charges that he did not recant were
his cosmological views. I quoted that part of the Wiki entry, but you
may have run from it.

You might have actually been good for something, but you can't access
the whole chapter 3 and you can't get to the references. You are only
allowed to view a certain number of pages. This guy seems to be saying
the same thing that wiki said, but you can't get to the reference to
check it out.

QUOTE:
For example the case for Bruno's Hermeticism would be strengthened if it
were true, as Yates asserted that 'the legend that Bruno was burned for
his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth
can no longer stand' 8 and that 'it was probably mainly as a magician
that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some
mysterious magico-religious movement[which] may have been in the nature
of a secret hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of
Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry'.9
END QUOTE:

Yes, that is the way this author writes. That seems to be all one sentence.

Wiki already told us that there were other charges that were more
important, and this guy is claiming that "it was probably mainly" for
the charges other than his cosmology that he was burned. I can't get to
reference 8, so I can't say exactly what this guy means.

Since I can't check out what the guy writes I haven't read the rest of
the chapter that I can access.

We likely need to find some people that cite this work to determine what
to make of it. Wiki does not cite the chapter in question. It does
cite this book, but for another chapter. The review that I found didn't
like this book, and did not seem to be impressed by the scholarship.
The review reference was in the part of my post that you snipped out.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Horseshit.

"Cosmos presents Bruno as an impoverished philosopher who was ultimately executed due to his refusal to recant his belief in other worlds, a portrayal that was criticised by some as simplistic or historically inaccurate"

[Robert Carnegie]

You refer to a question. What is the question,
and why would I answer it?

[RonO]

Just because you are willfully ignorant does not mean that reality isn't
what I claim.

REPOST material Glenn got Friday:

END REPOST:

This material came from your Wiki reference. The quotes from Burkhard's
book support these quotes. It is likely the case that no one really
knows what the issue with Bruno actually was.

You may want to start thinking of what will be the result whether you
are correct or not. Even Burkhard claims that heliocentrism was a
Catholic heresy. His claim is that it became an official heresy after
Bruno, but Galileo was not that long after. Bruno died in 1600.
Galileo was charged.

QUOTE:
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the
Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolò Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and
his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[a]
END QUOTE:

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

This means that my claim to Alpha Beta stands whether Bruno was
considered a heliocentric heretic or not. Christian theology did change
with the science Galileo and Newton did. Bruno isn't needed to
demonstrate that. Christians can do real science, they just get the
same answers that all the other scientists get.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 8:25:05 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
<big snip>

> Christians can do real science, they just get the
> same answers that all the other scientists get.

Yes. That's it.

>
> Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8 August 2020 at 16:30:05 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 5:15:04 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> jillery shit and fell back in it.
>>>>
>>>> I may have asked already: do you worship God
>>>> with that mouth?
>>>>
>>>> Or with those hands, as may be.
>>> This challenge requires that you identify your beliefs.
>>> You'd better have some specific ones.
>>>
>>> Or is "as God intended" just what you think I believe, and you are an atheist?
>>
>> I am an atheist.
>
> Big surprise.
>

He’s an honorable atheist. You act as a stray cur who wanders into a camp
and scavenges for scraps, vomits and eats his vomit. Meaning: you are a
fool who has no honor and repeats the same vicious patterns over and over.

“As snow in summer and rain in harvest,
So honor is not fitting for a fool.”

>
>> If you hold to religious belief,
>> it is between you and your gods whether they tolerate
>> coarse language.
>
> But you decided to stick your nose into it.
> I want to hear you explain why. You won't because you're an atheist.
>

Ironymeter given you obsessively stick your nose into the business of your
atheist bogeys. You have a vicious McCarthyite vendetta to pursue.

>
>> I dislike coarse language, but
>> sometimes I fall into it.
>
> I couldn't care less.
>

Because you are a fool and an insult to vomiting dogs. They usually have
good reason to vomit. What is yours?

>
>> Some gods are coarse, although
>> their interpreters try to clean things up. Proverbs 26:11
>> comes to mind. (And while I check it, verses 4 and 5
>> are of general interest even to non-believers: of course
>> you must follow both.)
>
> Now you are telling me what I must do! And spouting biblical passages as well.

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou be like to him -- even
thou. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own
eyes...As a dog hath returned to its vomit, A fool is repeating his folly.”
Proverbs 26:4-5,11 -
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Proverbs%2026:4-5,11&version=YLT

> Again, answer the question.

I would go with answer not a fool. Are you playing role of Inquisitor?

>>
>>> Maybe you should tend to your own mouth, and that of those you agree with here.
>>
>> I used "as God intended" because it occurs as a joke in
>> British television comedy "Blackadder". Lord Blackadder
>> Is a fictional immoral courtier of Queen Elizabeth I of
>> England and he receives his relatives Lord and Lady
>> Whiteadder to dinner, hoping that he will pass inspection
>> as presumed heir to their tremendous wealth. This is
>> doubtful because they apparently are intensely but also
>> eccentrically religious. A simple meal of mashed turnip
>> turns out to be a mistake: "Wicked child! Mashing is also
>> the work of Beelzebub - for Satan saw God’s blessed turnip,
>> and he envied it and mashed it to spoil its sacred shape.
>> I shall have my turnip as God intended." I don't know where
>> she got this, I don't remember the story from Sunday School,
>> but Blackadder starts to use the phrase himself.
>
> You're a nut. And that doesn't answer the question. It avoids it.
>

And here is the perfect example of a fool (you) returning to his own vomit
in this case your typical insult. A perpetual cycle of consumption and
regurgitation.

>>
>> I use it hereabouts to refer to "How God designed things,
>> if he did, which I doubt."
>
> You think anyone here gives a shit about that?
>

Don’t project your own preference unto others. Blackadder was great comedy.
You only speak for your self and it seems it is quite foolish to engage a
fool who continues to admire his own vomit. That is the best way to
characterize most of your posts as emetic poorly digested quotes as if a
dog ate a page ripped from a book without chewing and puked it up on the
rug.

[Don Cates]

I finally took a look at this thread. It seems to me to be mostly
opinion backed up by reference to other opinion, some more informed than
others but very little in the way of direct facts. I see no chance of
any consensus arising. I have learned a few things, particularly from
Burkhard, unless hes making it up as he goes along. In which case props,
well done. Have you considered politics or the clergy?

But going back to the OP, this struck me.

"Examples of true science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thermodynamics (especially the first two laws)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Electromagnetism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Classical mechanics (excluding gravity)"

Since when has mathematics become a science?
(XKCD: 'Purity" <https://xkcd.com/435/>)

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)