Evolution Fairy Tale site updated, finally!

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.

The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
who think natural selection drives evolution!

http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/

Fred Williams


Martin Smith

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
In article <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>,


Congratulations on the update; welcome to the 19th century!

Martin Smith


Chris C.

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to

It is a wonderfully well put together site. It is also very funny. My
favorite is the exploding giraffe head. I think Fred has a special dislike
for squirrels. He has them squash when they attempt to fly and flattens them
in they road. I'll give it an A on presentation but the content is a little
off.

Charles Dye

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
On 23 Jul 1999 09:23:13 -0400, fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M.
Williams) wrote:

>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/

Well, now I've seen everything. Just when I thought the creationists
had reached absolute nadir -- a new breakthrough in stupidity! Now
cited as an expert:

:1. Excerpted from The Flat Flounder Squirrel, written by Karl
:Crawford.

The blind lead the blind, and the new Dark Ages are at our doorstep.
Congratulations, Fred. You're on the road to Socratic wisdom; you
clearly have the *first* half down cold.

ras...@highfiber.com


Trailer

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
"Fred M. Williams" wrote:

> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>

> Fred Williams

Ha ha! Yes, you're right. You're website is about fairy tales, namely
your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution! Ha ha! How cute!

Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
(hint: look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person; it'll be
fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
"evidence"! Whee!):

"Isaak tells us that creationists “misinterpret the 2nd law to say
that things invariably progress
from order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has
published this
“misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the
“creationists” to whom he would
credit this quotation. However, it is commonly understood by not only
by creationists, but
by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or
processes left to
themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider
what Isaac Asimov
(a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to
say:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is
constantly
getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second
law all
about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to
itself it
becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we
never enter it, it
becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and
machinery,
and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them
deteriorate. In
fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates,
collapses,
breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the
second law is all
about.”
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what
Isaak claims is a
“creationist misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. Lest there be any
doubts, a typical
college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with
matters of origins and
therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says:

“Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of
randomness in a
system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or
more randomness
the system has. We could say that the direction of change in
diffusion or
evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.”
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth
Publishers,
1980, p. 157]

It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed
require that a natural
process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or
randomness, and therefore
decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses,
breaks down, wears
out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice
that Asimov applies this law to
“the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is
... universal (applying to all
processes and systems).

Open vs. Closed Systems

Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has
really become a
classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the
creationists’ error is
that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”

The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is
inviolate in an isolated system
(i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave
the system—often
erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the
law can exist in an open
system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added).
Isaak tells us “life [is]
irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every
living systems is an
exception to the 2nd law.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to
be a “closed” (isolated)
system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is
increasing. In other
words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized,
less complex, more
random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov
above) is a scientifically
observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory."

Ha, ha! How cute. Now, here's what Isaac Asimov really has to say about
this topic (this is an excerpt from an essay written by Isaac Asimov in
June of 1981 titled "The Threat of Creationism"; it is published in its
entirety in the book, _Science & Creationism_, by Ashley Montegu et al,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984)

(This quote is preceded by an evaluation of many of the tactics used by
Creationists to attack science. This is the fourth general tactic
evaluated by Asimov in the essay; this section is presented in its
entirety from pp. 187-188 in _Science & Creationism_, cited above)

"The argument from distored science:

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in
their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but
the most common example, at least in the mail I receive, is the repeated
assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the
evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all
spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder--that is, in
a 'downhill' direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the
complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving
'uphill.' According to the creationist argument, since, by the
evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that
process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow
invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the
second law through sheer perversity.

Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not
blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable
only for kindergartens.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second
law of thermodynamics applies to a 'closed system,'--that is, to a system
that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside.
The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity
spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another
interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in
line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus
moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another
interlocking part of the system--the sun, which delivers energy to the
earth continually--moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than
evolution moves uphill.

If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so,
eventually, would life.

Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people
are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy
in the creationist distortion.

There are many other 'scientific' arguments used by creationists,
some taking quite clever advantage of present areas of dispute in
evolutionary theory, but every one of them is as disingenuous as the
second-law argument.

The 'scientific' arguments are organized in to special creationist
textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and
which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are
written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while
they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific
terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the
legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking
on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible
alternative.

Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of
course, because none exists other than the word of the Bible, which it is
current creationist strategy not to use."

So we see that creationist arguments have not improved significantly since
1981 and that they continue to misuse and distort science and to misquote
scientists for their own purposes. What are those purposes? To prevent
you from ever questioning the LITERAL TRUTH of the words of the Bible!
Why? I really don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me. But, maybe
they feel that science is a threat to the Bible, even though many, many,
many scientists are Christian or Jewish. I can't say, because the feeble
attempts to discredit scientists using disingenuous, deliberate
distortions of facts (which, of course, equate to lies since they are
deliberately trying to deceive their audience) call into question their
rationality.

But it is certainly entertaining to read their arguments and "fables,"
just like it's entertaining to read Aesop's fables!

Dan


Dave Woetzel

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to

Fred M. Williams wrote in message <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>...

>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/


Cool graphics, Fred. Nice irreverence. The regulars won't be happy.

Dave


Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
Dave Woetzel wrote:

> Fred M. Williams wrote:
> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/

> Cool graphics, Fred. Nice irreverence. The regulars won't be happy.

We haven't been before, but it's not because of "irreverence".
You see, Fred doesn't mean the above site as a joke. He actually
believes that the stuff he puts up is an accurate reflection of
what science says.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com


Christopher Sharp

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to

Fred M. Williams wrote:

> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>

> Fred Williams

Hello Fred,

I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
still havn't provided any theory of creation which
refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
of science, these are currently the best explanations.

Christopher M. Sharp http://www.csharp.com/csharp
in...@csharp.com

Wade Hines

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) writes:

>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.

>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!

>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/

From therein:
Perhaps the crown jewel of "just-so stories" dreamed up by
evolutionists is the idea that mud-to-man evolution is driven
by natural selection. Creationists have long pointed out the
logical fallacies of this argument. First, natural selection can
only work with pre-existing genes, so to expect this process alone
to create new information is preposterous. Second,
survival of the fittest describes the fittest as those who will
leave the most offspring, so since we are left with only the
most fit, natural selection as an explanation becomes a tautology!

It seems to me that the above quote misses a key point.
"Survival of the fittest" is an observation as is the fact
that creatures reproduce with mistakes to create variation. In
that respect, what observation is not a tautology?
"I see that thing that I see."

The key to natural selection is that because of the observed
skewing of populations due to selection, new variation will
be expressed on a background that is not random with respect
to the genotype. This means that the probability of two mutations
occuring together is not determined by the multiplication of
the independent probabilities of each.

If one reads the first footnote on the web site, I believe one can
understand what I think is meant by "create" in the Gould quote
in terms of this effect that selection has in producing a
genetic environment for an accumulated genetic change.

But I expect I am wasting my effort with the author I am replying to.


John Savard

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote, in part:

>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.

>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!

Well, this may make you feel good: a few months ago, I read a column
by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
Darwin*.

John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm


Mark Koebbe

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to

Dave Woetzel wrote:

> Fred M. Williams wrote in message <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>...


> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >

> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Cool graphics, Fred.

They're called cartoons.

> Nice irreverence.

No evidence.

> The regulars won't be happy.

Regulars meaning any person with common sense and rational thinking.

Indeed.

MJK

>
>
> Dave


hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
In article <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>,

fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote:
> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.

Gee, so that we can read some more of your fairy tales about evolution ?

HRG.

> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>

> Fred Williams
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.


Dick C.

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
In article <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>, fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote:
>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/

In the past it has been pointed out that if you spent as much time
learning about science as you have in doing your graphics you would
actually have something valid to say. Did you do that yet, or is this just
another one of your great graphics combined with no thinking?

>
>Fred Williams
>

Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/


Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 23 Jul 1999 10:09:36 -0400, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>> In article <37986f9d...@news.polnow.net>,


>> Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>> >
>> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
>> >
>> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>> >

>> >Fred Williams
>> >
>>
>>
>> Congratulations on the update; welcome to the 19th century!
>>
>> Martin Smith
>
>It is a wonderfully well put together site. It is also very funny. My
>favorite is the exploding giraffe head. I think Fred has a special dislike
>for squirrels. He has them squash when they attempt to fly and flattens them
>in they road. I'll give it an A on presentation but the content is a little
>off.
>

Thanks Chris. I never thought about it before, but maybe subconciously
I do have a dislike for squirrels!


---
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
There are 3 kinds of people in the world:
those who can count, and those who can't!


Charles Dye

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 24 Jul 1999 08:45:55 -0400, foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:

>In the past it has been pointed out that if you spent as much time
>learning about science as you have in doing your graphics you would
>actually have something valid to say. Did you do that yet, or is this just
>another one of your great graphics combined with no thinking?

Well, now. They really aren't all *that* great!

ras...@highfiber.com


Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 23 Jul 1999 10:51:15 -0400, Trailer <tra...@erols.com> wrote:

>"Fred M. Williams" wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>
>> Fred Williams
>
>Ha ha! Yes, you're right. You're website is about fairy tales, namely
>your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution! Ha ha! How cute!
>
>Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
>(hint: look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
>science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
>misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person; it'll be
>fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
>"evidence"! Whee!):

Dear Danbulb,

Since I do not discuss the 2nd Law at my site, and in fact do not use
it as an argument against synthetic evolution, your entire post is a
strawman. Your post could be the poster boy for "The Evolution
Handbook- How to respond to a Creationist". In this case you have
picked perhaps the most popular "1. Tell them they are quoting out of
context!"

So, you diligently search my site for this infraction, but can't find
one, so in desperation you use a quote that is at a site in my links
section!

Perhaps next time you can think on your own instead of blindly
following the Evo Handbook and parroting T.O. FAQs. It would make you
more credible.

Your Pal,
Fred

Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 23 Jul 1999 14:09:27 -0400, hi...@cgl.ucsf.EDU (Wade Hines) wrote:

>fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) writes:
>

>>Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>>in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
>>The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>>who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
>>http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>

>From therein:
>Perhaps the crown jewel of "just-so stories" dreamed up by
>evolutionists is the idea that mud-to-man evolution is driven
>by natural selection. Creationists have long pointed out the
>logical fallacies of this argument. First, natural selection can
>only work with pre-existing genes, so to expect this process alone
>to create new information is preposterous. Second,
>survival of the fittest describes the fittest as those who will
>leave the most offspring, so since we are left with only the
>most fit, natural selection as an explanation becomes a tautology!
>
>It seems to me that the above quote misses a key point.
>"Survival of the fittest" is an observation as is the fact
>that creatures reproduce with mistakes to create variation. In
>that respect, what observation is not a tautology?
>"I see that thing that I see."

When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
anything cannot produce new information.

>
>The key to natural selection is that because of the observed
>skewing of populations due to selection, new variation will
>be expressed on a background that is not random with respect
>to the genotype. This means that the probability of two mutations
>occuring together is not determined by the multiplication of
>the independent probabilities of each.

So what's your point? This does not remove it as a tautology if argued
as a driving *mechanism* of evolution beyond the family level.

>If one reads the first footnote on the web site, I believe one can
>understand what I think is meant by "create" in the Gould quote
>in terms of this effect that selection has in producing a
>genetic environment for an accumulated genetic change.
>
>But I expect I am wasting my effort with the author I am replying to.
>

Well, you didn't since you made a post with some intelligent content,
instead of the usual "liar", or "cites please" or "that guy's really
dumb, man, cus I know evolution is true."

Fred Williams
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/bibleevidences/


Andre G Isaak

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
In article <3799cea7...@news.polnow.net>,

Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:

>When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
>shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
>this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
>anything cannot produce new information.


Natural Selection has never been described as a 'shuffling process'
by scientists. I think you are thinking of sex here, and should therefore
be ashamed of yourself :-)

Mutation provides 'new information'. Natural selection determines which
information is worthwhile and which isn't.

Andre

--
Andre G Isaak agi...@linguist.umass.edu
Department of Linguistics (413) 586-8949 (Res)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst


Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 23 Jul 1999 12:07:43 -0400, Christopher Sharp
<csh...@as.arizona.edu> wrote:

>
>
>Fred M. Williams wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>

>> Fred Williams
>
>Hello Fred,
>
>I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
>still havn't provided any theory of creation which
>refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
>Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
>at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
>"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
>of science, these are currently the best explanations.

Howdy Chris,

I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
time since then studying information theory, which I have found
utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
with a new theory.

Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
implementation of various protocols, including design of new
proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
this.

So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random
activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
place.

George Tirebiter

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
"just-so stories" dreamed up by
>evolutionists

as inaccurately characterized by Fred Williams (whoever that is). First,
evolution is not "dreamed up" like the story of creation. Here's my
response....

Try these for fairy tales.....a talking snake in an apple tree, a talking
burning bush, a woman who turns into salt for looking at the wrong thing at
the wrong time (sort of like the Gorgon turning people into stone?), a
realm in which demons torture people forever (hell), a realm of winged
beings where people go after death (heaven), a guy who miraculously dies
and then rises from the dead.......well, the list goes on and on. Possibly
the most ludicrous imaginary scenario is the idea that everything poofed
into existence 6000 years ago (like your frog into a prince). Luckily
nobody of consequence takes any of this seriously.

When I was growing up, I knew a kid who craved attention so much he would
fake all sorts of mental disabilities, blindness, retardation, insanity,
etc. It is my opinion that many creation "science" proponents are just like
him.

Talk all you want about science being based on faith, then contemplate why
your refrigerator, automobile, vaccines, nuclear power, etc etc etc all
function. They function because of scientific theory. Not on faith.
Your misrepresentation of what science is and how it works is all too
typical of creationist tactics. When I watch my wife slaving over a
scientific paper which will be attacked in every possible way by her peers
and thesis committee members in order to test its viability, I am reminded
that evolutionary theory is always under such testing and continues
unscathed. Pretty good compared to the fairy tale of creationism.

Bob Mitchell


Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
On 24 Jul 1999 10:59:14 -0400, agi...@linguist.umass.edu (Andre G
Isaak) wrote:

>In article <3799cea7...@news.polnow.net>,
>Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>
>>When NS is argued as an information producing mechanism, not just
>>shuffling genes, then the tautolgy fallicy is relevant. Even without
>>this fallacy, common sense alone would tell us that reshuffling of
>>anything cannot produce new information.
>
>
>Natural Selection has never been described as a 'shuffling process'
>by scientists. I think you are thinking of sex here, and should therefore
>be ashamed of yourself :-)

You're right, I mispoke here. I meant from what I originaly wrote
regarding selection from a pre-existing set.


>
>Mutation provides 'new information'. Natural selection determines which
>information is worthwhile and which isn't.

Too many evos and some "scientists" think natural selection can add
information. I'm sure you've read Dick Dawkins "Information
Challenge". Perhaps you guys need a better press secretary for
evolution.

ZeldaG

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
>Subject: Re: Evolution Fairy Tale site updated, finally!
>From: fredmw...@polnow.net

>I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
>time since then studying information theory, which I have found
>utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
>with a new theory.

And your reasoning is?

>Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
>engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
>implementation of various protocols, including design of new
>proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
>the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
>important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
>this.

Invalid (non) argument by authority.

I've met plenty of Christians who've had their critical thinking powers
castrated by their faith.

>how do you explain how random
>activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
>create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
>information?

What part of gene duplication, mutation and natural selection don't you
understand?

Try reading up on how the immune system works to generate 10,000,000 antigenic
receptors. Then come back and tell us all how mutation is incapable of
generating new information. While you're at it, take a gander at the current
literature on P450 liver enzyme system. And don't forget to tell us all why
sequence homology just happens to precisely mirror the phylogenetic tree(since
all the "kinds" were created independently de novo).

Christopher Sharp

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to

Fred M. Williams wrote:

> On 23 Jul 1999 12:07:43 -0400, Christopher Sharp
> <csh...@as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Fred M. Williams wrote:
> >
> >> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >>
> >> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >> who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >>
> >> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
> >>
> >> Fred Williams
> >
> >Hello Fred,
> >
> >I remember having exchanges with you last year. You
> >still havn't provided any theory of creation which
> >refutes the Big Bang, no equations, no physics, nada.
> >Fred Hoyle who doesn't (or didn't) accept the Big Bang
> >at least had a theory. By the way, scientists don't
> >"believe" in the Big Bang, evolution or other branches
> >of science, these are currently the best explanations.
>
> Howdy Chris,
>

> I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
> time since then studying information theory, which I have found
> utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
> with a new theory.
>

> Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
> engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
> implementation of various protocols, including design of new
> proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
> the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
> important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
> this.
>

> So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random


> activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
> create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys

> information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
> tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
> place.
>

Howdy Fred,

Thanks for your response, but I'm not an engineer, I'm a
scientist, though I do some software engineering. There is
a big difference between scientists and engineers, and it's
usually engineers who are creationists not scientists.

People like ZeldaG are more qualified than me to talk about
genetics and related subjects, so I leave these sort of
arguments to them, as unlike creationsist who "know"
everything, I prefer to stick to astrophysics, theoretical
physics and related subjects.

Christopher Sharp


George Tirebiter

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
Obviously this guy has digital storage systems confused with DNA or
something. Typical.


Andre G Isaak

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
In article <3799dda9...@news.polnow.net>,

Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:

>Too many evos and some "scientists" think natural selection can add
>information. I'm sure you've read Dick Dawkins "Information
>Challenge". Perhaps you guys need a better press secretary for
>evolution.

I don't really think science is about having good press secretaries.
Perhaps you should learn more about it before you try to attack it.
This will prevent you from setting up straw-man arguments which make
you look foolish.

ZeldaG

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
>Subject: Re: Evolution Fairy Tale site updated, finally!
>From: "George Tirebiter" pet...@midwest.net
>Date: Sat, 24 July 1999 01:31 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01bed5fc$09909de0$3902ebd0@-1>

>
>Obviously this guy has digital storage systems confused with DNA or
>something. Typical.

What is really funny is that if anything resembles the genes of DNA, it's the
Bible. The four Gospels are obviously mutated versions of the same story,
written, copied, mutated, selected, enhanced, and deleted from a single
original hundreds of years earlier. Who says evolution can't produce "new"
information?


CMB

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to
In article <3798b85e...@news.prosurfr.com>,
jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote, in part:

>
> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-
babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
>
> Well, this may make you feel good: a few months ago, I read a column
> by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
> Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
> describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
> Darwin*.
>
> John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
>

Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
evolutionary thinkers. It is not unusual for scientists to actually do
an about face, turn their backs to him in public and refuse to speak to
him. They don't do this because he is considered to be controversial.
They do this because he is widely perceived to be some kind of
polemical village idiot in the field of evolutionary science. At many
conventions you can see the pudgy, bearded somewhat grungy looking
Gould shambling idly about on the floor sipping at a diet coke being
ignored by his colleagues who fear being seen even speaking to him.

This has not affected his status with the unwashed masses, who sop it
up mindlessly because they don't have any idea to the contrary. On the
other hand, books about crystal power and the ancient kingdoms of
Lemuria's kirlian technology sell a lot more copies than his do.

Stephen is an openly confessed Marxist who has admitted he writes these
populist books (which sell well to the ignorant public) to reintroduce
socialist political control over science into the U.S. ... but like
Lysenko before him (Gould is often called the "American Lysenko") he
has become primarily a laughingstock except with people who have firm
convictions they have been abducted by UFOs.

This has not stopped his populist books from selling millions of copies
or kept Stephen Gould from often writing for the popular press. He
really has a strong attraction for low cognitive ability types and
appeals to their convictions that he, Gould, is the only honest voice
... when in fact he is merely a buffoon, charlatan and cagliostro. He
is a bit like those guys who have press meetings at the Holiday Inn to
announce they have a perpetual motion machine they cannot make public
because the CIA is after them.

In a rare moment of attention (for Gould), a serious scientific pair of
respected experts tore him a new asshole in this letter published in
the NY Times:

<http://cogweb.english.ucsb.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html>

To imagine Gould paired off with creationists is truly an odd teamup to
say the least ... pseudoscientists pretending to do science to shore up
religious myths referring to another pseudoscientist pretending to do
science to shore up Karl Marx. I think it represents just how far down
in the gutter the sophistry and preposterous gobbledegook of Gould has
taken him.

Boikat

unread,
Jul 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/24/99
to

Charles Dye <ras...@highfiber.com> wrote in article
<37987e64...@ediacara.org>...
> On 23 Jul 1999 09:23:13 -0400, fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M.


> Williams) wrote:
>
> >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
> >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >

> >http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>
> Well, now I've seen everything. Just when I thought the creationists
> had reached absolute nadir -- a new breakthrough in stupidity! Now
> cited as an expert:
>
> :1. Excerpted from The Flat Flounder Squirrel, written by Karl
> :Crawford.

I've just discovered that when I laugh *really* hard, I get a headache.

Boikat


Trailer

unread,
Jul 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/25/99
to
"Fred M. Williams" wrote:
On 23 Jul 1999 10:51:15 -0400, Trailer <tra...@erols.com> wrote:

>"Fred M. Williams" wrote:
>
>> Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
>> in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
>>
>> The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-babblers
>> who think natural selection drives evolution!
>>
>> http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
>>
>> Fred Williams
>
>Ha ha!  Yes, you're right.  You're website is about fairy tales, namely
>your arguments which you claim "refute" evolution!  Ha ha!  How cute!
>
>Here's one example of the misuse of quotations from noted scientists
>(hint:  look for at least one noted writer of popular non-science and
>science fiction (now deceased), and see if you can tell how his quote is
>misued for your own ignorant purposes to mislead the lay person;  it'll be
>fun, kind of like reading the rest of your fairy tales and supposed
>"evidence"!  Whee!):

Dear Danbulb,

Since I do not discuss the 2nd Law at my site, and in fact do not use
it as an argument against synthetic evolution, your entire post is a
strawman. Your post could be the poster boy for "The Evolution
Handbook- How to respond to a Creationist". In this case you have
picked perhaps the most popular "1. Tell them they are quoting out of
context!"

I owe you an apology, Fred, since you're right in saying that you don't discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at your site.  I followed a link from your site and arrived at the True.Origins website.  This is the site which should be the recipient of my previous posting:

http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/to_home.htm

So, you were NOT the one who was quoting out of context, but the site above is, in fact, quoting out of context.  Perhaps before you rant any further about my error, you'll investigate your own.

So,  you diligently search my site for this infraction, but can't find
one, so in desperation you use a quote that is at a site in my links
section!

No, I was looking at your website and followed that link, mistakenly believing it to be part of your site.  This was an oversight on my part, but certainly not an act of desperation.  Did you read my posting and the corresponding discussion of the 2nd Law on the True.Origins website?  Since my posting must have seemed to you to have appeared out of nowhere, I can suppose that you have not.  However, it would seem odd for you to link to a site without having reviewed its contents.  No matter, though, since this entire thread is due to my error, not yours.

Perhaps next time you can think on your own instead of blindly
following the Evo Handbook and parroting T.O. FAQs. It would make you more credible.

Well, I don't have an "Evo Handbook" and I didn't parrot any Talk.Origins FAQ.  I looked up the Asimov reference (which I cited) on my own in a book which I own.  It's there for all to see and is as valid as it was before I ever read it.  Perhaps you'd like us to conveniently ignore it, though.

Again, I publicly apologize for crediting you with an argument you didn't make.  I'll go back to your site now to see what it has to offer on its own.

Your Pal,
Fred
Dan
(P.S.  What is "Danbulb"?)
 

Gordon Davisson

unread,
Jul 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/26/99
to
In article <3799d23c...@news.polnow.net>,

Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote:
>[...]

>Howdy Chris,
>
>I do remember our exchanges from last year. I've spent quite a bit of
>time since then studying information theory, which I have found
>utterly refutes NeoDarwinism. You guys are going to have to come up
>with a new theory.
>
>Since much of my 17+ years of experience as a hardware/software
>engineer has been in the area of communication, particularly the
>implementation of various protocols, including design of new
>proprietary protocols, I am qualified to speak on the subject above
>the intermediate level. I only mention this as it is sometimes
>important to gauge the discussion level, especially in a forum like
>this.
>
>So Chris, from one engineer to another, how do you explain how random
>activity on the genome, which is specified complex information, can
>create new information, in light of the fact that randomizing destroys
>information? For now I'll not worry you with coming up with a fairy
>tale to explain how the specified information got there in the first
>place.

If you understand information theory, you must be aware that it implies
that random processes produce information. (Or, more precisely, all
stochastic processes are information sources, and any information source
may, for the purposes of information theory, be treated as a stochastic
process.) Information theory, at least the version of it used in the
communications industry, does not support your claim at all.

Now, you used the phrase "specified complex information" in your posting
above; this suggests that you are not talking about standard information
theory (developed primarily by Claude Shannon), but William Dembski's
theory of complex specified information (as described in http://www.-
dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html).
Is this what you're basing your claims on? If so, you should be aware
that you are relying on a theory that is not widely used or accepted in
any scientific or technical community; indeed, I have not even been able
to find a proper technical description of the theory, only nontechnical
summaries (such as the one I cited above).

I've been looking at Dembski's theory to see if he's right about its
implications, but I've been stymied by ambiguities in his definitions and
examples. If you're willing to claim to understand the theory well,
could I ask you to calculate the amount of complex specified information
in a couple of situations I find troublesome? If you want to take a
shot, here they are:

a) I use a random number generator to pick an integer between 1 and one
million. The number generated is 141,376; this happens to be a perfect
square (the square of 376), and thus is (or at least would appear to be)
a specified result. According to standard information theory, this result
carries about 20 bits (the probability of picking that particular integer
is 1/1,000,000, so the associated information is I = -log2 (1/1,000,000)
= 19.93 bits); in Dembski's terminology this corresponds to the amount of
complex information. But, there are a thousand perfect squares between
one and a million, so the probability of getting _some_ perfect square is
1/1,000. My question is, how much complex specified information does the
result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of getting that
particular specified result (P=1/1,000,000), or the probability of getting
any of the specified results (P=1/1,000)?

b) Suppose I paint a target on the side of a barn, big enough to cover
one thousandth of the barn's area. Suppose further that I'm a mediocre
enough archer that, even with that big a target, I can only hit it half
the time. Suppose I fire an arrow at the target, and manage to hit it.
Again, my question is how much complex specified information does this
result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of the arrow
hitting the target if it had been fired at random (P=1/1,000), or the
probability of _me_ hitting the target (P=1/2)?

If you can calculate these examples out and give me the answers (or point
me to where Dembski give a complete enough definition to let me figure
out the answers), I'd appreciate it.

--
Human: Gordon Davisson ><todd>
HASA: Member, S division. o o
Internet: davi...@saul.u.washington.edu


Felipe

unread,
Jul 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/26/99
to

CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7ndao8$oev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <3798b85e...@news.prosurfr.com>,
> jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> > fredmw...@polnow.net (Fred M. Williams) wrote, in part:
> >
> > >Well, it took a while but the artwork I was waiting for finally came
> > >in. Sorry for the delay, I know I promised this over a month ago.
> >
> > >The new series is Natural Selection, and it ridicules you evo-
> babblers
> > >who think natural selection drives evolution!
> >
> > Well, this may make you feel good: a few months ago, I read a column
> > by Stephen Jay Gould in which he noted that creationists knew about
> > Natural Selection - and viewed it as functioning in the way you
> > describe, to conserve the characteristics of species - *before
> > Darwin*.
> >
> > John Savard ( teneerf<- )
> > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
> >
> >
>
> Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
> openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
> evolutionary thinkers. It is not unusual for scientists to actually do
> an about face, turn their backs to him in public and refuse to speak to
> him. They don't do this because he is considered to be controversial.
> They do this because he is widely perceived to be some kind of
> polemical village idiot in the field of evolutionary science. At many
> conventions you can see the pudgy, bearded somewhat grungy looking
> Gould shambling idly about on the floor sipping at a diet coke being
> ignored by his colleagues who fear being seen even speaking to him.

[snip]

Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if pudge
and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS? Or am I
thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their villiage
idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?

I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality, which is
certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
representation than "villiage idiot".

CMB

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,

"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
pudge
> and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
Or am I
> thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
villiage
> idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
>
> I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
which is
> certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> representation than "villiage idiot".
>

No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in
real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken. How on earth did Igor
Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
gobbledegook. That isn't science.

Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with
average IQs who are themselves laymen. Anybody who knows what they are
doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ... and this
doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
said with passion.

Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.

Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
evolutionary sciences.

I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
a lot of flaws in this argument."

The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an
outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
college.

Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
all science, period. These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but
they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
evolutionary science and especially brain development.

Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
Communist Revolutionary writing.

This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.

Felipe

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
Oh, this is just fun.


CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7njfpn$ikp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
> pudge
> > and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> > succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
> Or am I
> > thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
> villiage
> > idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?

I notice you didn't address this point. And the people in AAAS are rarely
considered "lay" people.

> > I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
> which is
> > certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> > representation than "villiage idiot".
> >
>
> No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
> despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in
> real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken.

While Gould (and 99% of all academics) may well be pushy and even
manipulative, I think this has little to do with his Marxist leanings. Or
for that matter, having followed Gould's professional writings for years
(and not always agreeing with them), I'm not sure that any putative Marxist
leanings has actually affected his science one iota. (The same claim,
however, might be difficult to support for Lewontin.)

How on earth did Igor
> Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
> of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
> literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
> careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
> gobbledegook. That isn't science.

Are you claiming by extension that Gould has been elected by AAAS by the
threat of ruined science careers? And somehow you also claim that he weilds
so little influence that he is ignored and considered a "villiage idiot" at
scinece meetings. What an interesting assertion. And yet some of the most
outspoken anti-Gould evolutionary biologists (at least anti-PE types) are
the likes of Russ Lande, Jerry Coyne, Brian Charlesworth. These folks have
hardly had their careers ruined.

> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
> elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with
> average IQs who are themselves laymen.

Yes, the members of the general paleontology community and AAAS are rather
known for their paucity in IQ.

Anybody who knows what they are
> doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ...

Including, evidently, the recent editorial boards of Science, PNAS, Linnean
Society, Journal of Paleontology, etc. (Although I'll readily agree that
Gould isn't nearly as productive recently as he could be.)

and this
> doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
> said with passion.
>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
> degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.

The relationship between Reich and Gould seems to have more to do with your
own disagreement with Gould's (and Reich's) political views than Gould's
view of Science.

> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
> where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
> really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
> evolutionary sciences.

Were you dismissing someone's writing as polemical recently?

[snip] But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric


> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.

Perhaps, what I can't see is why your rhetoric or content would impress
anyone.

> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
> all science, period.

Bwah-hah-hah-hah. Wow. That was a pretty good belly laugh. For that I
thank you. You might be interested to know that "Spandrels" was an essay
that, directly or indirectly, saved a lot of evolutionary biology from
itself. His argument may have been overstated, but it has kept a lot of us
in line.

These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but
> they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
> talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
> and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
> evolutionary science and especially brain development.

Yawn.

> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
> no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
> Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
> goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
> array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
> Communist Revolutionary writing.
>
> This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
> because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
> to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
> abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
> accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
> keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
> face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
> power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.

Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is amusing
hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad hominem
attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
political views.)

Omega

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to

CMB wrote:

> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of polemics, your rant hardly smacks of objectivity. And if
> pudge
> > and diet coke are reasons for embarrassment, then few academics would
> > succeed, I think. Wasn't Gould recently elected president of AAAS?
> Or am I
> > thinking of another SJG? "Mainstream science" has elected their
> villiage
> > idiot out of, what?, an obscure sense of humor?
> >

> > I think treating Gould as controversial (and a strong personality,
> which is
> > certainly not unusual in academia) is probably a more accurate
> > representation than "villiage idiot".
> >
>
> No, it is inaccurate. Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person who often manipulates his way into political positions
> despite 99% of scientists dismissing him as having less grounding in

> real evolutionary science than Carl Von Daniken. How on earth did Igor


> Lysenko keep his position in Soviet Biology for so many years? Because
> of his *brilliant* or "controversial" ideas? I don't think so. Lysenko
> literally screamed down his detractors... literally. He ruined their
> careers, flooded them with hyperbole, indundated them with
> gobbledegook. That isn't science.
>

> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes who writes these
> elaborate straw man arguments that impress the hell out of people with

> average IQs who are themselves laymen. Anybody who knows what they are
> doing can see through Mr. Charlatan in about ten seconds ... and this


> doesn't include the common man who is always a sucker for something
> said with passion.
>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics. Too bad every idea Reich ever had turned out to be 180
> degrees ass-backwards and utterly wrong.
>

> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section, it is
> where he belongs. On the other hand, he has given a lot of hope to
> really dopey and slow people worldwide that they can get a good grip on
> evolutionary sciences.
>

> I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
> be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
> from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
> a lot of flaws in this argument."
>
> The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an

> outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric


> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.
>

> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit

> all science, period. These Marxists can fool simpleminded people but


> they won't even phase the brighter crowd. Gould's mission is to just
> talk such an amazing amount of duplicitous gibberish with confidence
> and passion such that people are left without any clear ideas at all on
> evolutionary science and especially brain development.
>

> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one. People think that
> no human being could be this evil ... they are wrong, this is what
> Gould is and this is what this vile, greasy creature does. It is the
> goal of Marxism to baffle people into submission with a bewildering
> array of arguments delivered in grand confident tones ... read
> Communist Revolutionary writing.
>
> This is why Gould's "fellow" scientists despise him so much ... not
> because he is merely mistaken,(they'd easily forgive this, it happens
> to most anybody at times) but they know perfectly well that he is an
> abomination from hell who does what he does on purpose, not by
> accident. Gould has an agenda and it is a very evil one indeed. But you
> keep believing that such a creature could not possibly keep a straight
> face delivering this intellectual garbage .... that is Gould's secret
> power over you and anybody who reads him avidly.
>

>
> Well put! I've read some of Gould's alleged rebuttals to creation
> scientists' arguments, and they are shallow and contrived. In fact, a
> book was recently published which gathered together the "arguments" of
> the noteworthy evolutionists called "Creation Scientists Answer Their
> Critics". I suggest you get a copy. Enlightening reading.


Louann Miller

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to

Omega wrote in message <379C8C55...@hotmail.com>...

(93 lines quoted entirely from someone called CMB, with no additions of
his/her own)

I take it this was a misfire? Or are you the one who changed the title to
"Gould the Shyster," and that was the only comment you intended to make?


David Kellogg

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to

On 24 Jul 1999, CMB wrote:

[snip]

> Stephen is an openly confessed Marxist who has admitted he writes these
> populist books (which sell well to the ignorant public) to reintroduce
> socialist political control over science into the U.S. ... but like
> Lysenko before him (Gould is often called the "American Lysenko") he
> has become primarily a laughingstock except with people who have firm
> convictions they have been abducted by UFOs.

Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist, and
(b) admits that he writes "to reintroduce socialist political control over
science in the U.S."? Is there evidence for these assertions?

[more snippage]

> In a rare moment of attention (for Gould), a serious scientific pair of
> respected experts tore him a new asshole in this letter published in
> the NY Times:

Wrong! It was in the New York Review of Books. John Maynard Smith
published an article critical of Gould. Gould then published two
articles in response (one responded to Maynard Smith and one to Daniel
Dennett).

The "serious scientific pair of respected experts" consists of John Tooby
and Leda Cosmides, whose work Gould has critiqued. They disagree with
that critique and agree with Maynard Smith. Surprise!

I haven't evaluated the critique or the response, but the context of the
debate is worth mentioning, is it not?

> <http://cogweb.english.ucsb.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html>
>
> To imagine Gould paired off with creationists is truly an odd teamup to
> say the least ... pseudoscientists pretending to do science to shore up
> religious myths referring to another pseudoscientist pretending to do
> science to shore up Karl Marx. I think it represents just how far down
> in the gutter the sophistry and preposterous gobbledegook of Gould has
> taken him.

As I said, I'd like to see the evidence for Gould's "Marxism."

Cheers,
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg Duke University
kel...@acpub.duke.edu Program in Writing and Rhetoric
(919) 660-4357 Durham, NC 27708
FAX (919) 660-4381 http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg/


Galen A. Tripp

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to

Apparently you added the paragraph above, but it is marked as if it were
also a quote. Why is that?

內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)


Sherilyn

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> writes:

[I left in the more sober parts of the rant, and I have a question of
my own.]

> In article <7nhq0o$l...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,


> Like most Marxists, Gould is an irritating and
> pushy person

...


>
> Gould is one of those nuts around the fringes

...


>
> Gould is like Robert Reich. Reich wrote brilliant sophistry on
> economics.

...


> Gould needs to be moved into the New Age/Channeling section

...


> I especially get a good chuckle when Gould writes something like "I'll
> be damned if I'll ever believe the Darwinists that human life arose
> from sharp cheddar cheese in a backyard pool, I just can't help but see
> a lot of flaws in this argument."
>
> The hilarious thing is that no scientist worldwide ever claimed such an
> outlandish thing. But you can see how this kind of polemic and rhetoric
> would impress a layman who did a lot of experimenting with dope in
> college.

Did Gould in fact ever say anything like the above?


>
> Again, Gould is a Marxist liberal academic who is looking to discredit
> all science, period.

...


>
> Gould is your average Marxist monster ... a pathological liar who
> succeeds by making you think that nobody could be so immoral as to go
> around impersonating a scientist and speaking deliberately in such a
> misleading way. He is following Hitler's advice ... most men are more
> prone to believe a big lie rather than a small one.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.2, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBN54bNdSR8rI01qX9AQFXHgP/Q6RPHjdFBHsP/unZyLh3gfhErO9ivRF1
rl9f4F/S2muy+pNN7FyjIbPlCpHkhWNRurm6O7jbK8h6nZKAeUAlUmi+IvEpTkIB
UUB96fM/zWeijLXM95POJNzU+Va+N8QMOQcorfWJYVKHzxXds0CAJ8BHxc2XVA13
DkSOxTlPr8w=
=+scG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


John Savard

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:

>Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,

I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
instead of a follower of Karl Marx.

John Savard

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
"Charles Dye" <ras...@highfiber.com> wrote, in part:

But he didn't look all that carefully at the site. He was spending the
time waiting for someone *else* to do the graphics.

John Savard

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote, in part:

>Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
>openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any serious
>evolutionary thinkers.

I'm quite astounded to hear that.

As Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have pointed out important
considerations - not contradicting evolution through natural selection
at all, but merely sometimes overlooked - such as the limitations of
what is genetically available to an organism,

I'd say that if the scientists *aren't* listening to Gould, they're
going to be wasting time on the wrong track.

CMB

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,

"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>
> Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
> entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
amusing
> hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
hominem
> attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> political views.)
>

A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.

You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
propaganda. I suspect you are lying about having read him widely. Gould
belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this day a
direct branch of the international communist party. Gould has made no
attempt to conceal this at all.

Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE
KGB by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the
KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
didn't believe them.

The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.

Felipe

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message news:7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
> > entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
> amusing
> > hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
> hominem
> > attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> > political views.)

> A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other


> publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.

Wheee. I see we've been watching our old Senator McCarthy tapes. Tell me:
does the phrase "ad hominem" mean anything to you? (You'll pardon my
spelling, being the openminded kinda guy that you are.) Or, to put it
another way, why should I care what SJG's putative political leanings are,
if all I'm interested in is his science? And, what do my putative political
leanings have to do with my ability make hash of your arguments, such as
they are?

(Speaking of freemasons, ever think about what they do? From what I can
tell, they eat really fatty food and give money to *brrrr* hospitals. Quel
conspiracy.)

> You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
> are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
> what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
> propaganda.

Hmmm. I'd like to see a quote of that, in context. I think you'd be hard
pressed to show how Gould's science furthers the socialist cause (whatever
that means). And you'll understand, I'm sure, if his peer reviewed articles
rarely include interviews.

> I suspect you are lying about having read him widely.

Suspect away! No skin off my nose.

Gould
> belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this day a
> direct branch of the international communist party.

Woo-hoo! Tinfoil helmets all around! Now, granted Lewontin is a Marxist.
To my knowledge, he is not a Leninist. His marxism, as far as I can tell,
takes its form in his giving all his students the same grade (while being an
extremely critical reviewer) and making absolutely scathing arguments agains
eugenics. Hmmm. Come to think of it, Gould has done the latter, too.

Gould has made no
> attempt to conceal this at all.

And tell me, supposing you're right, how does this affect his science one
bit? For that matter, why should I (or anyone) care? Why do you care?
What bearing does Gould's or anyone else's putative political leanings have
on you? Last time I checked, Gould's homeland was a free country -- exactly
with respect to the thing that you so strongly disagree with, Senator Joe.

> Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
> worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
> communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
> no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
> were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE
> KGB

You know, I'd have a lot more respect for you if you cited science
references more and spy novels less ... Color me pinko.

by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the
> KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
> single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
> good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
> would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
> here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
> didn't believe them.

(In my college, I would march in lock step with my comrades and at the
instructor's prompting, would shout in unison leftist slogans, never
questioning ... No, no, wait, that was someone else ...)

But clever you. And now you've seen through the conspiracy of Gould,
Eldridge, Lewontin, and others. Why, their science, their peer reviewed
papers, their shaping of evolutionary biology -- both micro and macro --
especially with respect to the testability of hypotheses (e.g. the science
portion of it), is all a big front for their REAL agenda. How better to
subvert the masses than by studying snails? And despite Gould, according to
you, being the butt of jokes among scientists, his company spurned by Right
(and I do mean Right) Thinking Biologists everywhere, he has managed to
continue an active career and somehow pull the wool over the eyes of the
AAAS and the editorial boards of several major journals. Those boards
consist of the same people who you claim shun his company at meetings.
(After all, he is pudgy and drinks *shudder* diet sodas.) And having lulled
these bodies into complacency with his dulcet tones (for which he is famous)
and easily swallowed and non-confrontational ideas (you'll notice no
discrepancy in this n.g. or elsewhere about the TRUTH of PE), he can now
reveal his True Identity.

> The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
> sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
> the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.

Yes, the U.S. is a shambles, isn't it? Median income on the rise,
joblessness down, violent crime to levels of the early 70's (although one
might argue that's nothing to brag about, it beats levels of the mid/late
80's.) And all attributed to Gould, no doubt. In fact, it is the only
place in the world (including, I think, Canada) not to go into a major
economic crisis in the last 8 years. (Well, that may be an exaggeration,
but only a minor one.) This, incidentally, is some of the strongest
evidence I know that the prosperity of the US is actually a function of its
policies, and not the byproduct of some global economic environment.

What amazes me -- well, not really, it seems to be the theme of this
newsgroup -- is that you state that Gould is a bad scientist and an
embarrassment to the scientific community. Yet your reason for this seems
to have more to do with his political views than anything having to do with
his science. But it is your political views, and your rhetorical tricks,
your ad hominem attacks, and your implications of guilt by association,
which seems to stoop to even lower levels than those of which you accuse
Gould. (I'm shocked, shocked to find hypocrisy on t.o.)

Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is starting to
seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we know who
starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society? Another
of Matt Neunke's friends? I hope I'm wrong -- and I have accidentally
accused innocents of being eugenicists before -- but when I read your posts
(after the laughter) I hear the distant tread of jackboots.

Keep the faith, baby.

Felipe

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to

Felipe <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:7nln93$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu...

> CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message
news:7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> > "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
> > > entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
> > amusing
> > > hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and ad
> > hominem
> > > attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by his putative
> > > political views.)
>
> > A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
> > publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.

[snip]

> Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is starting to
> seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
> eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
> less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we know
who
> starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society? Another
> of Matt Neunke's friends? I hope I'm wrong -- and I have accidentally
> accused innocents of being eugenicists before -- but when I read your
posts
> (after the laughter) I hear the distant tread of jackboots.
>
> Keep the faith, baby.

You know, when I wrote this, I was half joking. But I just read some of
your posts on deja.com, e.g.

http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=380009217&CONTEXT=933126796.2122
514535&hitnum=6

and you're a pretty frightening guy. What I find most remarkable are
statements like the following:

"There is a gap because the other "ethnic
groups" are radically biologically different.
Research has shown time and time again
that the way that whites and blacks react
to stress, incentive, reward and novelty
constitute fundamental differences in
innate biology.

[snip]

"Black and white children have been put into
rooms with a wide variety of toys available to
them. The black children go for the weapons
and begin enacting mock tribal combats as
soon as they are left alone. White children
tend to pick up toys that appear visually
interesting or challenging, including technological
tools like computers or video games. If or when
black children approach computers, it is not
out of curiosity but out of a desire to destroy
them or vandalize them."


What's most amazing about this is that, along with 29 posts to
alt.rush-limbaugh (some titled applauding JFK, Jr's fall), one of which has
the following quote:


"Why don't you let me know where I can find you,
tiny man, and we'll split two ginsu knives and see
who hits the pavement first. I confess I'm not exactly
a newcomer to that game so if you need some
practice first you get all you want before you
contact me. I'm sort of the Carl Lewis of the
sport, in fact if they gave away Olympic medals
I'd probably take home a gold in that event."


Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest that
people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of computers.

Yeesh.

This just stopped being fun.

Trailer

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
Felipe wrote:

> Felipe <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote in message
> news:7nln93$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu...

> > CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> > > "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:

Hmm. An apparent anti-black, alarmist, reactionary bigot claiming himself to be
as great as Carl Lewis. Am I the only one to see the irony?

> Among the likes of these are nearly 500 posts on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
> I haven't read all of these, nor do I plan to, but might I suggest that
> people of ethnicities you describe are not the only ones performing
> ritualistic and tribal combat in the general neighborhood of computers.
>
> Yeesh.
>
> This just stopped being fun.

Indeed.

Dan


Sherilyn

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:

> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
>
> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
>
> I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
> referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
> probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
> instead of a follower of Karl Marx.
>

I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.2, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBN5562NSR8rI01qX9AQFn7QP/VGniLMrEgW2qxaltmvXS25qtXocsLijm
gBt5qU3eicT7cxmQR49u+5FRYYi0JhrtBE6xbDOubWbZhvdj507UGzFGh6MF7Y9G
tJR+1faUZfxwmrhIR2xXhcV8gL5ahTnYmqhF1nDb6rCTv24hDUUx888TN0b4GDgs
UhSkOgtzVqA=
=R1il
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Fred M. Williams

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
On 26 Jul 1999 00:05:57 -0400, davi...@u.washington.edu (Gordon
Davisson) wrote:

>
>If you understand information theory, you must be aware that it implies
>that random processes produce information. (Or, more precisely, all
>stochastic processes are information sources, and any information source
>may, for the purposes of information theory, be treated as a stochastic
>process.) Information theory, at least the version of it used in the
>communications industry, does not support your claim at all.

I agree that Shannon's version deal specifically with commuication
efficiency. But nevertheless, even with his version you have an
immpossible sell to make a convincing argument for randomness creating
information. The problem you are making is very common in that you are
equating uncertainty with information. The more random a file, the
larger delta opportunity for information gain, but that does not mean
that gain will be realized. Shannon' s version of info theory clealry
shows that randomizing a file while on the medium clearly destroys
information, I think you would agree with that. So what is different
between randomizing the medium as opposed to randomizing the file on
the harddisk before it is sent? By your logic you are saying a random
file has more information that a non-random file of like size.

>
>Now, you used the phrase "specified complex information" in your posting
>above; this suggests that you are not talking about standard information
>theory (developed primarily by Claude Shannon), but William Dembski's
>theory of complex specified information (as described in http://www.-
>dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html).
>Is this what you're basing your claims on?

Dembski quite eloquently expounds on info theory. He provides good
analogies for problems such as password or encyrpted files by
describing specified and unspecified info. Here's a cleaner link than
the one you provided:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html

>If so, you should be aware
>that you are relying on a theory that is not widely used or accepted in
>any scientific or technical community; indeed, I have not even been able
>to find a proper technical description of the theory, only nontechnical
>summaries (such as the one I cited above).

It is a working theory. But nothing within this theory supports a
position of randomness producing information. Common sense alone tells
us that randomization will destroy, not create information.


>
>I've been looking at Dembski's theory to see if he's right about its
>implications, but I've been stymied by ambiguities in his definitions and
>examples. If you're willing to claim to understand the theory well,
>could I ask you to calculate the amount of complex specified information
>in a couple of situations I find troublesome? If you want to take a
>shot, here they are:
>
>a) I use a random number generator to pick an integer between 1 and one
>million. The number generated is 141,376; this happens to be a perfect
>square (the square of 376), and thus is (or at least would appear to be)
>a specified result. According to standard information theory, this result
>carries about 20 bits (the probability of picking that particular integer
>is 1/1,000,000, so the associated information is I = -log2 (1/1,000,000)
>= 19.93 bits); in Dembski's terminology this corresponds to the amount of
>complex information.

No it doesn't. Dembski does not make this claim. Once again you are
making the classic mistake of equating uncertainty (Shannon's H) to
information. Perhaps you need to give a clearer definition of the
example. It seems you are essentially drawing the circle around the
arrow after it has been shot at the wall. Heck, why not declare 114231
divisible by 1313 as specified information?

So, in reality you are saying that receiving any number from a pool of
1mil numbers represents a large gain in information (19.93 bits). This
is of course false as information is the *decrease* in uncertainty, so
-log2(1/1000000) - -log2(1/999999) = .000001 bit of info. Essentially
your example is not valid.

<rest snipped>

>b) Suppose I paint a target on the side of a barn, big enough to cover
>one thousandth of the barn's area. Suppose further that I'm a mediocre
>enough archer that, even with that big a target, I can only hit it half
>the time. Suppose I fire an arrow at the target, and manage to hit it.
>Again, my question is how much complex specified information does this
>result carry? Is it calculated based on the probability of the arrow
>hitting the target if it had been fired at random (P=1/1,000), or the
>probability of _me_ hitting the target (P=1/2)?

The probability of you hitting the traget. This is no different than
the amount of information conveyed when flipping a coin. Uncertainty
will decrease by -log2(.5), or 1 bit of info.


---
http://www.polnow.net/fredmw/fairytale/
There are 3 kinds of people in the world:
those who can count, and those who can't!


David Kellogg

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:

:> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
:>
:> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
:>
:> I don't know about that, but I do know that mainstream media have
:> referred to him as being pronouncedly left-wing. However, they
:> probably did mean that in the sense of a follower of Hillary Clinton
:> instead of a follower of Karl Marx.
:>
: I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
: collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
: Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
: reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
: suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
: days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.

Probably Gould gets tarred with the Marxist label because of his
association with Richard Lewontin (I'm guessing that's the coauthor you
mention). I'm still waiting for the proof from the original poster, but
I'd lay odds it won't be forthcoming.

Felipe

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to

David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:7nm79a$dbc$1...@news.duke.edu...

> Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) writes:
>
> :> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote, in part:
> :>
> :> >Can I get quotes where Gould (a) openly confesses to being a Marxist,
> :>
[snip]

>
> Probably Gould gets tarred with the Marxist label because of his
> association with Richard Lewontin (I'm guessing that's the coauthor you
> mention). I'm still waiting for the proof from the original poster, but
> I'd lay odds it won't be forthcoming.

The original poster turns out to be a major racist with violent leanings. I
don't expect his arguments against Gould have much to do with science, per
se. Rahter, I think they have more to do with Gould's treatment of human
morphometrics with respect to race.

Felipe

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to

Fred M. Williams <fredmw...@polnow.net> wrote in message
news:379dc22e...@news.polnow.net...

> On 26 Jul 1999 00:05:57 -0400, davi...@u.washington.edu (Gordon
> Davisson) wrote:

[snip]

You know, Fred, I don't think you and I agree on much, but I'm refreshed to
see your intelligent and sincere posts after reading various things from
CMB. I'll take a sincere creationists over a bigot any day.

Felipe

Laurence A. Moran

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
In article <7nli93$ut8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote:
>In article <7nkcnl$f...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,
> "Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Wow. What an amazing amount of horse shit. I'm leaving it in for
>> entertainment value. (And I'm no follower of Gould, but this is
>> amusing hyperbole -- not to mention some failed rhetorical trickery and
>> ad hominem attacks, not the least of which is judging his science by
>> his putative political views.)

Right on.

>A fellow marxist, no doubt. Lefties always cover for each other
>publicly, they are like freemasons they are so conspiratorial.

I confess to being a "lefty" with strong socialist leanings. Those of you
who buy into the vast left-wing conspiracy theory can stop reading here.

>You're a bit late. You claim to have read a lot of Gould and yet you
>are unaware he has already admitted in interviews that he practices
>what he calls "socialist" science, that is, science in the service of
>propaganda.

Gould deplores the misuse of science to support political, social or
religious causes. He has said this many times. He would never advocate
using science as propaganda and anyone who thinks this is an idiot.

A recurring theme in much of Gould's writings is that scientists have the
same kind of biases and prejudices as everybody else but they have a
special obligation to try and rise above these biases when presenting
science. He wrote a whole book about the relationship of science and
religion (Rock of Ages) and how these two subjects should not conflict if
each one sticks to its own domain (magisterium). He criticizes
Creationists for twisting science to fit their religious views and he
criticizes militant atheists as well.

Gould admires scientists who state their prejudices up front instead of
trying to hide them. He has no use for those who pretend to be objective
when they clearly have an agenda. A good example of the kinds of people
Gould hates would be bigoted anti-Communists who see everything as a
conspiracy against the one true way of life but are unwilling to admit
that they have a bias.

Here, in Gould's own words, is the essence of his position,

"But we scientists are no different from anyone else. We
are passionate human beings, enmeshed in a web of personal
and social circumstances. Our field does recognize cannons
of procedure designed to give nature the long shot of
asserting herself in the face of such biases, but unless
scientists understand their hopes and engage in vigorous
self-scrutiny, they will not be able to sort unacknowledged
preference from nature's weak and imperfect message."

S.J. Gould URCHIN IN A STORM p.150

>I suspect you are lying about having read him widely.

This registered 32 HOLDENS on the Irony-O-Meter. CMB's hypocrisy is
remarkable, even for talk.origins.

>Gould belongs to a notorious group of pinko scientists that are to this

>day a direct branch of the international communist party. Gould has made


>no attempt to conceal this at all.

I suppose it would be appropriate to ask for documentation to support
such a ridiculous claim but somehow I feel it would be a waste of time.
The idea that Gould is taking orders from the international communist
party is so silly that one wonders whether CMB is sane.

>Remember, one of the doctrines of Lenin in supporting subversives
>worldwide was to get the notion accepted in people's minds that
>communism was just another branch of political argument and that it in
>no way should be considered to impugn a man's character. I guess they
>were successful, weren't they? A book I just finished called INSIDE THE

>KGB by the former head of the KGB with a british ghost writer has the


>KGB claiming that international communist subversion accomplished every
>single goal it ever had ... he points out that had the Soviets been as
>good at anything else as they were at subversion, the Soviet Union
>would never have collapsed. But you keep believing it's all neither
>here nor there. They taught me the same thing in college, trouble is I
>didn't believe them.

Can you say "paranoia"? I thought these ideas died in the 1950's.

Gould is not a Marxist but even if he were it doesn't follow that he would
be a supporter of Lenin or the late Soviet Union. Why do so many people
have trouble with this simple concept?

>The only ridiculous thing about all this is how in the hell a bunch of
>sleepers in the U.S. keep spinning like robots on autopilot long after
>the mother country has fallen into ruin. That's absurd.

There's a lot of absurdity here.

Larry Moran


Laurence A. Moran

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
In article <86r9ltx...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I believe that, in one of his joint papers, Gould and one of his
>collaborators refer to Gould's having learned his Marx at his
>Daddy's knee, or words to that effect. I had no idea that open
>reference to the works of Karl Marx was still regarded with such
>suspicion in the USA--such nonsense seems to hark back to the bad old
>days of HUAC and Senator McCarthy.

The reference is to the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibria.

"Nonetheless, Darwin was influenced by the climate of social
and political thinking of his day. Making that point, we added
that no one is immune from such influence, noting that 'it
might also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that
one of us learned his Marxism, literally his daddy's knee.'

... I am no Marxist, and neither for that matter is Steve;
learning and adoption are two different things."

N. Eldredge REINVENTING DARWINISM pp. 101-102


Larry Moran

CMB

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
In article <379e302c...@news.prosurfr.com>,

jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> CMB <cl...@ans.com.au> wrote, in part:
>
> >Gould has become a comical embarrassment to mainstream science. He is
> >openly ignored at conventions and rarely even replied to by any
serious
> >evolutionary thinkers.
>
> I'm quite astounded to hear that.
>
> As Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have pointed out important
> considerations - not contradicting evolution through natural selection
> at all, but merely sometimes overlooked - such as the limitations of
> what is genetically available to an organism,
>
> I'd say that if the scientists *aren't* listening to Gould, they're
> going to be wasting time on the wrong track.

You'd think so - listening to Gould.

Richard Dawkins could eat a fat little pedant like Gould for breakfast
and still have room for two other complete charlatans for dessert.

Gould needs to get a real day job and stop pretending to be a
scientist. He's a pudgy little drama queen, his books stink.

CMB

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
In article <7nln93$s...@ftp.ee.vill.edu>,

"Felipe" <pjo...@email.villanova.edu> wrote:
> Your rhetoric and your paranoia about Marxism and communism is
starting to
> seem familiar. Is this little rant of yours a foreshadowing of some
> eugenics ravings? Hmmm. What popular books would piss off a
> less-than-closet fascist? "Mismeasure of Man", perhaps? Who do we
know who
> starts spouting about evolution and its implications for society?

Right! It was a "witch hunt!"

They taught me the same thing in school. Did you ever think to question
that idea? Ever examine it? Learn any more about the McCarthy Era? Was
it really a paranoid overreaction to an imagined conspiracy?

I would guess you have read little of the confessions of former KGB
agents or the former reps of the U.S.S.R. ... it cracks them up and
brings tears to their eyes when they heard robots in the U.S. repeat
this gibberish, because that was their exact intent.

Find out a little more about Marx, especially his lesser known writings.

<http://teaminfinity.com/~ralph/marx.antisemite.extraordinaire.txt>

CMB

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99