Popular Mechanics: I.D. is 100% ACCURATE!

[JTEM is my hero]

Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
is false, that we did not evolve we were
created:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/

: Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
: more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.

What will the collective make of that?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636363862747316224

[seand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 11:10:27 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> is false, that we did not evolve we were
> created:

Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that. Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does it state or imply that life on Earth was created. The extent of what it argues is that the odds of life evolving elsewhere the SAME WAY it did on Earth are exceedingly low.

You are wildly misrepresenting both the paper and the article in your post and ESPECIALLY in your post topic. You're a dishonest troll and/or an idiot.

>
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>
> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>
> What will the collective make of that?

A) That the evolutionary transitions being examined are poorly enough understood that meaningful calculations of their probabilities aren't yet especially possible. They are deriving each of their probabilities and their timings from a sample size of one.
B) That the idea that many evolutionary moments were contingent rather than inevitable is an argument that has been kicking around since at least Gould. It isn't remotely new or shocking.
C) If it hadn't evolved the ways it did, it would have evolved in other ways. And it is immensely difficult to predict where those other paths could have led. Or where they might lead on other planets with differing conditions.
D) The whole exercise smacks of anthropo-chauvanism. That the way WE evolved into intelligent, complex, macroscopic life is the only path to that outcome. There is no evidence to support that conclusion at all.
E) Gee it would be nice if studies like this included at least one evolutionary biologist among their authors.
F) This was published 2 weeks ago. I'm happy to give the scientific community a bit more time to examine the conclusions and respond.

>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636363862747316224

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> is false, that we did not evolve we were
> created:
>
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>
> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>
> What will the collective make of that?
>

Who cares?

here's the paper:
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149

here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo

[JTEM is my hero]

seand...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> > is false, that we did not evolve we were
> > created:

> Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that. Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were so deep into the autism
spectrum. My bad.

> > https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> >
> > : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> > : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.

Now I don't know what they were analyzing but if it was the one
and only example of life that they have available to them, and
they concluded that it could not evolve in the time it had...

Again, I understand how literal you autistics are, and if something
does not LITERALLY state something then as far as you're
concerned it said something different....

That's what makes you so fun!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636363862747316224

[Glenn]

seems you neglected to count the number of lies and intentional false implications here to facilitate your own admission of being a dishonest troll and/or an idiot.

I suspect that for you to be happy would be an exceptionally rare chance event.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-02 05:08:41 +0000, JTEM is my hero said:

> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> is false, that we did not evolve we were
> created:
>
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>
>
> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>
> What will the collective make of that?

Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
gardening magazines?

More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:

"It took approximately 4.5 billion years for a series of evolutionary
transitions resulting in intelligent life to unfold on Earth. In
another billion years, the increasing luminosity of the Sun will make
Earth uninhabitable for complex life. Intelligence therefore emerged
late in Earth’s lifetime. Together with the dispersed timing of key
evolutionary transitions and plausible priors, one can conclude that
the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth,
perhaps by many orders of magnitude. In turn, this suggests that
intelligent life is likely to be exceptionally rare."

They don't say anything like "evolution is false", they say that
evolution of _intelligent life_ is likely to be very rare in the
universe, rare enough that it may have occurred only once, here. You
will recall the comment of Jacques Monod "The universe was not pregnant
with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte
Carlo game" that I quoted earlier and which Jillery didn't like.

As for the "collective", if it exists, I suspect, but don't know, that
you are just displaying your usual prejudices, ignorance and lack of
understanding. That's what I think, anyway.


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-02 05:39:36 +0000, seand...@gmail.com said:

> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 11:10:27 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution> is false, that we did not
>> evolve we were> created:
> Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that.
> Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does it state or
> imply that life on Earth was created. The extent of what it argues is
> that the odds of life evolving elsewhere the SAME WAY it did on Earth
> are exceedingly low.
>

> [ … ]
>
Just one comment (but that doesn't imply disagreement with the rest of
what you say):

> E) Gee it would be nice if studies like this included at least one
> evolutionary biologist among their authors.

Yes. I have looked in vain for some suggestion of competence in
evolutionary biology in the authors' publications. So far as the first
three authors are concerned there is none. The fourth author, Michael
B. Bonsall, has published a lot, and maybe there is some important
evolutionary biology in his work, but I haven't found it.

[jillery]

You misrepresent what "jillery didn't like". That you quoted Jacques
Monod is a neutral thing, neither here nor there. But your Monod
quote was about the appearance of a specific species ie humans, not
intelligence, as evidence for the rarity of life elsewhere, which are
two different arguments. Are you usually this confused?

>As for the "collective", if it exists, I suspect, but don't know, that
>you are just displaying your usual prejudices, ignorance and lack of
>understanding. That's what I think, anyway.

--

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

[jillery]

You correctly identified all of JTEM's highlights, so I only note here
your excellent post.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Probably, with Alzheimer creeping up on me.

However, most people seem to assume a degree of overlap between
"appearance of humanity" and "appearance of intelligent life" though
the existence of people like Glenn and Nando may suggest a smaller
degree of overlap than we might like.

>
>
>> As for the "collective", if it exists, I suspect, but don't know,
>> that>you are just displaying your usual prejudices, ignorance and lack
>> of>understanding. That's what I think, anyway.


--

[RonO]

You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.

They do not make the claim that evolution is false. In fact, the use
the Gould quote in a more accurate manner than IDiot/creationist anti
evolution types have used it. If we reran everything, things would
likely be different. The most that you could come up with out of the
evolution paper is that biological evolution is a fact of nature, just
as ID perps like Denton and Behe tell you that it is. There isn't any
evidence for intelligent design presented, but if you want to you could
put your designer in at those "difficult" transitions and claim that
your designer helped out. What good does that do for you? You likely
should do that exercise and see what you come up with.

QUOTE:
Some transitions seem to have occurred only once in Earth's history,
suggesting a hypothesis reminiscent of Gould's remark that if the “tape
of life” were to be rerun, “the chance becomes vanishingly small that
anything like human intelligence” would occur (Gould, 1990). Here, we
explore this hypothesis.
END QUOTE:

Learn to live with reality. Read the paper for comprehension, and
incorporate it into your understanding of nature.

When did these improbable transitions occur? What existed when they did
occur? What is the order of their occurrence? If you can't live with
that reality, why try to make something out of their conclusions?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 12/2/2020 5:50 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 12/1/2020 11:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
>>> is false, that we did not evolve we were
>>> created:
>>>
>>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>>>
>>>
>>> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
>>> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>>>
>>> What will the collective make of that?
>>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>> here's the paper:
>> https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
>>
>> here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo
>>
>
> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.

This is referring to JTEM's description. I do not want to be
misconstrued as to have indicated that Glenn presented a description.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:12:22 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 12/2/2020 5:50 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 12/1/2020 11:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
>>>> is false, that we did not evolve we were
>>>> created:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
>>>> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>>>>
>>>> What will the collective make of that?
>>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> here's the paper:
>>> https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
>>>
>>> here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo
>>>
>>
>> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.
>
>This is referring to JTEM's description. I do not want to be
>misconstrued as to have indicated that Glenn presented a description.

Good point. If you had done that, it would have been an insult to
sincere and honest descriptions everywhere.

>Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>> They do not make the claim that evolution is false.  In fact, the use
>> the Gould quote in a more accurate manner than IDiot/creationist anti
>> evolution types have used it.  If we reran everything, things would
>> likely be different.  The most that you could come up with out of the
>> evolution paper is that biological evolution is a fact of nature, just
>> as ID perps like Denton and Behe tell you that it is.  There isn't any
>> evidence for intelligent design presented, but if you want to you could
>> put your designer in at those "difficult" transitions and claim that
>> your designer helped out.  What good does that do for you?  You likely
>> should do that exercise and see what you come up with.
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Some transitions seem to have occurred only once in Earth's history,
>> suggesting a hypothesis reminiscent of Gould's remark that if the “tape
>> of life” were to be rerun, “the chance becomes vanishingly small that
>> anything like human intelligence” would occur (Gould, 1990). Here, we
>> explore this hypothesis.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Learn to live with reality.  Read the paper for comprehension, and
>> incorporate it into your understanding of nature.
>>
>> When did these improbable transitions occur?  What existed when they did
>> occur?  What is the order of their occurrence? If you can't live with
>> that reality, why try to make something out of their conclusions?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>

[seand...@gmail.com]

Sorry... what lies and false implications would those be, then?

>
> I suspect that for you to be happy would be an exceptionally rare chance event.

Actually I'm generally a very happy person. Naturally, the last 8 months have been something of a slog, but things have started to look up in the past few weeks.

[seand...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 12:40:28 AM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> seand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> > > is false, that we did not evolve we were
> > > created:
>
> > Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that. Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does
> Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were so deep into the autism
> spectrum. My bad.

Thanks for the diagnosis, doc, but I think I'll hold out for a second opinion. But tell me: to what psychiatric malady do we owe your charming bedside manner?

> > > https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> > >
> > > : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> > > : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
> Now I don't know what they were analyzing but if it was the one
> and only example of life that they have available to them, and
> they concluded that it could not evolve in the time it had...

That is not what they concluded. Not literally, not figuratively, not anywhere other than your fevered imagination. They concluded that we got very lucky, not that it couldn't happen. "Very lucky" things happen all the time.

>
> Again, I understand how literal you autistics are, and if something
> does not LITERALLY state something then as far as you're
> concerned it said something different....

Not only did it not "literally" say what you're claiming, the entire paper is premised on the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Whether the paper has any merit or not is a separate question, but I can just about promise the authors of the paper would strenuously disagree with the wild conclusions you've lazily extrapolated from their research.

[seand...@gmail.com]

Yeah... it always seems to be the mathematicians and engineers who think they can give evolution the old end-run, without displaying much understanding of what they are trying to run around. I was frankly a LITTLE surprised that ANY of the authors was a biologist... though even his focus seems to be math.

[Glenn]

"Ignorance can be evolutionarily beneficial"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756876/

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 12:22:02 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Since you mention it, I stipulate for argument's sake that H.sapiens
is the most intelligent species on Earth by far, past or present.
However, other extant Earth species show degrees of intelligence, and
there are hints that some extinct species could have evolved similar
degrees of intelligence. These things suggest that H.sapiens'
intellectual dominion on Earth in no way implies that intelligence on
other planets would require a species even remotely like H.sapiens.
They also suggest that if natural history were rewound a la Gould,
it's unlikely that a dominant intelligence on Earth would evolve from
a monkey's uncle.

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2020-12-02 05:39:36 +0000, seand...@gmail.com said:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 11:10:27 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution> is false, that we did not
> >> evolve we were> created:
> > Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that.
> > Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does it state or
> > imply that life on Earth was created. The extent of what it argues is
> > that the odds of life evolving elsewhere the SAME WAY it did on Earth
> > are exceedingly low.
> >

> > [ - ]

> >
> Just one comment (but that doesn't imply disagreement with the rest of
> what you say):
>
> > E) Gee it would be nice if studies like this included at least one
> > evolutionary biologist among their authors.
>
> Yes. I have looked in vain for some suggestion of competence in
> evolutionary biology in the authors' publications. So far as the first
> three authors are concerned there is none. The fourth author, Michael
> B. Bonsall, has published a lot, and maybe there is some important
> evolutionary biology in his work, but I haven't found it.

But they do say that they have "gear-obsessed editors"....

Jan

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.

I was exceedingly accurate, you worthless brain cuck.

> They do not make the claim that evolution is false.

Of course they do. And if you paid attention instead of switching
handles and repeating yourself you might yet figure this out.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664

[JTEM is my hero]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
> gardening magazines?

Doesn't everyone?!?

> More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:

No I haven't. Stop acting like an idiot.

> one can conclude that
> the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth

> perhaps by many orders of magnitude.

So analyzing life here on earth, by using intelligent life on earth
as a model, they concluded it would take more time than has
been available thus far.

Just like I said.

> They don't say anything like "evolution is false"

That's your autism speaking, where something has to be stated
explicitly or they stated something else.

See (speaking rhetorically), in science -- real science, not wannabe
playtime-on-usenet "Science" -- You don't get answers. DNA never
comes with a map or a date, there are no lines marking where one
species ends and other begins, nobody can tell you what is and is
not a necessary step in the evolution towards a technological
species.

All of that is guess work.

We want to say that it's an "Inference," sure, it's still just an opinion.
A guess. And you're so well trained you can't see any of this, all
you think you see is "Facts."

The story is bunk. It's insisting upon Intelligent Design, or good old
fashioned creationism if you prefer, because that's all it leaves the
room for.

You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
dumb conclusions.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
>> gardening magazines?
>
> Doesn't everyone?!?
>
>> More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:
>
> No I haven't. Stop acting like an idiot.
>
>> one can conclude that
>> the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth
>> perhaps by many orders of magnitude.
>
> So analyzing life here on earth, by using intelligent life on earth
> as a model, they concluded it would take more time than has
> been available thus far.
>
> Just like I said.
>
>> They don't say anything like "evolution is false"
>
> That's your autism speaking, where something has to be stated
> explicitly or they stated something else.
>

Is autism bashing your thing now? Not a good look.

>
> See (speaking rhetorically), in science -- real science, not wannabe
> playtime-on-usenet "Science" -- You don't get answers. DNA never
> comes with a map or a date, there are no lines marking where one
> species ends and other begins, nobody can tell you what is and is
> not a necessary step in the evolution towards a technological
> species.
>

It’s funny to see an idiot pretend to lecture a bona fide scientist on how
science works.

> All of that is guess work.
>
> We want to say that it's an "Inference," sure, it's still just an opinion.
> A guess. And you're so well trained you can't see any of this, all
> you think you see is "Facts."
>
> The story is bunk. It's insisting upon Intelligent Design, or good old
> fashioned creationism if you prefer, because that's all it leaves the
> room for.
>
> You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
> you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
> dumb conclusions.
>

Athel would be slumming it to engage you further. Paraphrasing Hobson from
Arthur: Thank you for a memorable afternoon, usually one must go to a
bowling alley to meet a twit of your stature.

[RonO]

On 12/2/2020 6:14 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.
>
> I was exceedingly accurate, you worthless brain cuck.
>
>> They do not make the claim that evolution is false.
>
> Of course they do. And if you paid attention instead of switching
> handles and repeating yourself you might yet figure this out.
>

Hopefully you are just brain dead. There should be an excuse to snip
and lie about the material that I quoted, but you likely don't have an
honest excuse.

Beats me what you are talking about switching handles. It could be
delusional. I don't expect you to have enough on the ball to figure out
that you are mixing me up with someone else.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664
>

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 6:50:28 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/1/2020 11:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> >> is false, that we did not evolve we were
> >> created:
> >>
> >> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> >>
> >> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> >> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
> >>
> >> What will the collective make of that?
> >>
> > Who cares?
> >
> > here's the paper:
> > https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
> >
> > here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo
> >
> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.

Glenn is describing a different paper than JTEM was. I take it
that Ron O is quoting from the paper that Glenn is referencing.

<snip for focus>

> QUOTE:
> Some transitions seem to have occurred only once in Earth's history,
> suggesting a hypothesis reminiscent of Gould's remark that if the “tape
> of life” were to be rerun, “the chance becomes vanishingly small that
> anything like human intelligence” would occur (Gould, 1990). Here, we
> explore this hypothesis.
> END QUOTE:

I have no idea why Gould wrote the above, and don't have the time
to chase it down to find out whether Gould had a useful description
of what he meant by "anything like human intelligence."

What I can say is this. If the tape of life were to be rerun to the
Maastrichtian, the epoch immediately preceding the great
extinction that ended the Mesozoic Era and ushered in the Cenozoic Era,
there were some dinosaurs (especially troodonts)
that could well have evolved to produce
"something like human intelligence."

Given the same millions of years that produced us, of course, and assuming
they survived the catastrophe the way many other "dinosaurs" did. [I am
referring of course to the "consensus" that birds are dinosaurs. The troodonts
were actually quite closely related to them.]

What might mammals have produced in the same time period, if not us?
Competition from these earthbound close relatives of birds might have stifled
the line that produced us. However, if those troodonts had taken another 50
million years to produce something on our level, and the island of Madagascar
had continued to be isolated from the continents, then IT might have evolved
a species on our level of intelligence earlier than the troodonts.

The surviving species of lemurs give no hint as to the amazing primates
that this island produced. I say "surviving" because Homo Sapiens hunted
the six biggest and most amazing ones to extinction in -- get this -- the last thousand
years or so. That's how long it is estimated that humans have lived on Madagascar,
according to one widely believed estimate.

Had this not happened, our zoos might have been greatly enriched by primates at least
as disparate as all the ones that are alive today. One was on the level of intelligence,
it is estimated, of baboons. What might that one genus, *Archaelemur,* have
produced in another 50 million years?

Nor is that the only possibility. In another 50 million years, if we humans make ourselves
extinct some time before we make them extinct, raccoons or (horrors!) rats might evolve
to produce another species with what Gould might have called "like human intelligence”.

>
> Learn to live with reality. Read the paper for comprehension, and
> incorporate it into your understanding of nature.
>
> When did these improbable transitions occur? What existed when they did
> occur? What is the order of their occurrence? If you can't live with
> that reality, why try to make something out of their conclusions?
>
> Ron Okimoto

As usual, Ron O beats around the reality bush without giving anyone
anything that looks like specifics. I hope I haven't gone to the opposite
extreme in this post, in the minds of readers.


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

PS This post is very much in the spirit of the OP of a thread I began a few
hours ago:

WHY I KEEP POSTING TO TALK.ORIGINS
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UyETkw4gf78/m/-2GdOwEBBwAJ

I have posted on the ideas I've written about above before, but the
stimulus provided by the Gould quote has enabled me to organize my
thoughts as never before.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 6:50:28 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > On 12/1/2020 11:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > >> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> > >> is false, that we did not evolve we were
> > >> created:
> > >>
> > >> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> > >>
> > >> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> > >> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
> > >>
> > >> What will the collective make of that?
> > >>
> > > Who cares?
> > >
> > > here's the paper:
> > > https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
> > >
> > > here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo
> > >
> > You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.

> Glenn is describing a different paper than JTEM was. I take it
> that Ron O is quoting from the paper that Glenn is referencing.

Who knows, who cares? I described nothing, other than to say that the youtube video describes a similar perspective as does the paper. Posters can take it or leave it. I really couldn't care less about what the regulars here think. I already know.

>
> <snip for focus>
> > QUOTE:
> > Some transitions seem to have occurred only once in Earth's history,
> > suggesting a hypothesis reminiscent of Gould's remark that if the “tape
> > of life” were to be rerun, “the chance becomes vanishingly small that
> > anything like human intelligence” would occur (Gould, 1990). Here, we
> > explore this hypothesis.
> > END QUOTE:

> I have no idea why Gould wrote the above, and don't have the time
> to chase it down to find out whether Gould had a useful description
> of what he meant by "anything like human intelligence."

Nor do I have any idea why Ron posted it. He's insane.

> As usual, Ron O beats around the reality bush without giving anyone
> anything that looks like specifics. I hope I haven't gone to the opposite
> extreme in this post, in the minds of readers.
>

There is no way to go to the opposite, extreme or not. Ron is clearly unable to distinguish between his fantasies and reality.

> PS This post is very much in the spirit of the OP of a thread I began a few
> hours ago:
>
> WHY I KEEP POSTING TO TALK.ORIGINS
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UyETkw4gf78/m/-2GdOwEBBwAJ
>
> I have posted on the ideas I've written about above before, but the
> stimulus provided by the Gould quote has enabled me to organize my
> thoughts as never before.

Great. But posting to Ron (or any other idiot here) and posting to talk.origins are two entirely different things, if you get my drift.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-03 00:56:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:

> JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
>>> gardening magazines?
>>
>> Doesn't everyone?!?
>>
>>> More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:
>>
>> No I haven't. Stop acting like an idiot.
>>
>>> one can conclude that
>>> the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth
>>> perhaps by many orders of magnitude.
>>
>> So analyzing life here on earth, by using intelligent life on earth
>> as a model, they concluded it would take more time than has
>> been available thus far.
>>
>> Just like I said.
>>
>>> They don't say anything like "evolution is false"
>>
>> That's your autism speaking, where something has to be stated
>> explicitly or they stated something else.
>>
> Is autism bashing your thing now? Not a good look.

I wondered if "autist" was his definition of anyone who diagrees with him.

>>
>> See (speaking rhetorically), in science -- real science, not wannabe
>> playtime-on-usenet "Science" -- You don't get answers. DNA never
>> comes with a map or a date, there are no lines marking where one
>> species ends and other begins, nobody can tell you what is and is
>> not a necessary step in the evolution towards a technological
>> species.
>>
> It’s funny to see an idiot pretend to lecture a bona fide scientist on how
> science works.
>
>> All of that is guess work.
>>
>> We want to say that it's an "Inference," sure, it's still just an opinion.
>> A guess. And you're so well trained you can't see any of this, all
>> you think you see is "Facts."
>>
>> The story is bunk. It's insisting upon Intelligent Design, or good old
>> fashioned creationism if you prefer, because that's all it leaves the
>> room for.
>>
>> You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
>> you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
>> dumb conclusions.
>>
> Athel would be slumming it to engage you further.

Right. That's why I won't do it.

> Paraphrasing Hobson from
> Arthur: Thank you for a memorable afternoon, usually one must go to a
> bowling alley to meet a twit of your stature.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 12:45:28 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2020-12-02 05:08:41 +0000, JTEM is my hero said:
>
> > Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> > is false, that we did not evolve we were
> > created:
> >
> > https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> >
> >
> > : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> > : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
> >
> > What will the collective make of that?
> Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
> gardening magazines?
>
> More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:
>

Actually, "Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer than Earth's existence "
is exactly what the popularmechanics authors said:

"Cosmic statisticians say the likelihood of life evolving on Earth is even less than we thought.

Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer than Earth's existence."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/

Although the authors did not explicitly claim that life was created, the inference is clear that if the first step in evolution and each succeeding step would each take more time than the time Earth has existed, evolution didn't "do it".

Don't the followers of "Follow the Science" follow what is "more likely"? Did he really "totally" distort what the authors said?

[RonO]

On 12/2/2020 6:12 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 12/2/2020 5:50 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 12/1/2020 11:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:10:27 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero
>>> wrote:
>>>> Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
>>>> is false, that we did not evolve we were
>>>> created:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
>>>> : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
>>>>
>>>> What will the collective make of that?
>>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> here's the paper:
>>> https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
>>>
>>> here's a similar perspective; starts about 1:07 in
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfA1OSev4c&feature=emb_logo
>>>
>>
>> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.
>
> This is referring to JTEM's description.  I do not want to be
> misconstrued as to have indicated that Glenn presented a description.

Just to prove there are people that stupid that I needed to make this
disclaimer when Glenn didn't describe much of anything.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/VoMGxziUpKY/m/Gw-LhI4NBwAJ

No one should be able to make this junk up, but this is TO.

[Glenn]

You're way beyond making things up. You're insane.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:28:39 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 12/2/2020 6:14 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> You might try to me more accurate in your description of the paper.
>>
>> I was exceedingly accurate, you worthless brain cuck.
>>
>>> They do not make the claim that evolution is false.
>>
>> Of course they do. And if you paid attention instead of switching
>> handles and repeating yourself you might yet figure this out.
>>
>
>Hopefully you are just brain dead.

That seems a bit like saying "Hopefully the Earth orbits the
sun."

> There should be an excuse to snip
>and lie about the material that I quoted, but you likely don't have an
>honest excuse.
>
>Beats me what you are talking about switching handles. It could be
>delusional. I don't expect you to have enough on the ball to figure out
>that you are mixing me up with someone else.
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --
>>
>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664
>>

--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:56:12 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> Popular Mechanisms?! Do you get advice on how to repair your car from
>>> gardening magazines?
>>
>> Doesn't everyone?!?
>>
>>> More important, you have totally distorted what the authors said:
>>
>> No I haven't. Stop acting like an idiot.
>>
>>> one can conclude that
>>> the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth
>>> perhaps by many orders of magnitude.
>>
>> So analyzing life here on earth, by using intelligent life on earth
>> as a model, they concluded it would take more time than has
>> been available thus far.
>>
>> Just like I said.
>>
>>> They don't say anything like "evolution is false"
>>
>> That's your autism speaking, where something has to be stated
>> explicitly or they stated something else.
>>
>Is autism bashing your thing now? Not a good look.

For him it's an improvement.

>> See (speaking rhetorically), in science -- real science, not wannabe
>> playtime-on-usenet "Science" -- You don't get answers. DNA never
>> comes with a map or a date, there are no lines marking where one
>> species ends and other begins, nobody can tell you what is and is
>> not a necessary step in the evolution towards a technological
>> species.
>>
>It’s funny to see an idiot pretend to lecture a bona fide scientist on how
>science works.
>
>> All of that is guess work.
>>
>> We want to say that it's an "Inference," sure, it's still just an opinion.
>> A guess. And you're so well trained you can't see any of this, all
>> you think you see is "Facts."
>>
>> The story is bunk. It's insisting upon Intelligent Design, or good old
>> fashioned creationism if you prefer, because that's all it leaves the
>> room for.
>>
>> You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
>> you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
>> dumb conclusions.
>>
>Athel would be slumming it to engage you further. Paraphrasing Hobson from
>Arthur: Thank you for a memorable afternoon, usually one must go to a
>bowling alley to meet a twit of your stature.
>
>

[JTEM is my hero]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Is autism bashing your thing now? Not a good look.

If you had any reading comprehension you wouldn't have had
to ask.

You need training wheels. I'm not giving them to you. Please
go get stuffed if your lack of comprehension is the best
excuse for an "argument" that you've got.

Thanks in advance.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Hopefully

: You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when

: you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
: dumb conclusions.

Was there ever a real Ron O and, if so, how would he feel knowing
that has deranged idiot is forging his name?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636334251112022016

[JTEM is my hero]

Glenn wrote:

> Actually, "Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer
> than Earth's existence " is exactly what the popularmechanics authors said:

It was as quote, literally copied & pasted from the article.

> "Cosmic statisticians say the likelihood of life evolving on Earth is even less than we thought.
> Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were more likely to take longer than Earth's existence."
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/

So if technological life on earth exists, and in all probability there hasn't
been enough time for it to evolve, that would mean... it would mean... the
only conclusion left would be...

CREATIONISM!

Either Intelligent Design or good old fashioned "Creationism."

> Although the authors did not explicitly claim that life was created, the inference is clear
> that if the first step in evolution and each succeeding step would each take more time
> than the time Earth has existed, evolution didn't "do it".

If the pea is under one of the walnut shells, and I left two of them demonstrating
that the pea isn't under them, I just showed you which shell the pea is under. Or,
if you're a usenet troll pretending he understands anything; NO!!!!!!! A THOUSAND
TIMES NO!

> Don't the followers of "Follow the Science" follow what is "more likely"? Did he really
> "totally" distort what the authors said?

I didn't distort anything. If you've got two possible solutions and I
eliminate one for you than I gave you the answer... even if I did not
explicitly state the words "This one here is your answer!"



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636428921191153664

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Just to prove

You posted a quote, something you attributed to somebody famous. Not
a "Study," no "Data" and certainly no real world observations -- not a lick
of science. And you did this in defense of your choice to endorse everything
you claim to not believe in even as you pretend it's something else.

Who are you fooling? Why would you care about people that dumb?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636334251112022016

[Glenn]

The magazine author doesn't say there are only two possible solutions, nor do I. If you have a picture of the Bearded One in the sky, share it. Otherwise, get in line with everyone else that is looking for the truth, rather than in the line of those pretending to know the truth.

[RonO]

Projection has to get to even someone like you eventually. What is
insane of being correct about something? Isn't it stupid that someone
actually assumed that I was talking about a description from you?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 12/3/2020 4:33 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Just to prove
>
> You posted a quote, something you attributed to somebody famous. Not
> a "Study," no "Data" and certainly no real world observations -- not a lick
> of science. And you did this in defense of your choice to endorse everything
> you claim to not believe in even as you pretend it's something else.
>
> Who are you fooling? Why would you care about people that dumb?

Who are you fooling? The quote came from the paper that the popular
science article was talking about. Glenn provided the link. I provided
the quote from the article. You snipped it out and decided to lie about
reality. Now you are revealing that you didn't even know what you were
lying about.

Ron Okimoto

>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636334251112022016
>

[RonO]

On 12/3/2020 4:25 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Hopefully
>
> : You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
> : you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
> : dumb conclusions.
>
> Was there ever a real Ron O and, if so, how would he feel knowing
> that has deranged idiot is forging his name?

Delusion is likely second nature for you, but you might want to try to
figure out what you are talking about.

You have me mixed up with someone else. I have signed my post the same
way for over 2 decades.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636334251112022016
>

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> That seems

You're a weak brained, emotionally unstable troll hiding behind
a bevy of sock puppets, and you can prove it:

What is it you think you're disagreeing with, and why?

There. You're done.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208

[JTEM is my hero]

Glenn wrote:

> The magazine author doesn't say there are only two possible solutions, nor do I.

They don't have to. This is how real life, science works. In religion "The
Good Book" has to spell things out in no uncertain terms, we don't get
that simplicity in science.

If you rule out evolution to leave only Creationism.

It's okay to say that the piece is badly written crap based on dump
assumptions and leading to even dumber conclusions, but make no
mistake: It is an argument FOR Creationism, whether intended or not.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Delusion

You have no reading comprehension. You can't deconstruct positions,
address specific points. You often post unrelated or even irrelevant
"Cites" -- like your quote! Doesn't matter if who said it or if anyone
said it at all; it did not address let alone refute a word spoken here.

HINT: It wasn't a study, it wasn't data or observations! It was a
frigging quote!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > You posted a quote, something you attributed to somebody famous. Not
> > a "Study," no "Data" and certainly no real world observations -- not a lick
> > of science.

> Who are you fooling? The quote came from

So it is exactly as I described: Not a study, not data and not observations
but a quote. You recited scripture.

"I don't have to believe in reality for the holy Prophet recorded these
words..."






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208

[Glenn]

On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 5:25:28 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > The magazine author doesn't say there are only two possible solutions, nor do I.
> They don't have to. This is how real life, science works. In religion "The
> Good Book" has to spell things out in no uncertain terms, we don't get
> that simplicity in science.
>
> If you rule out evolution to leave only Creationism.

Your words, not the authors.

>
> It's okay to say that the piece is badly written crap based on dump
> assumptions and leading to even dumber conclusions, but make no
> mistake: It is an argument FOR Creationism, whether intended or not.
>

Nope. It may be seen as an argument against "evolution" as understood to mean, but not an argument at all
for any alternative explanation. And certainly not for creationism, however defined. Intelligent Design does not
leave only one explanation as well.

Only the Sith think in absolutes. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

[RonO]

On 12/3/2020 6:30 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
>>> You posted a quote, something you attributed to somebody famous. Not
>>> a "Study," no "Data" and certainly no real world observations -- not a lick
>>> of science.
>
>> Who are you fooling? The quote came from
>
> So it is exactly as I described: Not a study, not data and not observations
> but a quote. You recited scripture.
>
> "I don't have to believe in reality for the holy Prophet recorded these
> words..."

You are bucking for less than a moron. The quote came from the paper
that was the basis of your popular mechanics article. What don't you get?

Beats me where the holy prophet business comes from. Did you go off
your meds, or are you sneaking computer time? It has to be hard to type
in a straight jacket. Could be an excuse for snipping out the material
that you have to run from.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208
>

[RonO]

On 12/3/2020 6:27 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Delusion
>
> You have no reading comprehension. You can't deconstruct positions,
> address specific points. You often post unrelated or even irrelevant
> "Cites" -- like your quote! Doesn't matter if who said it or if anyone
> said it at all; it did not address let alone refute a word spoken here.
>
> HINT: It wasn't a study, it wasn't data or observations! It was a
> frigging quote!

Hint: you are the one claiming that I am posting under more than one
moniker. What kind of idiot are you trying to make yourself out to be?
Go up the thread and read what you wrote.

The delusions have been all yours. Can you even track your own stupidity?

Partial Repost:

> They do not make the claim that evolution is false.

Of course they do. And if you paid attention instead of switching
handles and repeating yourself you might yet figure this out.

END partial Repost:

You lied about the paper that I was quoting from, and you voiced your
delusions that you can't seem to back up. I do not know where you got
the idea from, but you keep lying about it. Really, I have signed my
posts the same way for over 2 decades on TO. Ask Glenn, he has been
posting for around 20 years.

Ron Okimoto

>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636525481226846208
>

[nyik...@gmail.com]

It's also funny to see an idiot -- yourself -- paying lip service to science
when you've avoided discussing anything with me that smacks of science in
the last three months at least [1]. Instead, you've relentlessly badgered me to
discuss the existence of objective morality with you.

One might almost think that you look upon the discussing of it on YOUR
terms to be an objectively moral obligation on my part.

[1] Come to think of it, have you ever tried to discuss anything scientific
(not counting the social sciences) in depth with me? I can't recall a single time,
and we go back to 23 or more years ago, you and I.

> > All of that is guess work.
> >
> > We want to say that it's an "Inference," sure, it's still just an opinion.
> > A guess. And you're so well trained you can't see any of this, all
> > you think you see is "Facts."
> >
> > The story is bunk. It's insisting upon Intelligent Design, or good old
> > fashioned creationism if you prefer,

I know YOU prefer it, Hemi, to the extent of darkly suggesting that I am a
cryptocreationist. That's because, unlike you, I want creationism
defeated fair and square, while you are such a political animal
that you want it -- and myself -- to be defeated by hook or crook.

And you are also flippant enough to pretend not to know that the above
paragraph is addressed to you, even though I address you there by nickname,
Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase. Whether you actually CHOOSE to be that flippant

> >because that's all it leaves the
> > room for.
> >
> > You think you're defending "Science," you're so well trained, when
> > you're defending bad writing, highly flawed assumptions and
> > dumb conclusions.
> >
> Athel would be slumming it to engage you further.

The person you REALLY don't want Athel to engage is MYSELF. And if you
don't realize that, you will realize it if she ever does engage me in debate.

So far, your luck is holding out. She hasn't tried to engage me in anything.
But that is more relevant on this thread than ever, because I posted
a thoroughly on-topic reply to your beloved Ron O.

Nobody but Glenn even replied to the post, and he didn't have anything
to say about the solid evolutionary analysis along the general theme of Gould's quote.

And I expect you and that other big lip-service-to-science political animal,
Sean Dillon, to forever act as though I had never posted it. As for Ron O,
he is even more dead set against discussing evolutionary science with me
than the two of you bozos.

> Paraphrasing Hobson from
> Arthur: Thank you for a memorable afternoon, usually one must go to a
> bowling alley to meet a twit of your stature.

All bluff and no substance. That's you, Hemi.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

nyik...@gmail.com <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> [1] Come to think of it, have you ever tried to discuss anything scientific
> (not counting the social sciences) in depth with me? I can't recall a single time,
> and we go back to 23 or more years ago, you and I.
>

Hmmm haven’t I linked to this before in reply to you?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nWigApZxOPM/m/Lpftgf0mKv8J

Hard to discern anything scientific in any of your posts given if it exists
one must sift through lines and lines of you discussing the many bad deeds
of multiple posters over many years (a 50 Shades of Gray Meltdown
Marathon). Tinctures of science, however rare in comparison to the
monotonous soap opera soliloquy, may serve as pretext for bashing your
archnemesis, the talented mustache twirling Dr. Harshman and his squadron
of flying howler monkeys.

[JTEM is my hero]

Glenn wrote:

> > If you rule out evolution to leave only Creationism.

> Your words, not the authors.

No. Reality.

The word you need to think about is "enumerated," or in this
case "unenumerated."

The concept of evolution is extremely old. Common Descent
is old and evolution has always been a part of it. It was
unenumerated, yes, but it was there just the same because if
whales & goats share a common ancestor than one or both
"Evolved" a great deal since that time.

Creationism was unenumerated but it's there.

Science prefers the word "Inference," which I believe you used
yourself, while "Deductive Reasoning" may be the more apt
term here.

Google: Logic Puzzles

The collective is a moron, in addition to being emotionally
disturbed, so all of this is beyond it. There is no way for it to
move beyond headlines or labels. You can rule all out potential
solutions except for the one & only solution and the collective
would still insist that you never gave it the answer, unless you
actually use the words "This one here is the right answer."

Every thread ever posted in this group is a confirmation of this
fact.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636282176910000128

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 4, 2020 at 12:05:28 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> nyik...@gmail.com <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > [1] Come to think of it, have you ever tried to discuss anything scientific
> > (not counting the social sciences) in depth with me? I can't recall a single time,
> > and we go back to 23 or more years ago, you and I.
> >
> Hmmm haven’t I linked to this before in reply to you?

Not to my recollection. It's a 2011 article, back from the time I still thought
you had cleaned up your act [how wrong I was!], and so I doubt that I saw it back then.

Anyway, after giving it a quick glance, I've decided:

1. It's so long, and you've been such a jerk this year, that a careful read will
have to wait until after I've done administering the final exams for this
semester, and maybe until I have turned in the final grades.

2. You did make me aware of George Gaylord Simpson's concept of mega-evolution,
but I don't recall you trying to discuss it with me in depth.

> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nWigApZxOPM/m/Lpftgf0mKv8J
>
> Hard to discern anything scientific in any of your posts

In order to make this bare faced lie plausible, you snipped solidly scientific
comments which, it tuns out, are quite relevant to an idiotic/trollish comment
that Sean Dillon made in a post of his, labeled D).

Is that ANOTHER reason why you snipped them, btw?

Nobody called him out on it so far, and I suspect the reason is that everyone
but Glenn and JTEM and myself views Sean with the barbaric attitude of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Sean has been careful to
unilaterally make himself my enemy (and Glenn's and JTEM's, though
perhaps not unilaterally) but NOT the enemy of anyone else on this thread.

In this respect he is more prudent than his "near-twin" Lawyer Daggett,
who made the "mistake" of attacking your buddy, Ron O, and has gotten
himself into at least one tight situation as re that barbaric attitude.

> given if it exists
> one must sift through lines and lines of you discussing the many bad deeds
> of multiple posters over many years (a 50 Shades of Gray Meltdown
> Marathon).

That's because y'all come in about a dozen shades of Gray, which metamorphose
from time to time. You descended to one of the darkest shades in your
crossing the Rubicon. You recrossed it and have remained on the other side
so far, but you've darkened your shade progressively to where it is again
very close to that nadir.

>Tinctures of science, however rare in comparison to the
> monotonous soap opera soliloquy, may serve as pretext for bashing your
> archnemesis, the talented mustache twirling Dr. Harshman and his squadron
> of flying howler monkeys.

I think you know better than that. Jillery has been my archnemesis for at least
all of 2020, and you have made yourself second only to jillery this year.

In fact, I think you've been trolling thru much of this post, in the hopes of
once again getting me to post off-topic and thus to feed a positive feedback
loop which enables you to post more crap like what you are posting here.


Peter Nyikos

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 1:45:28 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:40:29 PM UTC-7, seand...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 11:10:27 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Popular Mechanics is claiming that evolution
> > > is false, that we did not evolve we were
> > > created:

> > Neither the article nor the research it is referencing say that. Nowhere is it stated that evolution is false, nor does it state or imply that life on Earth was created. The extent of what it argues is that the odds of life evolving elsewhere the SAME WAY it did on Earth are exceedingly low.
> >
> > You are wildly misrepresenting both the paper and the article in your post and ESPECIALLY in your post topic. You're a dishonest troll and/or an idiot.

> > >
> > > https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34771475/does-intelligent-life-exist-elsewhere/
> > >
> > > : Analysis suggests individual steps in evolution were
> > > : more likely to take longer than Earth's existence.
> > >
> > > What will the collective make of that?

> > A) That the evolutionary transitions being examined are poorly enough understood that meaningful calculations of their probabilities aren't yet especially possible. They are deriving each of their probabilities and their timings from a sample size of one.
>
> > B) That the idea that many evolutionary moments were contingent rather than inevitable is an argument that has been kicking around since at least Gould. It isn't remotely new or shocking.
>
> > C) If it hadn't evolved the ways it did, it would have evolved in other ways. And it is immensely difficult to predict where those
> other paths could have led. Or where they might lead on other planets with differing conditions.

> > D) The whole exercise smacks of anthropo-chauvanism. That the way WE evolved into intelligent, complex, macroscopic life is the only path to that outcome. There is no evidence to support that conclusion at all.
>
> > E) Gee it would be nice if studies like this included at least one evolutionary biologist among their authors.
>
> > F) This was published 2 weeks ago. I'm happy to give the scientific community a bit more time to examine the conclusions and respond.
> >
> seems you neglected to count the number of lies and intentional false implications here to facilitate your own admission of being a dishonest troll and/or an idiot.

He is using the usual tactic of indulging in such generality that it is only in D) and
E) and F) that I can be sure that he is behaving like a troll/idiot. The only regulars
that indulge in this "generalities, Si! specifics, No!" strategy to a greater extent (AFAIK) are
"Lawyer Daggett" and Robert Camp.

> I suspect that for you to be happy would be an exceptionally rare chance event.

I do believe Sean is happy (and very satisfied with himself) whenever he indulges in dirty
debating tactics, which is quite often. Do you disagree?

Be that as it may, here is my take on D) E) F) in a nutshell. If you want more details,
let me know.

In re D): He is grossly misrepresenting the main transitions they consider, of which
the last is sexual reproduction ---> intelligence and language. In between are
multicellularity, which is (rather implausibly) claimed to have evolved 40 times,
and the examples I gave of three or four distantly related vertebrates -- one not
even a mammal -- that could plausibly have given rise to some intelligent, sophisticated
language using species.

Now read D) again:

> > D) The whole exercise smacks of anthropo-chauvanism. That the way WE evolved into intelligent, complex, macroscopic life is the only path to that outcome. There is no evidence to support that conclusion at all.

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Sean isn't deliberately
lying about what he read -- assuming he DID read any part of the original scientific article:

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149

as to E), biochemists are far more relevant than any evolutionary scientists
who deal with multicellular life; and I think our knowledge of unicellular
protists is too scant to have any experts in that field.

as to F) a lot of the ideas in the scientific article are rather old hat, as a listing of the
many references in it should make people aware. It's questionable whether anything
in it is new except the Bayesian analysis, and I think Sean is so incompetent in
science that no criticism of that analysis will interest him.

IOW, I think there is no point in SEAN waiting a "bit more time" before unloading more
of his two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents.


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

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 6:55:29 PM UTC-5, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2020 at 12:05:28 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

A correction.

> > Hard to discern anything scientific in any of your posts

> In order to make this bare faced lie plausible, you snipped solidly scientific
> comments which, it tuns out, are quite relevant to an idiotic/trollish comment
> that Sean Dillon made in a post of his, labeled D).
>
> Is that ANOTHER reason why you snipped them, btw?

My bad. I confused the post to which Hemi was replying to here with a different
one that I posted to this thread.

Granted, all I have to do to set my comments right is to substitute "ignored" for
"snipped" in two places. To make it worse for Hemidactylus, the post I had in
mind were in reply to Ron O, whose reputation Hemidacylus seems to care
about more than he cares about his own. The most damaging information
about Hemidactlylus seems to go like water off a duck's back; but he has
twice intervened with breathtaking hypocrisy to deflect attention from damaging
information about his buddy Ron O.

NEVERTHELESS, my sense of fair play does not allow me to take full comfort
in what I said in the preceding paragraph. I goofed badly, and I apologize
to Hemidactylus for any misconceptions readers of the "snipped" version
might get from it in the future.

> Nobody called him out on it so far, and I suspect the reason is that everyone
> but Glenn and JTEM and myself views Sean with the barbaric attitude of
> "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Sean has been careful to
> unilaterally make himself my enemy (and Glenn's and JTEM's, though
> perhaps not unilaterally) but NOT the enemy of anyone else on this thread.

Also, no one has responded to the post that Hemidactyus *ignored*, except
for Glenn, who wasn't particularly interested in the scientific part. But he
might get interested now that I've told him about the way it makes hash
out of something Sean wrote and Glenn criticized.


{snip rest}


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

The more likely explanation, and one to which you don't acknowledge,
is that Sean's comments are not the idiotic/trollish comment you claim
they are, but are instead factually correct and a fair
characterization.

>In this respect he is more prudent than his "near-twin" Lawyer Daggett,
>who made the "mistake" of attacking your buddy, Ron O, and has gotten
>himself into at least one tight situation as re that barbaric attitude.
>
>
>> given if it exists
>> one must sift through lines and lines of you discussing the many bad deeds
>> of multiple posters over many years (a 50 Shades of Gray Meltdown
>> Marathon).
>
>That's because y'all come in about a dozen shades of Gray, which metamorphose
>from time to time. You descended to one of the darkest shades in your
>crossing the Rubicon. You recrossed it and have remained on the other side
>so far, but you've darkened your shade progressively to where it is again
>very close to that nadir.
>
> >Tinctures of science, however rare in comparison to the
>> monotonous soap opera soliloquy, may serve as pretext for bashing your
>> archnemesis, the talented mustache twirling Dr. Harshman and his squadron
>> of flying howler monkeys.
>
>I think you know better than that. Jillery has been my archnemesis for at least
>all of 2020, and you have made yourself second only to jillery this year.
>
>In fact, I think you've been trolling thru much of this post, in the hopes of
>once again getting me to post off-topic and thus to feed a positive feedback
>loop which enables you to post more crap like what you are posting here.

And here's another example of you accusing others of what you do even
as you do it.


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

[JTEM is my hero]

nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

> He is using the usual tactic of indulging in such generality

"Quoting explicit statements" = "Generality."

You're a farce!

You're so emotionally damaged that you can't & won't deal
with what the cite is telling you!

It's hilarious, actually.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/78765255145

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The more likely explanation

"Explanation".... I love it!

"Sure the collective is a partisan twat that wouldn't know reading
comprehension, much less science, even if it humped my I mean
it's leg, but what if we misinterpreted that as being insightful! In
that case the more idiotic I am I mean they are, the more insight I
must have! Um. They have. So the fact that you can drive trucks
through the holes in my I mean their arguments is proof of how
sound they are!"




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/78765255145

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:52:34 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote...

.... nothing coherent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:18:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:52:34 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote...
>
>.... nothing coherent.

It's a shame I couldn't see his/her/its post.

Oh, wait; no, it's not.
--

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

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[shameful stupidity]

Quote the cite. Don't try to spin what it says, actually quote
it. Instead it's your usual one liners would can always be
improved by making them one line shorter.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636561222682247169

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

[nothing coherent]

You're never going to grow up, are you? You're going to perpetually
remains that idiot 2nd grader...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636561222682247169

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:12:43 -0800 (PST), JTEM argues with a mirror...

>You're never going to grow up, are you? You're going to perpetually

>remains [sic] that idiot 2nd grader...


--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-09 21:12:43 +0000, JTEM is my hero said:

> jillery wrote:
>
> [nothing coherent]
>
> You're never going to grow up, are you? You're going to perpetually
> remains that idiot 2nd grader...

As Jillery would say, and probably will, tu quoque.


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:34:23 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:


>As Jillery would say, and probably will, tu quoque.

I hope you're not disappointed.

[seand...@gmail.com]

I do. Nothing "dirty" about anything I said. I was quite genuine, as I always strive to be. I accept that I am, periodically, wrong about things... AS ARE WE ALL. But if I err, I come by it honestly, whatever your misapprehension to the contrary. I say this as THE leading authority on my own motives. You really are dreadful at reading the motives of others.

>
> Be that as it may, here is my take on D) E) F) in a nutshell. If you want more details,
> let me know.
>
> In re D): He is grossly misrepresenting the main transitions they consider, of which
> the last is sexual reproduction ---> intelligence and language. In between are
> multicellularity, which is (rather implausibly) claimed to have evolved 40 times,
> and the examples I gave of three or four distantly related vertebrates -- one not
> even a mammal -- that could plausibly have given rise to some intelligent, sophisticated
> language using species.

What am I "grossly misrepresenting," exactly? Implicit in the article is the notion that there are particular transitions that must occur, in order for the outcome to be intelligent life (or at least, life as we know it). These transitions are assumed to be necessary, because they are the transitions we see on Earth. Only two of those transitions -- life and intelligence -- are in fact definitionally required to arrive at "intelligent life." Though... even defining those terms based on human, terrestrial notions of what might constitute "life" and "intelligence" is an iffy proposition. That life must become eukaryotic and our sexually reproductive in order to achieve this result is an assumption... an assumption that is based on the fact that these transitions appear to have been historically essential to the development of intelligent life on THIS planet, based on the nature of the life that developed here, and under what conditions. Who is to say that an "alive" alien intelligence would even have to be based in a cellular model at all, let alone a eukaryotic one?

To credit the researchers, they do say, essentially, IF we accept these transitions as necessary, here are the odds, based on what we know. But I reject the premise. That "IF" is, in my opinion, the fundamental error at the heart of the entire exercise in estimating the existence/frequency of extra-terrestrial intelligence in the universe, and is essentially anthropo- (or at least terra-)chauvanistic. I freely accept that "intelligent life very much like intelligent life on Earth" may be extraordinarily rare or even unique (though I think even that is SWAG). But why would we imagine that "intelligent" "life" elsewhere WOULD be "very much like" life here? It is an unmerited and unimaginative assumption.

>
> Now read D) again:
>
> > > D) The whole exercise smacks of anthropo-chauvanism. That the way WE evolved into intelligent, complex, macroscopic life is the only path to that outcome. There is no evidence to support that conclusion at all.
>
> There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Sean isn't deliberately
> lying about what he read -- assuming he DID read any part of the original scientific article:
>
> https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
>
> as to E), biochemists are far more relevant than any evolutionary scientists
> who deal with multicellular life; and I think our knowledge of unicellular
> protists is too scant to have any experts in that field.

The point is moot, since this study has neither. All four authors appear to be bio-mathematicists of one flavor or another. Both a biochemist AND an evolutionary biologist may have been of value, in my opinion, as they would so often be when mathematicians and engineers position themselves as experts on biology and evolution.

>
> as to F) a lot of the ideas in the scientific article are rather old hat, as a listing of the
> many references in it should make people aware. It's questionable whether anything
> in it is new except the Bayesian analysis, and I think Sean is so incompetent in
> science that no criticism of that analysis will interest him.
>
> IOW, I think there is no point in SEAN waiting a "bit more time" before unloading more
> of his two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents.

Yes, you're essentially rehashing my Point B. JTEM was presenting this as something new and devestating. It is neither. You're right that I have neither the interest nor the expertise to critique or even examine their use of Bayesian analysis. Doing so isn't particularly relevant to my point. My point was that, generally, publication is only the first step in the acceptance or rejection of the scientific ideas being presented. The Popular Mechanics article, like far too many popular articles about splashy-sounding scientific conclusions, is breathlessly reporting something that hasn't yet had any particular opportunity to face peer review by others competent to address it in its details. I do not pretend to be one of those people, and have happily noted as much on many occassions. I have a bright, enthusiastic, amateur generalist's level of understanding when it comes to evolutionary science, which is generally plenty for the level of discourse typical of backwater Creation/Evolution debate sites, since Creationist arguments rarely -- dare I say never -- pass the threshold of requiring expertise to rebut. When the reach of a debate exceeds my grasp, I'm happy to do the relevant reading, or to leave it to others with a greater body of experience. Unlike some, I don't have delusions of grandeur regarding my command of the topic.

(Hint to Peter: the reason people avoid or give up on debating you is not because of your purportedly overwhelming understanding of evolution, it is because you are an unpleasant, pompous jackass, and trying to have a reasoned debate with you inevitably requires dredging any actual arguments out of the morass of personal recriminations and attacks, your ever-growing laundry list of grievances, your rich fantasy life regarding everyone else's motives and associations, and your pathetically self-fulfilling persecution complex... only to watch you pull the argument right back into the mire with your next post. It doesn't take long for most of us to weary of dealing with YOU... not your arguments.)

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery the dancing monkey wrote:

> I eat ear wax. Don't eat my ear wax it's mine! All mine!
> Plus it's easier than thinking & stuff.

Great. In the mean time the cite ruled out all origins for life
except some brand of Creationism.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/636788222216814592

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), JTEM confessed...

>> I eat ear wax. Don't eat my ear wax it's mine! All mine!
>> Plus it's easier than thinking & stuff.

[JTEM is my hero]

> > jillery wrote:
> >> I eat ear wax. Don't eat my ear wax it's mine! All mine!
> >> Plus it's easier than thinking & stuff.

Nothing has changed. The cite still excluded all possibilities
save for some version of Creationism.

How does it feel to fail?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/637240795907375104

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:59:00 -0800 (PST), JTEM argued with a mirror...

>How does it feel to fail?

--

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

[failure incarnate]

Despite your temper tantrum, nothing has changed. The cite
still leaves no room for anything apart from some flavor of
Creationism.

Amazing but it seems that your immaturity can't change
anything except for how some party might perceive you.

Good luck with that.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/637250153401761792

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:19:04 -0800 (PST), JTEM argues with a mirror...

>Good luck with that.

--

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 1:50:29 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> jillery the dancing monkey wrote:
>
> > I eat ear wax. Don't eat my ear wax it's mine! All mine!
> > Plus it's easier than thinking & stuff.

Nice satire on jillery there. The best jillery could manage was to try and
make it look like you were saying it about yourself, even to the point of
alleging that you had actually confessed to that effect. But she
left in the attribution marks that indicated that the words were not yours.

Do you think that was due to stupidity? I simply cannot imagine that it
was due to fear of being caught in an outright lie, made with intent to deceive.
She's regularly flaunted her clout in talk.origins by telling lies that everyone
can easily see are lies, yet no one but me calls her out on it, due to fear of the
punishment that she and her allies could mete out for such a rash act.

About a hundred of those transparent lies are in the format, "Liar [1]" (location
of the period may vary).

> Great. In the mean time the cite ruled out all origins for life
> except some brand of Creationism.

Is your range of brands more extensive than the wide range I gave on another thread?
Here is how it went:

[excerpt:]
Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)"
to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have
created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
[end of excerpt]
from:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/EGts30f3m6A/m/V1SWqpPTCAAJ
Subject: THE two most Important words in talk.origins
Dec 8, 2020, 4:35:29 PM

If your range doesn't fit into the one I gave above, please let me know what mine
does not cover.

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

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

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), "nyik...@gmail.com"
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

,,, nothing intelligent or coherent or relevant.

The Parthian archer appeared for a rare weekend visit. One can only
wonder his motivation. Perhaps he sees it as a thoughtful holiday
gift.

[*Hemidactylus*]

nyik...@gmail.com <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 1:50:29 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> jillery the dancing monkey wrote:
>>
>>> I eat ear wax. Don't eat my ear wax it's mine! All mine!
>>> Plus it's easier than thinking & stuff.
>
> Nice satire on jillery there. The best jillery could manage was to try and
> make it look like you were saying it about yourself, even to the point of
> alleging that you had actually confessed to that effect. But she
> left in the attribution marks that indicated that the words were not yours.
>
> Do you think that was due to stupidity? I simply cannot imagine that it
> was due to fear of being caught in an outright lie, made with intent to deceive.
> She's regularly flaunted her clout in talk.origins by telling lies that everyone
> can easily see are lies, yet no one but me calls her out on it, due to fear of the
> punishment that she and her allies could mete out for such a rash act.
>

Has JTEM seen this yet?:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UyETkw4gf78/m/u4awk6rUAwAJ

You replying to Erik:
“Your deep-seated insecurities are coming to the fore here. Both JTEM and
Mario would be a handicap instead of an asset as allies for me.

On the other hand, you and Oxyaena are the closest of allies, despite the
fact that Oxyaena is at least as much of a loose cannon as JTEM, especially
in confrontations with me. But I suppose you appreciate the way she has
channeled the worst of her craziness as
Thinaxodon onto me.”

And to Erik’s “JTEM doesn't cooperate at all,”

You replied: “Yes, he is a full-time loose cannon, unlike "Oxyaena" who
learned from the terrible beating from DIG's banhammer as "Thrinaxodon" how
most profitably to channel her negative qualities. As a result, you and
Oxyaena and Harshman have become like three peas in a pod in both t.o. and
s.b.p.”

So is JTEM a loose cannon in your view?

[snip rest]

[erik simpson]

I suspect Peter is losing track of who he's talking to, and who he has "told on" to others,
on different news groups, in different decades. Hibernation time approaches.