 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
July 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Unbelievable! I've spotted this rabbit in a wall in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A beautiful graffiti I am planning to post on my blog http://pos-darwinista.blogspot... just to confirm how worldwide this rabbit's influence has gone. Keep up the good work, MikeGene.:razz:
Comment by neddy — July 30, 2007 @ 11:34 am
July 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Open thread. YAY!
Just a random article: Scientist breed world's first mentally ill mouse
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 30, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Hey Mike,
In putting together my "Case for front loaded quantum mechanics" post I ran across this scientific article titled Quantum mechanism of Biological Search. I thought you might be interested.
While finding a scientific paper arguing the same case I am isn't that surprising, I was surprised that there might be some unexplained function behind the DNA's helix structure.
I would be interested in finding out if there is a standard explaination for why DNA has a helix structure.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 8:27 am
So what happened to JAM?
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2007 @ 8:27 am
July 31st, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hi Zachriel,
The contributors voted to ban "˜JAM' for misbehavior with multiple members well over a year ago. Since then, the person has re-entered TT with new screen names, where "˜JAM' was simply the fifth. If you simply ignore a banning and re-enter with a new name, you are basically giving the blog a very disrespectful middle finger (and thus helping to validate the original decision).
We try to keep bannings to a minimum around here (where people from both sides have been banned), as many of us have a high threshold of tolerance (as evidenced by simply reading our comments section). Of course, it is a tricky thing, as a comments section that becomes too mean and disrespectful not only chases away new and potentially productive discussion partners and discourages some lurkers from joining in, but can come to define the blog itself.
Keep in mind that the blog contributors have an interest in seeing this blog succeed as a unique place where people from both sides can enter the fray with spirited and free debate without it degenerating into place where ego fights constantly break out, trolls take great pleasure, and feces are freely thrown about. This is not an easy task, given the explosive nature of this whole topic, thus we should be satisfied with modest and relative success. But what this means is that a person's "right to comment" does not supercede our desire to create the blog atmosphere we wish to create.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2007 @ 9:18 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am
You have every right to control your own forum. However, I have never seen any post by JAM that could be construed as "misbehavior". Knowing that he was the same commenter, you nevertheless allowed him to post for quite some time under the nick "JAM", so what prompted the current banning? What other names did he post under?
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2007 @ 10:05 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Zachriel:
The individual we're discussing has resurrected himself under different identities. The initial misbehavoir took place quite some time ago under a different moniker. I am not going into identity details but to answer your question about "allowing," it was not immediately clear what was occuring. The delay can be attributed to detection and response time. There are many members of TT and our focus was not consumed by JAM.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2007 @ 10:30 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:44 am
That's understandable. Perhaps someone else can explain (on this open thread) why JAM has been accused of "misbehavior".
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2007 @ 10:44 am
July 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Just to be clear. The reason "JAM" was banned centers on deception, namely, making an end run around a process through an identity change. There are other reasons why the individual was initially banned.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2007 @ 10:58 am
July 31st, 2007 at 11:14 am
What reasons? Under what name? As I said, I have seen nothing that can be construed as "misbehavior" by JAM. But I haven't read all of his posts, either. The accusation has been made, and I would like to know the basis of that accusation.
As JAM apparently has some knowledge of genetics, I would think his contribution to these discussions would be informative.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2007 @ 11:14 am
July 31st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Hi Zachriel,
The misbehavior occurred under the first screen name (and frankly, I don't recall the details as these things are not important in my life). But this is all irrelevant now and won't be pursued. All that matters is that the same individual has a habit of signing in with new screen names to circumvent the original exclusion. It is this act that was the cause for removal, for as I said, such acts mean "you are basically giving the blog a very disrespectful middle finger (and thus helping to validate the original decision)."
Indeed. But that is not an excuse to disrespect the blog by giving it the middle finger. This is why informative critics (or proponents) do themselves a disservice when they are unable to show even minimal levels of respect that social convention demands from guests. If they get excluded, yes, they can always come back with a stealthy new screen name and improved behavior, but they risk getting dropped in the middle of making some good points because disrespect was inherent in their chosen method of return.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2007 @ 11:47 am
July 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
That's your choice. I just thought I would ask.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
If scientists weren't such aweful nerds, Sal, they could breed with humans.
Comment by Rock — July 31, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Open Thread. YAY!
Apparently some of the usual anti-ID critics are having problems with freshman chemistry. I inivte bright guys like ThoughtProvoker or any of the scientists here to help them with a freshman chemistry problem.
The sample question is the racemization rate constant of Aspartic Acid with a D/L ratio of .14 and a supposed age of 400 years. I'm appalled the supposed "pro-Science" crowd is acting like the guys on that French game show when asked what orbits the Earth. They aren't answering a simple question. Can any Darwinists or critics here help their poor science challenged brethren on a simple chemistry question.
Go to Systematic Errors in C-14 dating.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Actually, I know just the guy for the task. Nick Matzke, the PhD candidate at Berzerkely with a masters in Chemistry.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Sal, isn't Nick's Master's Degree in Geography, not Chemistry? He has a BS in Biology and Chemistry, as I recall.
Comment by KC — August 2, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Did I give Nick too much credit? My bad. Anyway, as BS in Chemistry is good enough. Nick really needs to help the poor schleps who decided to debate about aspartic acid racemization constants and C-14 dating.
They're doing such a bad job in debate, I almost thought they were creationist Lokis posing as Darwinists. A member named Tiggy is getting what little brain cells he has left beaten to a pulp. I'm hoping Nick of the NCSE can rescue one of his injured comrades from the hands of those pesky YECs.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Oh well, it looks like Nick was too late to save Tiggy. The YECs pummeled yet another Darwinist into the ground. See the latest at: Systematic errors in C-14 radiometric dating
Any corrections to the math and calculations are most welcome.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Sal,
Until you explain this you aren't even worth arguing with.
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 2, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 am
The specific issue was the accuracy of C-14 dates, not any of the other isotopes. Did it occur to you it is in principle possible the Earth is old and C-14 totally worthless.
The racemization data refute confidence in C-14 data and probably lots of other stratigraphic speculations. The possible Oldness of the World does not give C-14 speculations a free pass nor stratigraphic ideas that are needed to bolster failed Darwinian speculations.
Thanks for responding however.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 3, 2007 @ 12:52 am
August 4th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Hi Salvador,
I did look at your problem, but you have surrounded it with so much bombastic smoke that I do not understand what you think the problem is. So I waited for Nick's response.
I happen to think Nick handled it fine.
Now that we understand you are not suggesting that an old earth is false we can start separating the wheat from the chaff.
While I suspect we both won't be satisfied with the resolution, I will attempt to provide an engineering prospective. Starting with how deceptive plots with log scales are. I had an old engineering professor who warned us about that all the time. I suggest most modern scientific papers use computerized curve fitting to avoid this problem.
I will continue this on your web site. Any TTers can go here to follow if they are interested.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 5:52 pm