So I recently took some time to respond to another one of Mr. Knott’s posts , in which he continues to let other creationists think for him, without a lick of original thought or research of his own. Needless to say, the crap that Sirius’s latest prosthetic brain came out with was wrong, and his interpetations were even more so (not that you can always tell where the opinions of other creationists end and Sirius begins).
Needless to say, my reply hasn’t been posted and probably won’t be, mainly because of how badly I called him out last time I did this but also because he now believes me to be forknowledge’s sock puppet. Now to be fair, we live together (we’re brothers) and there isn’t really any way I can prove I’m not forknowledge, except to point that it would make no sense on FK’s part to give his alter-ego the third-level science education when he’s the one writing most of the posts. Anyway, here’s my reply. Quotes from Sirius are in italics, as per last time.
—————
Dr. Jackson has been announcing the Death of Darwin, a conscious distancing of darwinists from Darwin’s original defunct theory, since 2005.
What’s this? I detect the earthy aroma of the strawman!
“Darwinsts” have been distancing themselves from Darwin’s original ideas for a very long time, and they’re not shy about admitting that. Credit for the initial idea will always be his (and Wallace’s), but he probably wouldn’t recognize evolutionary theory as we understand it today. There’s a good reason for this: Darwin got a lot wrong. He didn’t know about genes or DNA, for a start, discoveries that completely revolutionized evolution (it’s not called the Modern Synthesis for nothing).
“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.”
This quote gets a lot of mileage on creationist websites. Rather than rely on quotes I tried to track down the article itself, but unfortunately you need to pay to read it online and it appears that my university doesn’t have a copy in the library. Bah.
I did discover that this same article has been quote mined- extensively- to make it look as if Lewin supports the notion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution (needless to say, he doesn’t) so I’m wary of accepting this at face value unless I can see that quote in context. Not that it means a whole lot, since it’s just an appeal to authority anyway.
noting that since Redi and Pasteur have disproven spontaneous generation, naturalistic darwinism has no foundation.
There’s that strawman again!
The idea that Pasteur refuted was that fully-formed animals (ie flies) could emerge spontaneously from organic matter (ie rotton meat). This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
He also noted the discovery of dinosaur contents in the stomache of repenomamus robustus, a pit-bull sized mammal. He notes how this discredits the picture of tiny rat-sized mammals scurrying and hiding in the shadow of the dinosaurs.
The amount of dishonesty on display here is truly mind-boggling. Honestly, Sirius, do you research this stuff at all before you post it?
The repenomamus robustus fossil in question was, according to the American Museum of Natural History, about the same size as an opossum (it seems to have been a small specimen). The dinosaur it ate was a juvenile of a very small dinosaur species (there were far more small dnosaurs than large).
So how does this discredit the scientific view of early mammals? All we have here is a slightly larger than average mammal eating a very small dinosaur. What does that prove?
The comments about the ape-to-human family tree that follow aren’t really possible to reply to without more detail.
He then turned his attention from the fossil record to genetics, noting that molecular clocks don’t really work
That quote on the top of your page against appeals to authority is getting more and more ironic every day.
I don’t actually know a whole lot about molecular clocks. More detail would be nice.
At the end of his lecture, Dr. Jackson discussed the up-coming Extended Evolutionary Synthesis [EES],
The straw-men are taking over! Just in time for halloween, as well.
The Altenburg 16 conference and everything connected with it has been blown out of all proportion by creationists. What happened was that 16 scientists came together to discuss new discoveries related to evolution- specifically, things like epigenetics and plasticity. The idea was floating around before and after that maybe a new “extended” model of evolution was needed to incorporate these discoveries, since it’s becoming obvious that evolution is a lot more than just mutations and natural selection. This is how science works- if we discover new things about a theory, the theory changes.
But that’s all this ever was. There isn’t some work-in-progress version of evolution waiting in the wings to be unveiled, like a new version of the iPod before an Apple conference. That’s not how science works.
When one reads Pigliucci’s notes of the A-16 meeting, we’re left with the possibility that EES will incorporate some sort of vitalism.
Where on Earth are you getting this idea from?
They’re scrambling around the emergency room table, trying to pump new life into a theory that’s been dealt lethal doses of scientific truth.
I just can’t get over how deluded you people are. You’re like soccer fans insisting that the opposing team have all dropped dead of spontaneous heart attacks when everyone and their grandmother can see that they’re alive and kicking (pun intended).
For Knowledge! 
Natural Selection: What naturaled and who did the selecting ?
sock puppet,
You’ll note that forknowledge’s comment made it onto my site, but yours did not. That’s because I only had to shave off a tiny bit of insult at the end of it, while you broke 2 of my Rules of Engagement. Specifically, Rules 1, 2 & 4. I have said it before: I do not feel obligated to approve your comments just because you bothered to blather my way.
You’ll note that since I approved your “brother’s” comments that it’s not a personal bias. Nor am I in any way intimidated by your lack of original thought or total absence of cogency, which is, I’m sure, what you mean to imply by posting this dreck on big brother’s site.
I generally don’t approve comments from repeat visitors who disregard my rules, though I cut first-timers considerable slack. Nor do I feel obligated to respond to such.
The irony is that I did consider approving your comments, but then I decided why bother giving someone space if he’s going to be so inconsiderate. Besides, you’re a sock puppet.
Take a few cues from your brother the next time you come to my blogsite.
–Sirius Knott
PS – I knew you’d post this over here if I deleted it from mine. I actually won a bet on this. Predictable. Mom! I’m telling! Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! Sock puppets are such prima donnas.
Hmmm. That should be 3 Rules of Engagement. I thought of rule 4 after I wrote the sentence.
-Sirius
stephanus:
Could you restate your question? At the moment it’s completely incoherent.
Sirius:
Fantastic, the predictable dodge. I’ll file the claims that FP responded to under ‘refuted’ along with the rest.
Hey, it’s it’s Sirius! Since you didn’t actually reply to anything I said, and since I’m stuck at home sick today, I’m going to pass some time making snide remarks and engaging in armchair psycho-analysis. I’m pretty sure this isn’t a total waste, since your continued willingness to respond to me means I must be hitting a nerve somewhere.
You’ll note that forknowledge’s comment made it onto my site, but yours did not. That’s because I only had to shave off a tiny bit of insult at the end of it, while you broke 2 of my Rules of Engagement. Specifically, Rules 1, 2 & 4.
You know, I’ve been thinking over your rules of engagement. Either you’re incredibely thin-skinned and can’t handle even the mildest of insults, or you’re jumping at the slightest chance to delete people’s comments without replying to them.
The third possability is that you just enjoy the feeling of power you get from being able to control the content on your blog. You have the same attitude of smug superiority that many other creationists share, and which seems to go hand in hand with imposing censorship. It’s something of a hobby among creationists, I’ve noticed (In fact, I kight make a blog post about it later).
Nor am I in any way intimidated by your lack of original thought or total absence of cogency
That must be why you’ve succesfully refuted my arguments ever time we’ve had a debate.
Oh, wait!
“Lack of original thought” is a bit rich, coming from the man who automatically adopts the terminology and ideas of every other creationist he comes into contact with (“Bariminology” passed the Sirius Peer Review Board rather quickly, I see), usually without fact checking them first (that you presented that ridiculous “Pasteur disproved evolution” idea at face value is frankly astonishing).
which is, I’m sure, what you mean to imply by posting this dreck on big brother’s site.
Actually, we’re twins. Although he is slightly taller than me.
The irony is that I did consider approving your comments, but then I decided why bother giving someone space if he’s going to be so inconsiderate.
So you do have replies to the points I raised, you just don’t want to present them because I hurt your feelings? But of course.
<I knew you’d post this over here if I deleted it from mine. I actually won a bet on this. Predictable. Mom! I’m telling! Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! Sock puppets are such prima donnas.
You know, if you genuinally think I’m forknowledge (which I doubt, since you communicate with him and me as if we’re different people), then who’s to say he isn’t a sock puppet of me? We both claim to be studying different subjects at different Universities- obviously only one of these stories is true. Unless they’re both lies, and forknowledge and myself are both alter-egos created by the person running this blog. For such an independant thinker, you’re taking it on face value that forknowledge is who he says he is……
I’d say it’s something to think about, but I know how much you detest doing that.
This sock puppet business is nothing more than a silly cop out. Even if you and FK are one and the same (I believe you’re not, by the way) what difference does it make? Does it somehow invalidate your arguments? Do the rules of evidence and logic change because someone logs in under a different name? Of course not. It doesn’t make any difference to the argument itself, it’s just a sorry, weak excuse to delete your posts and avoid dealing with the facts.
Sorry to butt in, this was just bugging me…
You’re right, of course. Sirius will just take any excuse not to have to respond to people properly.
Take one or make one! 😆
Hey, can you do me a favor? Would you please correct my stupid your/you’re typo (“I believe your not…”)? It’s a pet peeve of mine and I can’t believe I did that. ::cringe::
I would greatly appreciate it. And the sooner the better, as I’m beginning to hyperventilate. 😆
^ I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until forknowledge gets back from college. I have posting rights, but I don’t think I can edit people’s comments.
Meanwhile, I suggest a blindfold 😉
After reading through this again, I just realised that I used the phrase “needless to say” at least three times.
Needless to say, I’m pretty embaressed.
Lottie:
I edited the comment, as per your request. Sorry it took so long, but I’m in college practically all day and don’t spend much time on here!
Thanks!
It didn’t take too long. I know you have stuff to do, and correcting all my typos could be a full-time job. That one particularly grates on me, though. But I managed to keep my breathing under control in the end. 😆