Hole In One

[Glenn]

"The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/

I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.

This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.

[John Harshman]

Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.

[Glenn]

By the way...

"But evolution doesn’t require random mutation."

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-many-different-kinds-of-birds-are-there/#comments

Does evolution require mutation? Is there nothing that evolution requires?

I assume you would not agree that evolution requires nonrandom mutation.

So what are you saying here? You may want to clarify what you mean by "evolution" as well as "random" with respect to natural selection.

[Kalkidas]

In summary, peer pressure is real.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
>
>https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/

From teh article: "Remember that the next time a progressive tries to
berate you into affirming the lie that a man is in fact a woman."

Not my particular area of expertise but as I understand it,
transgender people do not regard themselves as changing from A to B,
they simply seek recognition of the state they have *always* been but
have been miscategorised by people like Glenn and the author of that
article who regard gender as just another word for sex which can
easily be identified by the presence or absence of a penis and
testicles. These are also often the same people who would deign to
lecture the rest of us about love and compassion.

[Robert Carnegie]

Wouldn't "atheist evolutionists" who argue against one another
about evolution, be evidence that atheist evolutionists are
not terrified into evolutionist conformity?

[broger...@gmail.com]

It's just like those damn scientists who are ossified in accepted dogmas but keep changing their minds. Or like those damn immigrants who are simultaneously so lazy that all they do is lie around and wait for government hand outs but are also stealing jobs from "real" Americans.

[Glenn]

I think John refers to "belief" as being hermetically sealed. Is it true that *there can be no evidence* that would support a claim that Christian fundamentalists believe their claims but do not believe they are based on the Bible? And that there would be no consequences if they were to admit that?

Heads up.

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Pascal's Wager. Also:

<https://www.christiantoday.com/article/if-i-didnt-believe-in-god-i-would-be-living-in-so-much-fear-says-sadie-robertson/70806.htm>

"If I didn't believe in God I would be living in so much fear."


<https://ufuomaee.blog/2018/05/24/if-i-didnt-believe-in-god-repost/>

"So the mere thought that He is not real is as frightening to me as
the sudden realisation that I have stepped off a cliff"


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

[Glenn]

Heads down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN2gU0XU5FU&t=91s

from

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/rosenhouses-whoppers-more-guidance-on-reading-jason-rosenhouse/

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/22 10:34 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 7:45:38 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 05:15:37 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
>>>>
>>>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
>>>>
>>>> I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
>>>>
>>>> This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
>>>>
>>> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
>>> true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
>>> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
>
>> Wouldn't "atheist evolutionists" who argue against one another
>> about evolution, be evidence that atheist evolutionists are
>> not terrified into evolutionist conformity?
>
> I think John refers to "belief" as being hermetically sealed.

Nope. John refers to your conspiracy theory as hermetically sealed.

[Glenn]

Sorry, there is no evidence or even an implication that my theory includes conspiracy.
And you aren't Kim Jong the second. But don't let me get in your way. You may indeed believe you made 11 holes in one on your last game. Who am I to think that if you did that there would be no consequences, except perhaps for a few shattered mirrors?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> >
> > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> >
> > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> >
> > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.

This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more prone
to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of.

> >
> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory.

I doubt that you read the linked article. There is no conspiracy involved.
There is only the fear of what might happen to anyone who dares to claim that
"the emperor has no clothes."

[The emperor in this case is the hereditary absolute monarch of Korea, Kim Jong II.]


For an analogy, think of what might happen if you were to accuse Ron Okimoto
of being a liar. It could cause a gigantic flamewar in which Ron O's defenders
(which included you, once upon a time) and detractors chose sides about him
AND about you, joined by many of those who haven't bothered/dared to voice
their true opinions about Ron O and/or yourself.

And hovering over it all is the possibility that anyone who looks to Ron O like a "traitor"
will result in Ron O running to DIG like a crybaby and trying to get him to ban
the offender, the way he did against the Dr. Dr.

That would be coupled with the fear, born of very imperfect knowledge of how DIG
makes such decisions, that DIG would indeed ban the offending "traitor"
like he banned Kleinman.

>If it's true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.

I don't think you reflected enough on these comments before you posted them.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 05:15:37 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > >
> > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > >
> > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > >
> > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> > >
> > Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
> > true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> > If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.

I've commented at length on this superficial comment by John
about half an hour ago. Your comment is worthy of more serious
consideration, Robert:

> Wouldn't "atheist evolutionists" who argue against one another
> about evolution, be evidence that atheist evolutionists are
> not terrified into evolutionist conformity?

I don't believe the arguments go deep enough for that. What I would call
"evolutionist conformity" is the myth that current theories are adequate
to the task of explaining the tremendous variety of biota
involved in common descent, both living and extinct.
And it involves evolutionary scientists of all sorts, not just atheists.

Their most significant arguments are about the relative merits of The Modern Synthesis
(a.k.a. neo-Darwinism) and a looser pastiche of theories called "The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis."

In reality, the former is a theory of microevolution, while the latter only
extends as far as a modest theory of macroevolution that stops far short of what
George Gaylord Simpson called "mega-evolution."

This is something very few talk.origins participants understand AFAIK. I believe
the majority are still laboring under the misconception that the phrase "the theory of evolution"
refers to the well-nigh undeniable fact of common descent of eumetazoans,
and the highly plausible thesis that this fact extends to all biota.

Instead, it is a search for adequate explanations of that fact having occurred in
about 600 million years, and the extension having occurred in ca. 3500
million years.


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

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/22 2:36 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
>>>
>>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
>>>
>>> I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
>>>
>>> This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
>
> This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more prone
> to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of.
>
>>>
>> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory.
>
> I doubt that you read the linked article. There is no conspiracy involved.
> There is only the fear of what might happen to anyone who dares to claim that
> "the emperor has no clothes."
>
> [The emperor in this case is the hereditary absolute monarch of Korea, Kim Jong II.]

The article isn't relevant except as one end of Glenn's attempted
analogy. Glenn said that "atheist evolutionists" believe their claims
but don't believe they are based in science and facts but fear the
consequences if they admit it. That's the conspiracy theory I'm talking
about. It's a conspiracy theory because it supposes that anyone claiming
their opinions are based in science and facts must be lying because they
fear the consequences, and this must be true for all those folks, living
the lie in concert.

I'm going to snip your paranoid analogy, if that's all right with you.

>> If it's true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
>> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
>
> I don't think you reflected enough on these comments before you posted them.

What makes you think that? Do you agree with Glenn that evolutionists
don't really think their claims are based in science and facts? How
about you? You're an evolutionist, aren't you?

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 3:20:38 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/22 2:36 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> >>>
> >>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> >>>
> >>> I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> >>>
> >>> This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> >
> > This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more prone
> > to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of.
> >
> >>>
> >> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory.
> >
> > I doubt that you read the linked article. There is no conspiracy involved.
> > There is only the fear of what might happen to anyone who dares to claim that
> > "the emperor has no clothes."
> >
> > [The emperor in this case is the hereditary absolute monarch of Korea, Kim Jong II.]
> The article isn't relevant except as one end of Glenn's attempted
> analogy. Glenn said that "atheist evolutionists" believe their claims
> but don't believe they are based in science and facts but fear the
> consequences if they admit it. That's the conspiracy theory I'm talking
> about. It's a conspiracy theory because it supposes that anyone claiming
> their opinions are based in science and facts must be lying because they
> fear the consequences, and this must be true for all those folks, living
> the lie in concert.

Well that isn't my idea of what constitutes a conspiracy, but if that is your bag, then
I have no problem with it, except for the claim that I implied they must be lying. Perhaps you don't understand the word "belief".

>
> I'm going to snip your paranoid analogy, if that's all right with you.
> >> If it's true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> >> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
> >
> > I don't think you reflected enough on these comments before you posted them.
> What makes you think that? Do you agree with Glenn that evolutionists
> don't really think their claims are based in science and facts? How
> about you? You're an evolutionist, aren't you?

An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?

IDers believe their claims are based on science and facts. I'll let you have some time to consult with Ron, if you feel the need.

In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 05:15:37 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > > >
> > > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > > >
> > > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > > >
> > > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> > > >
> > > Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
> > > true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> > > If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.

> > Wouldn't "atheist evolutionists" who argue against one another
> > about evolution, be evidence that atheist evolutionists are
> > not terrified into evolutionist conformity?

This was a reasonable on-topic question by Robert Carnegie, and I've
replied respectfully to it about twenty minutes ago.


On the other hand, you are going way off topic with what looks like a bunch of veiled
accusations of Glenn having the attitudes you describe.

> It's just like those damn scientists who are ossified in accepted dogmas but keep changing their minds.

This is close to the way anti-ID fanatics like Mark Isaak and Ron O think of ID scientists
like Behe and ID organizations like the Discovery Institute. The difference is that Mark Isaak
hasn't even cottoned on to the way ID science has nothing to do with religiously oriented
objectives that took place about three decades ago.

> Or like those damn immigrants who are simultaneously so lazy that all they do is lie around and wait for government hand outs but are also stealing jobs from "real" Americans.

Do you have any evidence that Glenn has subscribed to either of these attitudes?


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

He might even claim that is the Republican platform. In reality though, he is making it up from what he has heard in the past from some idiot or another, with a little truth leaking out. He doesn't really believe it, and certainly doesn't believe it is based on science or fact.
Likely he would argue that it is, if he found it convenient, though he will probably be less inclined after reading this.

Some immigrants may be reasonably accused of laziness, but the reality is that there are all kinds of reasons to 'immigrate", and many of the recent ones do rely on government hand-outs, and will for some time. Some can also be seen as stealing jobs, since many employers hire illegals because they will accept lower pay.
A grain of truth sprinkled around a most insulting claim. Right up his alley.
He is an atheist, and an evolutionist.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This depends very much on which claims are being referred to here. I don't think more than
a tiny handful of evolutionary scientists believe that *none* of the ones separating them
from ID proponents are based on science and facts.

The run of the mill "evolutionists" in talk.origins are a different matter.
I think they are too ignorant of evolutionary science to be the way Glenn describes.
They are in awe of those who are leaders in evolutionary science, and it never occurs
to them to question their claims.


However, you are quite right in what you say here, Kalkidas:

> In summary, peer pressure is real.

Here in talk.origins the peer pressure is of a different sort.
I talked about that at length in reply to John Harshman,
after a two-liner in which avoided addressing Glenn's claims directly:

"This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more prone
to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of."

Harshman carefully ignored this, because it led right into my
exposition on some intense peer pressure in talk.origins that
is centered on the pathological liar and crybaby Ron O, and
is a backdrop for Harshman's "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
attitude towards Ron O:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/IKpZmfx_CAAJ
Re: Hole In One

Harshman couldn't cope with such concentrated firepower, so he snipped
almost all of it, while brandishing one of his favorite talismans, "paranoid".
He and Erik Simpson are the foremost users of this and "conspiracy theory"
as talismans to ward off legitimate criticism and sundry other things
which they cannot handle rationally.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/22 5:20 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Harshman couldn't cope with such concentrated firepower

This is my favorite part; typical megalomania, but seldom expressed so
forcefully.

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:25:38 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:40:38 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On 8/28/2022 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > >
> > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > >
> > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > >
> > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> This depends very much on which claims are being referred to here. I don't think more than
> a tiny handful of evolutionary scientists believe that *none* of the ones separating them
> from ID proponents are based on science and facts.
>
> The run of the mill "evolutionists" in talk.origins are a different matter.
> I think they are too ignorant of evolutionary science to be the way Glenn describes.
> They are in awe of those who are leaders in evolutionary science, and it never occurs
> to them to question their claims.

You may misunderstand. "Theistic evolution" exists, at least at best, as an acceptance of natural causes for evolution, while slipping in such things as God introducing a 'soul" into an ape, which does not contradict evolutionary theory directly. I'd say they believe such things, and sometimes try to support it with science and facts, but in reality they know it is their religious belief and not arrived at thru science and facts. However, they are not under the same pressure of experiencing the consequences of being wrong about science and facts as are "atheistic evolutionists". That some atheistic evolutionists may not think to question their own claims does not remove them from the fear of the consequences if their claims are not based on science and fact. This is the reason for all the criticism of ID, from professionals and amateurs alike.

[Glenn]

If there were such a thing as 'typical" megalomania, "this is my favorite part" would be a mile marker.

[*Hemidactylus*]

If you were merely flippant like me you wouldn’t be dealing with such
stuff. But if you really savor such things who am I to knock it.

[Glenn]

You're Popeye the Sailor Man.

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Your cites above don't relate to your question or to my cites which
do. Even if you can't recall what you asked, you could have
refreshed your convenient amnesia from the quoted text above.

[Glenn]

Have it your way. Here's a nickel, the gumball machine is right behind you.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/29/22 3:16 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 August 2022 at 05:15:37 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
>>>>
>>>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
>>>>
>>>> I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
>>>>
>>>> This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
>>>>
>>> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
>>> true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
>>> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
>
> I've commented at length on this superficial comment by John
> about half an hour ago. Your comment is worthy of more serious
> consideration, Robert:
>
>> Wouldn't "atheist evolutionists" who argue against one another
>> about evolution, be evidence that atheist evolutionists are
>> not terrified into evolutionist conformity?
>
> I don't believe the arguments go deep enough for that. What I would call
> "evolutionist conformity" is the myth that current theories are adequate
> to the task of explaining the tremendous variety of biota
> involved in common descent, both living and extinct.
> And it involves evolutionary scientists of all sorts, not just atheists.

I doubt whether there is any serious scientist who believes that. The
history of science, including biology, is too full of surprises for
anyone to expect there will never be another one.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]

> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?

An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
Those who believe that, I gather, typically believe that their
conclusion is based on science and facts.

> In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".

You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

[Glenn]

"Dawkins shares the view generally held by scientists that natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, unguided by any designer, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker"

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

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:25:38 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
> > An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
> Those who believe that, I gather, typically believe that their
> conclusion is based on science and facts.

Claiming that an atheist has no reason to believe there is a God does not mean that an atheist does not believe there is no God.

And simply claiming the opposite of my claim isn't a refutation. But you are close to supporting my claim, yet insulting atheists by implying that those who believe there is no God believe that science and facts support that belief. Some may indeed, but then they wouldn't know what they are talking about, right Mark? Much more likely that in general atheists will argue their position with science and facts, but not really believe their bullshit.

> > In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".
> You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
> evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.
> --

Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.

[jillery]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 23:53:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]

> > An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?

> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."

You are that kind of atheist. John Harshman, on the other hand, claimed that
God is a fairy tale that adults need to grow out of.

Atheism lite and atheism heavy. Atheism is a big tent that accommodates many beliefs.


By the way, an agnostic ALSO says, "There is no reason to believe there is no God."
But you don't subscribe to that view, do you?

Mind you, the emphasis is on "believe". I do not believe things on the basis of what
I consider to be insufficient evidence. And that is why I call myself an agnostic.
Ever since the age of 18, I have made a lifelong study of the arguments,
pro and con, for the existence of a being with the power to design our
universe and to intervene in it in various places in its history.

And the arguments on both sides are highly inconclusive.

> Those who believe that, I gather, typically believe that their
> conclusion is based on science and facts.

The more fools they, if they don't also look at the other side of the coin.

The incredibly low tolerance of the basic physical constants for the
existence of life in our universe leads a sufficiently intelligent person
almost inevitably to one of two conclusions:

1. There is a being with the power to design our universe
and to intervene in it in various places in its history. [1]

2. There is a multiverse of infinitely many [2] universes,
and we are, by definition [3], in one of the ones that
won the "low tolerance" lottery.

[1] "Various" could refer to an astronomically high number,
or one that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[2] Or a finite number so staggeringly large, that a lifetime
would be inadequate to describe it.

[3] Look up the Anthropic Principle to see why.

John Harshman is such an intellectual lightweight,
that he believes the following alternative is a serious
competitor to the two alternatives above:

3. Our own universe, that began a mere 15
billion years ago, is all there is or was or could be.

I gather you are on the side of Harshman.

> > In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".

> You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
> evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

In other words, you are bluffing. You are talking about microevolution,
while sweeping under the carpet the fact that Glenn thinks in terms
of accounting for the incredibly vast panorama of life on earth, including
organisms long extinct.

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

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

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
>

We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
is hesitant to expose it. Usually.

[John Harshman]

On 8/30/22 6:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
>
>>> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
>
>> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
>
> You are that kind of atheist. John Harshman, on the other hand, claimed that
> God is a fairy tale that adults need to grow out of.
>
> Atheism lite and atheism heavy. Atheism is a big tent that accommodates many beliefs.
>
>
> By the way, an agnostic ALSO says, "There is no reason to believe there is no God."
> But you don't subscribe to that view, do you?
>
> Mind you, the emphasis is on "believe". I do not believe things on the basis of what
> I consider to be insufficient evidence. And that is why I call myself an agnostic.
> Ever since the age of 18, I have made a lifelong study of the arguments,
> pro and con, for the existence of a being with the power to design our
> universe and to intervene in it in various places in its history.
>
> And the arguments on both sides are highly inconclusive.
>
>
>> Those who believe that, I gather, typically believe that their
>> conclusion is based on science and facts.
>
> The more fools they, if they don't also look at the other side of the coin.
>
> The incredibly low tolerance of the basic physical constants for the
> existence of life in our universe leads a sufficiently intelligent person
> almost inevitably to one of two conclusions:

So you're saying that those who don't agree with this claim are not
sufficiently intelligent? But you assume facts not in evidence, i.e.
that the tolerance of basic physical constants is low, when you can have
no idea what that tolerance is, or that different values of those
constants are possible, or that different values, if they were possible,
would not result in a universe in which life of some kind was possible.
Every one of those assumptions has been questioned, and there is
evidence for none of them that you can point to. I don't think you've
ever had a response for that.

Consider also the conflict between the fine-tuning theory and your other
notion that abiogenesis is so vanishingly unlikely that it's unlikely to
have happened even once in this galaxy. Are those not mutually
contradictory claims?

> 1. There is a being with the power to design our universe
> and to intervene in it in various places in its history. [1]
>
> 2. There is a multiverse of infinitely many [2] universes,
> and we are, by definition [3], in one of the ones that
> won the "low tolerance" lottery.
>
> [1] "Various" could refer to an astronomically high number,
> or one that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
>
> [2] Or a finite number so staggeringly large, that a lifetime
> would be inadequate to describe it.
>
> [3] Look up the Anthropic Principle to see why.
>
> John Harshman is such an intellectual lightweight,
> that he believes the following alternative is a serious
> competitor to the two alternatives above:

What a maroon, eh? Yet you have offered no real argument against this
notion.

> 3. Our own universe, that began a mere 15
> billion years ago, is all there is or was or could be.

I don't actually make such a claim, especially the "or could be" part,
which seems tacked on to make the claim sound sillier. What I would say
is that there is no evidence of a multiverse and no need for one in
order to make the universe the way it is.

> I gather you are on the side of Harshman.

What, that intellectual lightweight, unlike sufficiently intelligent
folks such as yourself, self-nominated?

>>> In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".
>
>> You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
>> evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.
>
> In other words, you are bluffing. You are talking about microevolution,
> while sweeping under the carpet the fact that Glenn thinks in terms
> of accounting for the incredibly vast panorama of life on earth, including
> organisms long extinct.

Face it, Glenn knows little about biology, including microevolution.
Why, he's just claimed that the only way for allele frequencies to
change is through mutation.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 9:10:39 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:

[restoration of essential context, snipped by Harshman:]

>>On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:25:38 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
>>>evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

[end of restoration]

> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.

I did my own reply to Mark's silly comment:

"In other words, you are bluffing. You are talking about microevolution,
while sweeping under the carpet the fact that Glenn thinks in terms
of accounting for the incredibly vast panorama of life on earth, including
organisms long extinct."

You see, Mark's two-liner was in response to Glenn writing:

>>>> In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".

> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.

Glenn was spot on where he wrote:
[repeated from above:]

>>Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.

[end of copy]

You can see why this was spot on, now that I've restored and explained
the context that you snipped. If you have any doubts about that,
look at the reply I did yesterday to someone far more mature and responsible
than yourself: Robert Carnegie.

> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.

You don't even have the backbone to identify what you are basing your taunt of "profound ignorance" on,
let alone explain what is so "profound" about his ignorance.

To quote someone of whom your public persona thinks much more highly than
it thinks of me, let alone Glenn:

"Snip and run. That's all you are good for."


[Mind you, Glenn may indeed be revealing some ignorance instead of suffering a senior moment,
but I believe that the majority of t.o. participants can easily find themselves in the same boat.
Mark may be an exception because he has seen regulars with more knowledge of biology than himself
score debating points by pointing out something that neither he nor you are pointing out here.]


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/30/22 6:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
>
>>> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
>
>> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
>
> You are that kind of atheist.

No, I most certainly am not. I have, at various times in my life, been
theist, atheist, and agnostic, but I'm none of those now. (I have cut
what you said about Harshman because I have no reason to expect you
would be any more accurate about him.)

> Atheism lite and atheism heavy. Atheism is a big tent that accommodates many beliefs.

That much is true. It still understates the range of ideas that could
be called atheism, but that is inevitable with so few words and so few
people involved in the discussion.

> By the way, an agnostic ALSO says, "There is no reason to believe there is no God."
> But you don't subscribe to that view, do you?

It's complicated.

> Mind you, the emphasis is on "believe". I do not believe things on the basis of what
> I consider to be insufficient evidence. And that is why I call myself an agnostic.
> Ever since the age of 18, I have made a lifelong study of the arguments,
> pro and con, for the existence of a being with the power to design our
> universe and to intervene in it in various places in its history.

I think that is the big difference between us. For me, the emphasis is
on "God". My beliefs are too malleable to merit putting the focus on them.

> And the arguments on both sides are highly inconclusive.

Except it's not an argument (except for some people, probably a
minority), and there are multiple facets, not "both sides".

>> Those who believe that, I gather, typically believe that their
>> conclusion is based on science and facts.
>
> The more fools they, if they don't also look at the other side of the coin.
>
> The incredibly low tolerance of the basic physical constants for the
> existence of life in our universe leads a sufficiently intelligent person
> almost inevitably to one of two conclusions:
>
> 1. There is a being with the power to design our universe
> and to intervene in it in various places in its history. [1]
>
> 2. There is a multiverse of infinitely many [2] universes,
> and we are, by definition [3], in one of the ones that
> won the "low tolerance" lottery.
>
> [1] "Various" could refer to an astronomically high number,
> or one that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
>
> [2] Or a finite number so staggeringly large, that a lifetime
> would be inadequate to describe it.
>
> [3] Look up the Anthropic Principle to see why.

People who don't see the problems with those points anent theism are not
worth taking seriously. Their thinking is too closeted.

>>> In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".
>
>> You could do your homework. Hint: Note that a biological definition of
>> evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.
>
> In other words, you are bluffing. You are talking about microevolution,
> while sweeping under the carpet the fact that Glenn thinks in terms
> of accounting for the incredibly vast panorama of life on earth, including
> organisms long extinct.

Glenn still needs to do his homework. He just showed, in another post
on this thread, that his ignorance of the subject is profound.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 9:20:38 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:25:38 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10:40:38 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> > > On 8/28/2022 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > > >
> > > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > > >
> > > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > > >
> > > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> > This depends very much on which claims are being referred to here. I don't think more than
> > a tiny handful of evolutionary scientists believe that *none* of the ones separating them
> > from ID proponents are based on science and facts.
> >
> > The run of the mill "evolutionists" in talk.origins are a different matter.
> > I think they are too ignorant of evolutionary science to be the way Glenn describes.

> > They are in awe of those who are leaders in evolutionary science, and it never occurs
> > to them to question their claims.

> You may misunderstand. "Theistic evolution" exists, at least at best, as an acceptance of natural causes for evolution, while slipping in such things as God introducing a 'soul" into an ape,

and at worst, it is a form of extreme deism, derisively worded as "God wound up the world like
an alarm clock and left it to run down on its own."

> which does not contradict evolutionary theory directly.

In other words, "Theistic evolution" is a misnomer and is NOT the antithesis of atheistic evolution.
It is a synthesis of what deserves to be called "theistic evolution" and of atheistic evolution that
I have repeatedly labeled "neo-deistic evolution."

>I'd say they believe such things, and sometimes try to support it with science and facts, but in reality they know it is their religious belief and not arrived at thru science and facts.

I heartily agree, but that says nothing about atheists.

> However, they are not under the same pressure of experiencing the consequences of being wrong about science and facts as are "atheistic evolutionists".

Atheists like Coyne have come down rather hard on "theistic" evolutionist Kenneth Miller,
but they do it diplomatically, knowing what a "Useful Idiot" Miller is for his fanatical
opposition to ID and especially to Behe.

> That some atheistic evolutionists may not think to question their own claims does not remove them from the fear of the consequences if their claims are not based on science and fact.

I do agree on this point: they are guilty of wishful thinking that death means oblivion for them.

And I believe they are afraid to think deeply of Shakespeare's profound insight spoken by Hamlet:

"To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub. ..."


In contrast, atheists are all too prone to claim that Christian belief in heaven is wishful thinking.
Or worse, a fairy tale that adults need to grow out of, as Harshman put it once.

I believe, though, that they are too cowardly to taunt Muslims that way.

> This is the reason for all the criticism of ID, from professionals and amateurs alike.

That just might be true, but I think the main impetus is that they know that OEC and YEC
"poofed each kind into existence from nothing" is doomed in the long run, and
so they want to conflate ID with it at all costs.

> > >However, you are quite right in what you say here, Kalkidas:
> > > In summary, peer pressure is real.

> > Here in talk.origins the peer pressure is of a different sort.
> > I talked about that at length in reply to John Harshman,

> > after a two-liner in which I avoided addressing Glenn's claims directly:

> > "This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more prone
> > to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of."

You didn't comment on this, Glenn, but I'm leaving it in because
Harshman is deeply in denial about what came next:

> > Harshman carefully ignored this, because it led right into my
> > exposition on some intense peer pressure in talk.origins that
> > is centered on the pathological liar and crybaby Ron O, and
> > is a backdrop for Harshman's "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
> > attitude towards Ron O:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/IKpZmfx_CAAJ
> > Re: Hole In One

Harshman is too cowardly to argue about all this,
or even to leave it in his reply. All he dared to leave in
was the following sentence fragment:

> > Harshman couldn't cope with such concentrated firepower,

so he snipped what came next; the irony is priceless:

[John Harshman]

In fact I can't see why that was spot on. Your reply to Carnegie is just
a collection of strawmen.

>> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
>> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
>
> You don't even have the backbone to identify what you are basing your taunt of "profound ignorance" on,
> let alone explain what is so "profound" about his ignorance.

It seemed unnecessary. Anyone should be able to tell without
explanation. And I think you can. Mutation as the only mechanism of
allele frequency change? Seriously?

> To quote someone of whom your public persona thinks much more highly than
> it thinks of me, let alone Glenn:
>
> "Snip and run. That's all you are good for."
>
>
> [Mind you, Glenn may indeed be revealing some ignorance instead of suffering a senior moment,
> but I believe that the majority of t.o. participants can easily find themselves in the same boat.
> Mark may be an exception because he has seen regulars with more knowledge of biology than himself
> score debating points by pointing out something that neither he nor you are pointing out here.]

You persist in making your posts hard to read by sticking in random bits
in random places, replying to multiple layers of old comments, and such.
Still, I'm curious. What was it that neither of us is pointing out?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/30/22 6:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
> >
> >>> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
> >
> >> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
> >
> > You are that kind of atheist.

> No, I most certainly am not. I have, at various times in my life, been
> theist, atheist, and agnostic, but I'm none of those now.

I'll believe this claim when you spell out your current belief, if any.

By the way, do you give a hoot about whether there is a life after death, or not?

> (I have cut what you said about Harshman because I have no reason to expect you
> would be any more accurate about him.)

Where's the inaccuracy? Please don't be as tight-lipped as you are above.

> > Atheism lite and atheism heavy. Atheism is a big tent that accommodates many beliefs.

> That much is true. It still understates the range of ideas that could
> be called atheism, but that is inevitable with so few words and so few
> people involved in the discussion.

Not the range, just the dimensions.

> > By the way, an agnostic ALSO says, "There is no reason to believe there is no God."
> > But you don't subscribe to that view, do you?

> It's complicated.

You remind me of David Hume:

"how complete must be his victory, who remains always, with all mankind, on the offensive, and has himself no fixed station or abiding city, which he is ever, on any occasion, obliged to defend? "
--https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm

I like to counter that with the following quote:

"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."
--https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45178/the-battle-of-blenheim

> > Mind you, the emphasis is on "believe". I do not believe things on the basis of what
> > I consider to be insufficient evidence. And that is why I call myself an agnostic.
> > Ever since the age of 18, I have made a lifelong study of the arguments,
> > pro and con, for the existence of a being with the power to design our
> > universe and to intervene in it in various places in its history.

> I think that is the big difference between us. For me, the emphasis is
> on "God".

Thereby giving militant atheists a much easier target. Got it.

> My beliefs are too malleable to merit putting the focus on them.

I on the other hand take very seriously Socrates's words in Plato's "Apology":
"The unexamined life is not worth living."

> > And the arguments on both sides are highly inconclusive.


> Except it's not an argument (except for some people, probably a
> minority), and there are multiple facets, not "both sides".

I am focused on the wording I gave, not on "God". You just continue
to make things easier for militant atheists.


Concluded in next reply to this post, to be made either this evening or tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:

Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?

So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.

[Glenn]

So change is not the only mechanism of change. Got it.

[jillery]

Glenn's posts suggest the contrary, that he's proud of his profound
ignorance, and makes a point of showing it off with almost every post.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:58:18 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Concluded in next reply to this post, to be made either this evening or tomorrow.

It's trilogies cubed of mindless obfuscating spam all the way down.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:45:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:

> Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?

They are a staple of his in sci.bio.paleontology. Usually it is because he doesn't
want to deal with what he calls "insults," usually meaning negative but accurate descriptions
of his behavior.

> > > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
> > >
> > We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
> > claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
> > One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
> > is hesitant to expose it. Usually.

> So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.

With this, you made Harshman the victim of his own coyness. I berated him for
not having the minimal backbone to identify what he was talking about,
let alone to justify the pejorative term "profound ignorance" for it.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Worldviews are malleable over time, but I'm surprised you didn't pick up on Mark's claim that his beliefs *are* *too* malleable. Snipe hunting, anyone?

[Glenn]

[jillery]

Harshman can speak for himself, but jillery already answered Glenn,
which you both conveniently ignored:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect>

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
>Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?

Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
comments.

>> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
>> >
>> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
>> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
>> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
>> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
>
>So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.

That's what village IDiots say.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> comments.

True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context. Different labels have been associated with that behavior.

Snipping this

"In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation"

and then accusing me of being a village idiot for what I said below, has also been assigned certain labels, some of which you yourself use on a daily basis, perhaps with every post you make.

> >> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
> >> >
> >> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
> >> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
> >> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
> >> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
> >
> >So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.
> That's what village IDiots say.
> --

Is this sarcasm?

[John Harshman]

On 8/30/22 1:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:07:03 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
>>>
>>
>> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
>> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
>> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
>> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
>
>
> Glenn's posts suggest the contrary, that he's proud of his profound
> ignorance, and makes a point of showing it off with almost every post.
>

Then why does he make a clear statement so seldom?

[John Harshman]

See? Not only ignorant but proud of it, man.

[Glenn]

Wow, guess you told me. I stand humbly corrected. Change is the only mechanism of change. Got it.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 4:00:39 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

Because he is proud of his profound ignorance?

[Glenn]

Clearly you think you can "tell" things without explanation. What could be more unnecessary than to explain the claim "evolution does not require random mutations" in context to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation".

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 7:40:38 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 18:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >"The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> >
> >https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/

> From teh article: "Remember that the next time a progressive tries to
> berate you into affirming the lie that a man is in fact a woman."
>
> Not my particular area of expertise but as I understand it,
> transgender people do not regard themselves as changing from A to B,
> they simply seek recognition of the state they have *always* been but
> have been miscategorised by people like Glenn and the author of that
> article who regard gender as just another word for sex which can
> easily be identified by the presence or absence of a penis and
> testicles. These are also often the same people who would deign to
> lecture the rest of us about love and compassion.
> >
Apologies for not replying sooner. I should have congratulated you on that perfect hole in one shot. Perhaps I'll deign later.

> >I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> >

> >This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> > Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> > comments.

You need to slow down with your replies, Glenn. You should have noticed that a big
ingredient in your question was the word "unmarked." When I replied to the same
post to which jillery is replying here, THAT is what I had in mind.

Unmarked snips can be very sneaky and cowardly, as you may have found out.

> True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context. Different labels have been associated with that behavior.

What are you referring to here? Is it that jillery regularly lies her head off by claiming
that substantive replies that she snips are "mindless noise"?

If so, that is another reason to slow down: you need to re-read what you
wrote to discern whether a casual reader can easily figure out what you are saying.

>
> Snipping this
> "In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation"
> and then accusing me of being a village idiot for what I said below, has also been assigned certain labels, some of which you yourself use on a daily basis, perhaps with every post you make.
> > >> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
> > >> >
> > >> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
> > >> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
> > >> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
> > >> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
> > >
> > >So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.
> > That's what village IDiots say.
> > --
> Is this sarcasm?

I thought *you* were being sarcastic. That's why I praised you for taking advantage
of the way Harshman didn't identify what he was talking about. He's in the process
of painting himself into a corner, but we need to make sure he finishes that job.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:05:40 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> > > Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> > > comments.
> You need to slow down with your replies, Glenn. You should have noticed that a big
> ingredient in your question was the word "unmarked." When I replied to the same
> post to which jillery is replying here, THAT is what I had in mind.
>
> Unmarked snips can be very sneaky and cowardly, as you may have found out.

My qualifier "such" should not be overlooked either, Peter.

Yes, unmarked snips can be dishonest, or disruptive.

> > True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context. Different labels have been associated with that behavior.
> What are you referring to here? Is it that jillery regularly lies her head off by claiming
> that substantive replies that she snips are "mindless noise"?

Um, that's as good a reason as any. Perhaps though you didn't notice the Chez Watt in jillery's claim. Would you comment substantively on mindless noise, snipped or not?
It makes the claim of "mindless noise", well, mindless noise.

>
> If so, that is another reason to slow down: you need to re-read what you
> wrote to discern whether a casual reader can easily figure out what you are saying.

Perhaps, but I'm not overly interested or concerned about casual readers, even if they exist.

> >
> > Snipping this
> > "In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation"
> > and then accusing me of being a village idiot for what I said below, has also been assigned certain labels, some of which you yourself use on a daily basis, perhaps with every post you make.
> > > >> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
> > > >> >
> > > >> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
> > > >> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
> > > >> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
> > > >> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
> > > >
> > > >So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.
> > > That's what village IDiots say.
> > > --
> > Is this sarcasm?
> I thought *you* were being sarcastic. That's why I praised you for taking advantage
> of the way Harshman didn't identify what he was talking about. He's in the process
> of painting himself into a corner, but we need to make sure he finishes that job.
>

I was being sarcastic, Peter. When one replies to ""Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation" with "evolution doesn’t require random mutation", I think such sarcasm is well deserved, especially when John won't just explain what he claims should be obvious to everyone.

[Glenn]

Answer your own question, John. You claim there is "conflict". What conflict?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Have I? Where is this "just" event?

[John Harshman]

The thing is, I don't think you quite know that you are ignorant, though
you may suspect it. Perhaps you are just a bit uneasy?

[Glenn]

That sounds serious. You're at the top of your game here, Johnny. I wonder if you think you have the upper hand here.

[John Harshman]

Why? Is this a dominance game for you? I think I know something about
evolutionary biology and that you don't know much, and much of what you
do know is wrong. I am willing to be shown wrong about this, but I'm not
expecting it.

[Glenn]

Big talk for a one eyed fat man.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/30/22 9:58 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/30/22 6:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
>>>
>>>>> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
>>>
>>>> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
>>>
>>> You are that kind of atheist.
>
>> No, I most certainly am not. I have, at various times in my life, been
>> theist, atheist, and agnostic, but I'm none of those now.
>
> I'll believe this claim when you spell out your current belief, if any.

Then you will never believe it. I have no desire to share my personal
life solely so you can ridicule, degrade, and otherwise abuse it.

> By the way, do you give a hoot about whether there is a life after death, or not?

Does it matter?

> [...]

>>> Mind you, the emphasis is on "believe". I do not believe things on the basis of what
>>> I consider to be insufficient evidence. And that is why I call myself an agnostic.
>>> Ever since the age of 18, I have made a lifelong study of the arguments,
>>> pro and con, for the existence of a being with the power to design our
>>> universe and to intervene in it in various places in its history.
>
>> I think that is the big difference between us. For me, the emphasis is
>> on "God".
>
> Thereby giving militant atheists a much easier target. Got it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is
that, when the question is about believing in God, one must look at the
God part before the belief has any relevance. The question of my belief
in God, to me, is a question about God. Once that part is settled (if
it ever can be), the belief follows naturally.

>> My beliefs are too malleable to merit putting the focus on them.
>
> I on the other hand take very seriously Socrates's words in Plato's "Apology":
> "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The two are compatible.

>>> And the arguments on both sides are highly inconclusive.
>
>> Except it's not an argument (except for some people, probably a
>> minority), and there are multiple facets, not "both sides".
>
> I am focused on the wording I gave, not on "God". You just continue
> to make things easier for militant atheists.

You *seem* to be focused on militant atheists, since you and only you
bring them up repeatedly.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 9:30:39 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/30/22 9:58 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 8/30/22 6:03 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 1:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/22 3:44 PM, Glenn wrote: [among other things]
> >>>
> >>>>> An atheist claims "There is no God". Does he believe that is based in science and facts?
> >>>
> >>>> An atheist claims, "There is no reason to believe there is a God."
> >>>
> >>> You are that kind of atheist.
> >
> >> No, I most certainly am not. I have, at various times in my life, been
> >> theist, atheist, and agnostic, but I'm none of those now.

I suppose you would claim you are now "an" apatheist. It is a silly attempt to distance oneself from being regarded as an atheist. But that is what apatheist's are.

> >
> > I'll believe this claim when you spell out your current belief, if any.
> Then you will never believe it. I have no desire to share my personal
> life solely so you can ridicule, degrade, and otherwise abuse it.

Identifying what you "are" now, since you've eliminated about everything relevant, is nether sharing personal life. You opened the door. That doesn't hide you very well.

Atheist activists are militants, and Peter is not the only one to bring them up more than once. Not many practice your method of duck and weave.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> comments.
>
>True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context.

The context to my comment is your comment to which I replied, both
still preserved in the quoted text above. *That* is a difference.

> Different labels have been associated with that behavior.
>
>Snipping this
>
> "In the meantime, how about explaining your claim "evolution doesn’t require random mutation" in response to "Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation"
>
>and then accusing me of being a village idiot for what I said below, has also been assigned certain labels, some of which you yourself use on a daily basis, perhaps with every post you make.

How about instead of posting mindless noise like a village idiot, you
explain what your objections are to those comments you quoted? Failure
to do so would suggest you know you have no idea what you're talking
about and are proud of it.

>> >> > Perhaps you should do your homework. Change in allele frequencies can only be by mutation. Thanks for defining evolution that way, though. I wonder if John had thought of that and decided against it in defense of his claim.
>> >> >
>> >> We may here have seen why Glenn so seldom expresses a clear scientific
>> >> claim, when this is what comes out on those few occasions when he does.
>> >> One may suppose that he has some inkling of his profound ignorance and
>> >> is hesitant to expose it. Usually.
>> >
>> >So evolution allows for purposeful intervention. Got it.
>> That's what village IDiots say.
>> --
>Is this sarcasm?

Would it make a difference either way?

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 16:26:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Since you asked, clearly you think you don't need to explain your
objections to those comments you quoted. You're welcome.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 16:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Very good. Ask your mommy for a gold star.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> > >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> > Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> > comments.
>
>You need to slow down with your replies, Glenn. You should have noticed that a big
>ingredient in your question was the word "unmarked." When I replied to the same
>post to which jillery is replying here, THAT is what I had in mind.
>
>Unmarked snips can be very sneaky and cowardly, as you may have found out.

So too can *marked* snips. when they delete comments that address the
very point the snipper raised.

[Glenn]

Unless, in your opinion, they are mindless noise. Look in the mirror, you might find a friend.

[Glenn]

I doubt anyone could make sense of that.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> >> comments.
> >
> >True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context.
> The context to my comment is your comment to which I replied, both
> still preserved in the quoted text above. *That* is a difference.

Paranoia is fear, jillery.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:40 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> > >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> >> > Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> >> > comments.
>> >
>> >You need to slow down with your replies, Glenn. You should have noticed that a big
>> >ingredient in your question was the word "unmarked." When I replied to the same
>> >post to which jillery is replying here, THAT is what I had in mind.
>> >
>> >Unmarked snips can be very sneaky and cowardly, as you may have found out.
>> So too can *marked* snips. when they delete comments that address the
>> very point the snipper raised.
>> --
>Unless, in your opinion, they are mindless noise.

My opinion and marking snips don't inform the fact both you and the
peter compulsively snip out responses.

>Look in the mirror, you might find a friend.

You first.

[Glenn]

Have you ever considered it would save time for you to hump your own leg?

[Glenn]

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >Look in the mirror, you might find a friend.
> You first.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> >> comments.
>> >
>> >True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context.
>> The context to my comment is your comment to which I replied, both
>> still preserved in the quoted text above. *That* is a difference.
>
>Paranoia is fear, jillery.

So 'paranoia' is yet another word you have no idea what it means, and
are proud of it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

So don't get your gold star.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Clearly village idiots can't make sense of that.

[Glenn]

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

[Glenn]

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:00:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> >> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> >> >> comments.

What part of "unmarked" didn't you understand, jillery?


You're lucky Glenn overlooked this oversight of yours in reply:

> >> >True, as is commenting 'substantively' on what you consider to be mindless noise, without context.

I couldn't parse the above comment, so I asked Glenn about it, but I haven't seen
a reply yet.

> >> The context to my comment is your comment to which I replied, both
> >> still preserved in the quoted text above. *That* is a difference.

This remark of yours is more like mindless noise than is

"Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips."

Yet you call this the context for your remark. Curious.

> >Paranoia is fear, jillery.


> So 'paranoia' is yet another word you have no idea what it means, and
> are proud of it.

Please tell us what YOUR definition is, jillery. I'd like to see whether Harshman's usage
conforms to it.

And while you are at it, please tell us your definition of "mindless noise."


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Transparent obfuscating noise noted.


Willfully stupid parrot mode noted.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:00:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> >> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> >> >> comments.
>
>What part of "unmarked" didn't you understand, jillery?

What part of "mindless noise" didn't you understand, PeeWee Peter?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:15:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:00:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
> >> >> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
> >> >> >> comments.
> >
> >What part of "unmarked" didn't you understand, jillery?

The jillerybot seriously flunks the Turing Test:

> What part of "mindless noise" didn't you understand, PeeWee Peter?

The jillerybot deleted a huge amount of relevant material that
was designed to elucidate the jillery's usage of "mindless noise."

I only restore one line (less than 15%) of the relevant part of what the jillerybot deleted,
while adding four lines of text for context:


[restoration:]

>>> So 'paranoia' is yet another word you have no idea what it means, and
>>> are proud of it.

>>Please tell us what YOUR definition is, jillery. I'd like to see whether Harshman's usage
conforms to it.

>>And while you are at it, please tell us your definition of "mindless noise."

[end of restoration]

Compare the relevant parts of two lines, and you can see how badly
the jillerybot flunked the Turing test:

>>please tell us your definition of "mindless noise."

and in the reply,

> What part of "mindless noise" didn't you understand

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Transparent obfuscating noise noted.
>
>
> Willfully stupid parrot mode noted.
> --

So jillery wants a cracker!

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:40:27 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:15:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:00:40 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:20:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 8/29/22 11:53 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Maybe this is a bias of mine, but is it not quite rare for John to make such unmarked snips?
>> >> >> >> Deleting mindless noise is different from deleting substantive
>> >> >> >> comments.
>> >
>> >What part of "unmarked" didn't you understand, jillery?
>
>
>The jillerybot seriously flunks the Turing Test:

The PeeWee Peterbot flunks the Turing Test:

>> What part of "mindless noise" didn't you understand, PeeWee Peter?
>
>The jillerybot deleted a huge amount of relevant material that

Liar. jillery deleted nothing relevant to the question to which
jillery responded.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:15:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > >
> > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > >
> > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > >
> > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> > >
> > Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
> > true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> > If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
> By the way...

"Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation."

This was your response:
>
> "But evolution doesn’t require random mutation."
>
> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-many-different-kinds-of-birds-are-there/#comments
>
> Does evolution require mutation? Is there nothing that evolution requires?
>
> I assume you would not agree that evolution requires nonrandom mutation.
>
> So what are you saying here? You may want to clarify what you mean by "evolution" as well as "random" with respect to natural selection.


From the above url:

"Perhaps by evolution you only mean something like “change over time” but in that case even YECs are theistic evolutionists."

You replied "No", but it is unclear what you mean by that, unclear even as to whether you avoided responding to what you did mean by "evolution".

However, although you have not supported your claim, in this thread Mark claimed "Hint: Note that a biological definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. "
You did reply to more than one post which included that quote. You also wrote
"Mutation as the only mechanism of allele frequency change? Seriously?"

Now you have made it clear that you regard yourself as the expert here, and I not knowing much, but when considering *only* how allele frequency changes, why is 'mutation" not required, and what other mechanism not dependent upon mutation is known to change allele frequency?

[John Harshman]

Allele frequencies change mostly by selection and drift. Migration is a
third factor, mutation a fourth.

[erik simpson]

I suspect Glenn doesn't have a clear idea of what allele means, but he might, and is just trolling for a word game.

[Glenn]

John does not answer the question. Why is mutation not required for selection and migration to change allele frequencies? Why is selection and migration not dependent upon mutation to change allele frequencies?

> I suspect Glenn doesn't have a clear idea of what allele means, but he might, and is just trolling for a word game.

What you've done is show that you think you do know, and are dishonestly pretending that John's claims are accurate. But you know John is the one playing word games, as are you.
Neither selection nor migration change DNA, and drift is mutation. That is what is obvious, to use John's characterization of what he now distorts.
That may be as far as you go in suspecting why John has been so hesitant, and why he sticks his neck out now. As I said, it is fear.
For the real issue, clearly identified in the context of the exchanges in the OP url, is the concept of "random" mutation with respect to evolution. Although I suspect that he is aware of a couple of recent claims, not nearly a consensus, that there exists cellular processes that can be seen as "non-random" mutations, he is also undoubtedly aware of the fact that there is clear consensus among his peers that mutations do not occur to directly increase fitness. It is a basic concept of evolutionary theory. And that his claim "evolution does not require random mutations" is technically false, yet depends on the definitions used to identify those terms can be defined in a certain way to create the appearance that his claim is not a lie.
He's just hit a hole in one. You just swung and missed the ball, then hid it in your pants.

[John Harshman]

No, I answered. You just didn't understand the answer. Mutation is not

required for selection and migration to change allele frequencies

because selection, drift, and migration change allele frequencies of
whatever loci are already present with multiple alleles. Mutation has
nothing to do with any of that. Mutation creates new alleles. So does
recombination. Not relevant here.

>> I suspect Glenn doesn't have a clear idea of what allele means, but he might, and is just trolling for a word game.
>
> What you've done is show that you think you do know, and are dishonestly pretending that John's claims are accurate. But you know John is the one playing word games, as are you.
> Neither selection nor migration change DNA, and drift is mutation.

Sorry, but drift is not mutation. You are embarrassing yourself here.
Selection and migration indeed do not change DNA, but change in allele
frequencies doesn't involve change in DNA.

> That is what is obvious, to use John's characterization of what he now distorts.
> That may be as far as you go in suspecting why John has been so hesitant, and why he sticks his neck out now. As I said, it is fear.
> For the real issue, clearly identified in the context of the exchanges in the OP url, is the concept of "random" mutation with respect to evolution. Although I suspect that he is aware of a couple of recent claims, not nearly a consensus, that there exists cellular processes that can be seen as "non-random" mutations, he is also undoubtedly aware of the fact that there is clear consensus among his peers that mutations do not occur to directly increase fitness. It is a basic concept of evolutionary theory. And that his claim "evolution does not require random mutations" is technically false, yet depends on the definitions used to identify those terms can be defined in a certain way to create the appearance that his claim is not a lie.
> He's just hit a hole in one. You just swung and missed the ball, then hid it in your pants.

I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about. And none of that
has anything to do with change in allele frequencies, which I now truly
suspect you don't know the meaning of.

[Glenn]

An allele is a single nucleotide in the genome. The simplest change of an allele is a mutation. A mutation is any change of the sequence of alleles in DNA. The substitution, addition or loss of just a single allele is a mutation, called a point mutation or "small-scale mutation".

You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.

John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.

[John Harshman]

No, that's not what an allele is. There's your fundamental
misunderstanding right there. What follows, based on that
misunderstanding, is nonsense. You can easily fix this particular bit of
ignorance by googling the definition of "allele".

>The simplest change of an allele is a mutation. A mutation is any change of the sequence of alleles in DNA. The substitution, addition or loss of just a single allele is a mutation, called a point mutation or "small-scale mutation".
>
> You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.
>
> John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
> Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.

No. I would suppose that even Peter must be embarrassed for you by now,
if indeed he's reading any of that.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:15:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not."
> > >
> > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
> > >
> > > I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The concept is sound, though.
> > >
> > > This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
> > >
> > Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory. If it's
> > true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be no evidence.
> > If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
> By the way...
>

> "But evolution doesn’t require random mutation."
>
> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-many-different-kinds-of-birds-are-there/#comments
>
> Does evolution require mutation? Is there nothing that evolution requires?
>
> I assume you would not agree that evolution requires nonrandom mutation.
>
> So what are you saying here? You may want to clarify what you mean by "evolution" as well as "random" with respect to natural selection.

You may have been better off had you just answered this post, and the questions, objectively.

Clearly the issue was whether random mutations are required in evolution.
That calls for regarding "evolution" to be more than "change in allele frequencies over time". I gave you plenty chances, and now you're stuck with the question that does not include the subject of randomness in mutations, as you changed the question yourself.
So does evolution require mutation, yes or no?

[Glenn]

Gotcha. You asked for it.

"The simplest alleles are single nucleotide polymorphisms"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
" a single-nucleotide polymorphism is a germline substitution of a single nucleotide at a specific position in the genome."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

> >The simplest change of an allele is a mutation. A mutation is any change of the sequence of alleles in DNA. The substitution, addition or loss of just a single allele is a mutation, called a point mutation or "small-scale mutation".

No response to this. Notice the word "change". I wonder why.

> >
> > You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.
> >
> > John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
> > Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.
> No. I would suppose that even Peter must be embarrassed for you by now,
> if indeed he's reading any of that.

You do a lot of supposing. But thanks for the clear answer. It stands to reason that you will also stand by the claim that "evolution does not require random mutations" as well.

[Glenn]

Now that you mention it, I wonder what Peter would think of your choice of defining evolution as "change of allele frequency in a population over time", especially with respect to whether evolution requires mutations.


Frankly, I am more than a bit surprised to find you so adamantly against my claim that evolution requires mutations.

"Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/dna-and-mutations/

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. "

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/an-introduction-to-evolution/

[*Hemidactylus*]

Charitably reinterpreting Glenn above an allele may result from a point
mutation. Many of those will be silent as in not resulting in peptide
changes. The point focused changes can be neutral and fluctuate as allelic
frequencies in a population toward elimination or fixation. It’s early so I
probably flubbed this somehow.

>
>> The simplest change of an allele is a mutation. A mutation is any change
>> of the sequence of alleles in DNA. The substitution, addition or loss of
>> just a single allele is a mutation, called a point mutation or "small-scale mutation".
>>
>> You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as
>> evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.
>>
>> John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
>> Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.
>
> No. I would suppose that even Peter must be embarrassed for you by now,
> if indeed he's reading any of that.
>

There are various types of mutationists. De Vries focused on a peculiar
phenomenon in evening primrose due IIRC to ploidy states. Goldschmidt went
awry with systemic mutations which left the whole point mutation day-to-day
mundane grind behind altogether. Many miners on the creationist and
evolutionist sides equally ding Gould by misunderstanding where he was
going with resurrecting Goldschmidt. At the time Gould was mesmerized by
“rate genes” which would later be morphed into Hoxology if memory serves.
Gould wasn’t just touting some systemic mutant hopeful monster but being
charitable to Goldschmidt. No good deed goes unpunished.

There are more modern mutationists. Moran had highlighted Arlin Stoltzfus.
I’m not even going to attempt a exegesis of that.

[John Harshman]

Neither of those is a definition of "allele". Yes, a mutation is a
change in an allele, and it can be said to generate a new allele. But an
allele isn't a polymorphism. A polymorphism is the existence of two (or
more) alleles in the population. But alleles are just slightly differing
orthologous sequences, usually considered to be restricted to genes.

Also, you seem not to know what "frequency" means.

>>> You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.
>>>
>>> John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
>>> Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.
>> No. I would suppose that even Peter must be embarrassed for you by now,
>> if indeed he's reading any of that.
>
> You do a lot of supposing. But thanks for the clear answer. It stands to reason that you will also stand by the claim that "evolution does not require random mutations" as well.

Yes, that's true. Evolution doesn't require mutations at all. What
evolution requires is genetic variation in a population. The ultimate
source of that variation could be anything, though on earth it's clearly
mutation. But that isn't required, and that the mutation is random isn't
required either.

[John Harshman]

It's not my choice. It's merely a commonly used definition. I think it's
inadequate because it doesn't describe some processes that I think are
evolution too.

> Frankly, I am more than a bit surprised to find you so adamantly against my claim that evolution requires mutations.

Yes, you are.

> "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur."
>
> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/dna-and-mutations/

You can find a lot on the web; I'm afraid that's sloppy thinking.
Notice, however, that it doesn't say what you claimed, which if you
recall was that mutations are the only way in which allele frequencies
can change.

> "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification."

Yep. But that doesn't mean what you think.

> "Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time."
>
> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/an-introduction-to-evolution/

All true too. It's a matter of *genetic* change over time. You just
don't seem to understand that evolution happens to populations, not
individuals, and that genetic change in the population can happen
without new mutations.

What you're doing here is often called "proof-texting", or sometimes
"quote-mining".

[jillery]

To expand on your point: An allele may *result* from a point
mutation, but an allele is NOT the point mutation but the two
different versions of the same gene. More generally, "allele" refers
to all the different versions of any one gene. That's the fundamental
misunderstanding Glenn is proud to show us here.

>>> The simplest change of an allele is a mutation. A mutation is any change
>>> of the sequence of alleles in DNA. The substitution, addition or loss of
>>> just a single allele is a mutation, called a point mutation or "small-scale mutation".
>>>
>>> You're going to get yourself in more hot water if you try to use this as
>>> evidence that I "don't know what" I'm talking about. I advise against it.
>>>
>>> John, you know as well as I that any changes in DNA are referred to as mutations.
>>> Just answer the question directly, does evolution require mutations. Yes or no.
>>
>> No. I would suppose that even Peter must be embarrassed for you by now,
>> if indeed he's reading any of that.
>>
>There are various types of mutationists. De Vries focused on a peculiar
>phenomenon in evening primrose due IIRC to ploidy states. Goldschmidt went
>awry with systemic mutations which left the whole point mutation day-to-day
>mundane grind behind altogether. Many miners on the creationist and
>evolutionist sides equally ding Gould by misunderstanding where he was
>going with resurrecting Goldschmidt. At the time Gould was mesmerized by
>“rate genes” which would later be morphed into Hoxology if memory serves.
>Gould wasn’t just touting some systemic mutant hopeful monster but being
>charitable to Goldschmidt. No good deed goes unpunished.
>
>There are more modern mutationists. Moran had highlighted Arlin Stoltzfus.
>I’m not even going to attempt a exegesis of that.
>
>

[Ernest Major]

On 29/08/2022 23:20, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/22 2:36 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/28/22 6:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "The point of the 11 holes-in-one story is not that anyone believes
>>>> it. The point is that no one believes it. And every North Korean
>>>> affirms what they know not to be true because they are afraid of the
>>>> consequences if they do not."
>>>>
>>>> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/live-not-by-lies/
>>>>
>>>> I doubt every North Korean even knows what a hole in one is. The
>>>> concept is sound, though.
>>>>
>>>> This strikes me as a useful analogy to atheist evolutionists. They
>>>> may believe their claims but do not believe they are based in
>>>> science and facts. And they fear the consequences if they admit it.
>>

>> This does not exhaust the possibilities, but Ron Okimoto is even more
>> prone
>> to allege that people know the truth of what he accuses them of.

>>
>>>>
>>> Congratulations on your hermetically sealed conspiracy theory.
>>

>> I doubt that you read the linked article. There is no conspiracy
>> involved.
>> There is only the fear of what might happen to anyone who dares to
>> claim that
>> "the emperor has no clothes."
>>
>> [The emperor in this case is the hereditary absolute monarch of Korea,
>> Kim Jong II.]
>
> The article isn't relevant except as one end of Glenn's attempted
> analogy. Glenn said that "atheist evolutionists" believe their claims
> but don't believe they are based in science and facts but fear the
> consequences if they admit it. That's the conspiracy theory I'm talking
> about. It's a conspiracy theory because it supposes that anyone claiming
> their opinions are based in science and facts must be lying because they
> fear the consequences, and this must be true for all those folks, living
> the lie in concert.
>
> I'm going to snip your paranoid analogy, if that's all right with you.

>
>>> If it's  true, there can be no evidence. If it's false, there can be
>>> no evidence.
>>> If I tell you it's bullshit, you'll just say I fear the consequences.
>>

>> I don't think you reflected enough on these comments before you posted
>> them.
>
> What makes you think that? Do you agree with Glenn that evolutionists
> don't really think their claims are based in science and facts? How
> about you? You're an evolutionist, aren't you?
>

Peter has stated that he supports evolution (admittedly an odd
phrasing). Peter has also stated that he's an atheist* (though he
preferred the term agnostic).

* a weak atheist, not a strong atheist.

--
alias Ernest Major