On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> >>>>>>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
> >>>>>>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> >>>>>>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> >>>>>>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
> >>>>>>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>
> >>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>
> >>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>
> >>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>
> >>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >
> >> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >
> > IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> > "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> > about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >> EN&V is a political site,
> >> specifically a creationist site.
> >
> > That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> > on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> > More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> > the place where it appears.
> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet. Would you cite
> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
> > It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> > examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> > to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman. But here
> you're going off on a wide tangent, and I'm going to snip the rest of it.

On 6/16/21 8:27 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
>>>>>>>>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
>>>>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
>>>>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
>>>>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
>>>>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
>>>>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
>>>>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
>>>>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
>>>>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
>>>>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
>>>>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
>>>>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
>>>>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
>>>>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
>>>>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
>>>>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
>>>>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
>>>>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
>>>>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
>>>>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
>>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
>>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
>>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
>>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
>>>
>>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
>>>
>>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
>>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
>>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
>> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
>> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
>>>> EN&V is a political site,
>>>> specifically a creationist site.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
>>> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
>>> the place where it appears.
>> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet. Would you cite
>> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
>>> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
>>> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
>>> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
>> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman. But here
>> you're going off on a wide tangent, and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
>
> A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
>
> (already mentioned in another thread, subsequently derailed by a visiting troll).
>
Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
we have.

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/16/21 8:27 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>>>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >>>>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >>>>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >>>>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >>>
> >>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> >>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> >>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> >> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> >> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>> specifically a creationist site.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >>> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> >>> the place where it appears.
> >> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet. Would you cite
> >> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
> >>> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> >>> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> >>> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
> >> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman. But here
> >> you're going off on a wide tangent, and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
> >
> > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> >
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> >
> > (already mentioned in another thread, subsequently derailed by a visiting troll).
> >
> Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
> system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
> size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
> alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
> without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
> we have.

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 4:58:41 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 6/16/21 8:27 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> > >>>>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> > >>>>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> > >>>>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> > >>>>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> > >>>>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> > >>>>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> > >>>>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> > >>>>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> > >>>>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> > >>>>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> > >>>>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> > >>>>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> > >>>>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> > >>>>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> > >>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> > >>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> > >>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> > >>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> > >>>
> > >>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> > >>>
> > >>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> > >>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> > >>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> > >> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> > >> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> > >>>> EN&V is a political site,
> > >>>> specifically a creationist site.
> > >>>
> > >>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> > >>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> > >> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> > >>> More importantly, you cannot judge the scientific merit of an article on the basis of
> > >>> the place where it appears.
> > >> Of course you can, or at least you can know how to bet. Would you cite
> > >> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
> > >>> It is your behavior on talk.origins that is very much political. To take just one of many
> > >>> examples: you never tried to argue science with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and confined yourself
> > >>> to personal attacks. Your excuse for that was that nobody could convince him that he is wrong.
> > >> You apparently know little of my interactions with Kleinman. But here
> > >> you're going off on a wide tangent, and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
> > >
> > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > >
> > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > >
> > > (already mentioned in another thread, subsequently derailed by a visiting troll).
> > >
> > Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
> > system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
> > size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
> > alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
> > without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
> > we have.
> Pretty near anything we can say about Ediacaran critters is open to discussion. I like
> the fact that the review points out the controversial items and gives references to them. I'll
> have to say I don't inderstand why the idea that taxon X (Dickinsonia in this case) might be an
> animal raises hackles among some creationists (and others). Would the assertion "Dickinsonia is
> probably a fungus" cause the same reaction? If not, why not? But that's not of much concern to me
> anyway.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>
> >>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>
> >>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>
> >>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>
> >>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >
> >> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >
> > IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> > "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> > about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.

On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
>>>>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
>>>>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
>>>>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
>>>>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
>>>>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
>>>>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
>>>>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
>>>>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
>>>>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
>>>>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
>>>>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
>>>>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
>>>>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
>>>>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
>>>>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
>>>>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
>>>>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
>>>>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
>>>>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
>>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
>>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
>>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
>>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
>>>
>>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
>>>
>>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
>>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
>>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
>
>> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
>> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
>
> It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
> not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

> A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at

.... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:

> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055

Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
but now has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,

"Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."

This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
of a rough bilateral symmetry.

What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
authors are not creationists?

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

PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> >>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >>>
> >>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> >>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> >>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> >
> >> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> >> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >
> > It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
> > not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.

> What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one,

Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?

> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.

Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
provide a good definition.

> >>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>> specifically a creationist site.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >
> >> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >
> > There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> > Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >
> > You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.

> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.

I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but before I start the thread on Dickinsonia.

This means that I will only start it next week; hopefully, on Monday already.

Peter Nyikos

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:45:17 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>>>>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>>>>>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>>>>>>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>>>>>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>>>>>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>>>>>>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>>>>>>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>>>>>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>>>>>>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>>>>>>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>>>>>>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>>>>>>>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >>>>>>>> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >>>>>>>> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >>>>>>>> including human relationships to chimps. He's all over the place..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >>>
> >>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> >>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> >>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> >
> >> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> >> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >
> > It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
> > not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.
> What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one, while
> you bend over backwards to avoid it.

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 6/16/21 8:27 AM, erik simpson wrote:

> > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > >
> > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055

<small snip>

> > Missed that reference. The assertion that Dickinsonia had a nervous
> > system seems very weak, based only on its apparent mobility and large
> > size. But the example of Placozoa restricts that evidence to large size
> > alone, and I don't see why a wave of contraction couldn't be controlled
> > without a nervous system. Still, it seems a good effort to use the data
> > we have.
> Pretty near anything we can say about Ediacaran critters is open to discussion. I like
> the fact that the review points out the controversial items and gives references to them.

Wrong. See my reply to you a short while ago.

> I'll have to say I don't inderstand why the idea that taxon X (Dickinsonia in this case) might be an
> animal raises hackles among some creationists (and others).

No hackles here, just an open mind and a look at the track record of misinterpretations of Ediacaran organisms by
non-creationist scientists, like the widespread early notion that Dickinsonia was an annelid.

> Would the assertion "Dickinsonia is
> probably a fungus" cause the same reaction?

Any overconfident assertion would cause the same reaction in me, until I saw very strong evidence.

I was highly suspicious of Adolf Seilacher's theory of Vendobionta being giant protists,
until I learned about some amazing present day giant protists hundreds of times bigger
than the biggest foraminiferan I ever heard of.

> If not, why not? But that's not of much concern to me
> anyway.

You spend a fair amount of time complaining about people and then distancing yourself from the complaints like this.

Not my style at all.

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

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>
> > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
>
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
>
>
> Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> but now has been thoroughly discredited.
>
> Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
>
> "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
>
> This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> of a rough bilateral symmetry.
>
>
> What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> authors are not creationists?
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."

For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:

https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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

The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.

The previous thread is here:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJ

On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
>>>>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
>>>>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
>>>>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
>>>>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
>>>>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
>>>>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
>>>> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
>>>
>>> It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
>>> not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.
>
>> What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one,
>
> Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?

No. Bechly has managed to keep subtext out of his professional
publications, as far as I know. But it's certainly there in everything
on EN&V.

>> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.
>
> Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
> provide a good definition.

It's often known as "reading between the lines". Are you sure you don't
know this word?

>>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
>>>>>> specifically a creationist site.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
>>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
>>>
>>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
>>>
>>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
>>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
>>>
>>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
>
>> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
>
> I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.

No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but before I start the thread on Dickinsonia.
>
> This means that I will only start it next week; hopefully, on Monday already.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:46:42 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/12/21 8:54 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:08:53 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/11/21 10:02 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:23:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:04:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> Showing great restraint, I've deleted something that I dealt with vigorously in talk.origins.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This being over two months after the incident, I decided to let bygones be bygones.
> >>>>>> I hope Erik follows suit.
> >>>>>>>> Sound to me like you're trying to ditch integrity, so you can satisfy your evolutionary bias by desperately trying to prove animals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not trying to prove anything about Precambrian animals. I'm simply very curious about the *possible*
> >>>>>>> relationships between the Ediacaran biota and "life as we know it" inthe Cambrian.
> >>>>>> Your Subject: line, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" belies this disarming claim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IOW, how many reverse gears does your bicycle have?
> >>>>>>> I have very little concern for what ID does or
> >>>>>>> does not say about that subject.
> >>>>>> Nothing, AFAIK.
> >>>>>>> The people involved with ID aren't well-represented among paleontologists.
> >>>>>> That is an accident, due to the fact that involvement with ID is mostly by creationists,
> >>>>>> most of whom are uninterested in all but the most superficial paleontology.
> >>>>>>>> You should know that ID does not prohibit primitive life you want to call "animals", or even primitive animals existing in the Ediacaran, nor do I. ID does, as well as I, not tolerate speculation that changes with the wind of what exactly occurred and existed more than a half billion years ago, before a well documented, obvious explosion of the appearance of the many advanced forms of life in a geological blink of an eye.
> >>>>>> Glenn is right about the well documented, obvious explosion. The early Cambrian fossils include
> >>>>>> representatives of almost every phylum known from fossils; there was only one "holdout" by
> >>>>>> the end of the Cambrian, the bryozoa, and that appeared in the next period, the Ordovician.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At least as mysterious as this is the question: why no more fossilizable phyla in the next
> >>>>>> 500 million years, after an explosion less than one-tenth as long, by most geologists' reckoning?
> >>>>>>>> Most everyone has given up on trying to discredit that fact. Now you're left with "maybe one or a few might" have been "kinda pseudo like" what we'd like to call "animal" rising from non-animal life a "little bit" before the explosion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "speculation that changes with the wind"? Does that mean data?
> >>>>>> Partly data, partly interpretations of already known data. People were once confident that Dickinsonia
> >>>>>> was an annelid. The latest speculation doesn't quite know where to place it, does it?
> >>>>>>> I *really* don't care what ID doesn't tolerate, nor am I concerned with your limits of toleration.
> >>>>>> Looks like ID has higher standards than you do. I take it Glenn was talking about what ID theorists
> >>>>>> will tolerate within ID.
> >>>>>>>> I'll leave you with a thought. Plant-like protists are called algae.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are algae plants? Plenty of pictures for you here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/2/20/are-algae-plants
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nice pictures. The text belies your confident assertions.
> >>>>>> In what way? We've already seen how your text belies your confident
> >>>>>> assertion in the Subject line: "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stick with pictures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where did you justify this comment?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>>>>> University of South Carolina
> >>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have zero interest is discussing anything with Glenn, and I suspect the lack of interest is
> >>>>> mutual. You apparently hold him in some regard?
> >>>> I hold the topics in high regard. You and Glenn are a good foundation for organizing my thoughts on
> >>>> the fascinating subjects you were discussing: the status of Dickinsonia and the Cambrian explosion.
> >>>>> I find that somewhat strange. Alas, I also
> >>>>> have no interest in discussing your contentious objections to the title of the thread, but I encourage
> >>>>> you to read the recent relevant material.
> >>>> I've read a very long treatise exploring the status of Dickinsonia, which you don't seem to have read
> >>>> very carefully (and Glenn might not have understood enough of it):
> >>>>
> >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you dismiss it out of hand because it was written by a convert from atheism?
> >>>>
> >>>> Be that as it may, I will write about it on Monday. It's too close to my bedtime now.
> >>>>> I'm not going to dig through my files looking for all the relevant
> >>>>> papers, because I don't see that this will lead to any clarity, and most likely would only lead to another
> >>>>> angry meltdown. (It's actually fun to track down the references; at least I find it fun).
> >>>> So do I. One of the main reasons I went into my office today (the only time I did it this week) was
> >>>> so that I could get past the paywall erected around the _Nature_ article on a gliding Jurassic mammal
> >>>> that Oxyaena had brought to my attention on the "For Peter" thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was well worth the trouble, and I'll be reporting on it on Monday too.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>
> >>> I do not dismiss Bechly's review out of hand, but I don't find it useful, and it's pretty obvious from both
> >>> its tone and its provinance where his sympathies lie.

Not obvious at all, unless John is quoting a highly non-representative portion of his manifesto

Keep reading.

> >> It's actually hard to tell where his sympathies lie. He's said on
> >> occasion that there is very good evidence for universal common descent,
> >> and yet he continually tries to cast doubt on any particular examples,
> >> including human relationships to chimps.

"human relationships to chimps" is too vague. It could include a belief that
chimps are descended from australopithecines. Heterodox, yet still within
scientific respectability.

>>> He's all over the place.
> >>
> >> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.

What I read in his manifesto suggests that you are being very narrow-minded..

Keep reading.
> > It's the first thing by Bechly that I've ever read. It struck me that he sounds like Glenn in casting doubt generally,
> > but a highly educated Glenn, if you can imagine it.
> >
> Try this:
> https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/questions-for-gunter-bechly-and-swamidass-on-unbelievable/13822
>
> Quoting from Bechly's web site manifesto:
>
> “I am convinced that the evidence strongly points towards a combination
> of old earth and common ancestry with saltational development.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 6:15:59 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>>>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>>>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>>>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>>>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> >>>>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> >>>>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> >>>
> >>>> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> >>>> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >>>
> >>> It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
> >>> not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.
> >
> >> What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one,
> >
> > Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?
> No. Bechly has managed to keep subtext out of his professional
> publications, as far as I know. But it's certainly there in everything
> on EN&V.
> >> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.
> >
> > Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
> > provide a good definition.
> It's often known as "reading between the lines". Are you sure you don't
> know this word?
> >>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>>>> specifically a creationist site.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >>>
> >>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> >>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
> >
> >> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
> >
> > I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> > with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.
> No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

You're right, it is a political site, specifically an atheist site, within the movement.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/14/21 11:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/14/21 4:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> But nobody should take anything published on EN&V seriously.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please confine this attitude to talk.origins, where it belongs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It belongs in talk.origins because the main emphasis there is political rather than scientific.
> >>>>>>> The "on topic" focus is on discrediting individuals, e.g. creationists, as opposed to refuting arguments
> >>>>>>> or discussing on topic issues on which there is significant disagreement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why doesn't it belong here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because s.b.p. is a science newsgroup, and unscientific dismissals of material
> >>>>>>> containing scientific data (of which there is plenty in the article on Dickinsonia linked above)
> >>>>>>> are counterproductive to progress in understanding the science being discussed here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's hardly an unscientifc dismissal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, it is a purely political dismissal. One of the reasons I have postponed starting the thread,
> >>>>> "What kind of organism is Dickinsonia?" is that we need to come to some kind of understanding
> >>>>> about our different approaches to scientific truth and where it might be found.
> >>>
> >>>> Nonsense. EN&V's "approach to scientific truth" is to decide that it
> >>>> isn't evolution and then come up with reasons why.
> >>>
> >>> It is you who are spouting nonsense. If you don't see a difference between "Dickinsonia is probably
> >>> not an animal" and "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" there is something seriously wrong with you.
> >
> >> What's wrong with me is that I can spot a subtext when I see one,

The definition of "subtext" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the following:

: the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text)

There is no way that "Dickinsonia didn't evolve" can be a metaphorical or implicit meaning of
"Dickinsonia is probably not an animal".

Where did YOU find your definition ("reading between the lines")? _The Devil's Dictionary_, by Ambrose Bierce, perhaps?

> > Do you see denial of evolution in every paleontological claim made by a creationist?
> No. Bechly has managed to keep subtext out of his professional
> publications, as far as I know. But it's certainly there in everything
> on EN&V.

Until you can demonstrate that you can validly read this between the lines, your allegation is null and void.
Right now, what I wrote yesterday evening (to which you haven't made a response yet) is powerful evidence
that the correct expression for what you are doing here is "guilt by association."

> >> while you bend over backwards to avoid it.

I do bend over backwards to avoid indulging in guilt by association. Do you have a problem with that?

> > Please explain the word "subtext". "bend over backwards" is pejorative, and requires that you
> > provide a good definition.
> It's often known as "reading between the lines". Are you sure you don't
> know this word?

I have come across it from time to time, but IIRC it always conformed to the Merriam-Webster definition.

Not only is the M-W dictionary second only to the OED in authoritativeness, but according to it the
word has a long history, going back to 1726. So perhaps you've picked up your usage
by hobnobbing with polemicists and propagandists (in talk.origins?) who employ the
word for tendentious purposes.

Concluded in next reply, soon after I see that this one has posted.

Peter Nyikos

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> >>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
> >>>>>> specifically a creationist site.

I've left this slide until now, but unless &V makes the site completely different from
Evolution News & Science Today, you are dead wrong: it is an ID site, and
that includes a lot besides creationism, including at least three of the articles in the Top Six that
Ron Okimoto keeps ranting and raving about in talk.origins.

These are articles 3, 4 and 5. They are part of ID theory that adheres to the strict methodology of science. In the original
2017 version Luskin quotes Stephen Meyer using the word "materialistic" when he should be using "undirected"
in article 5. I could rewrite articles 1 and 2 so that they also adhere to secular scientific methodology.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> >>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> >>>
> >>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> >>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
> >
> >> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
> >
> > I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> > with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.

> No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

Glenn agreed with you on this and corrected me thus:

"You're right, it is a political site, specifically an atheist site, within the movement."

I get the impression that you have killfiled Glenn, so I will be quoting things from
him on this thread from time to time, until I hear otherwise from you.

Glenn is right, except that he does not identify "the movement". I think the
movement that best fits the context is the movement of secular humanism, which even
has its own manifesto, updated from time to time.

However, just as only a small minority of secular humanists are actively part of
secular humanism, as a public thing, so only a small minority
of creationists are part of "Creationism, as a public thing," whatever that means.
[How should I use the expression "secular humanism, as a public thing" so that
it is the precise analogue of creationism, as a public thing?]

It would be best if you could give a usable definition of "_________________ as a public thing"
for anything that can go in the blank and still be a movement when thus modified.

Peter Nyikos

> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but before I start the thread on Dickinsonia.
> >
> > This means that I will only start it next week; hopefully, on Monday already.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 5:54:01 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 6/17/21 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 4:45:17 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >> On 6/17/21 1:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > >>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>>> On 6/15/21 3:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > Picking up where I left off in my first reply:
> > > >>>>>> EN&V is a political site,
> > > >>>>>> specifically a creationist site.
> > I've left this slide until now, but unless &V makes the site completely different from
> > Evolution News & Science Today, you are dead wrong: it is an ID site, and
> > that includes a lot besides creationism, including at least three of the articles in the Top Six that
> > Ron Okimoto keeps ranting and raving about in talk.origins.
> >
> > These are articles 3, 4 and 5. They are part of ID theory that adheres to the strict methodology of science. In the original
> > 2017 version Luskin quotes Stephen Meyer using the word "materialistic" when he should be using "undirected"
> > in article 5. I could rewrite articles 1 and 2 so that they also adhere to secular scientific methodology.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That doesn't make it political, any more than the atheist/materialist rationalWiki is made one
> > > >>>>> on the basis of the worldview it promotes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Of course it does. Creationism is a political movement.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is a political movement that tries to enact creationist legislation and elect creationists to school boards.
> > > >>> Most creationists have no involvement in it. Most are just fundies who take Genesis literally for religious reasons.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You seem to have a siege mentality about creationists.
> > > >
> > > >> Creationism, as a public thing, is a political movement.
> > > >
> > > > I think we can agree on one thing: since talk.origins is a public thing,
> > > > with an Archive that is often aggressively anti-creationist and anti-ID, it is a political movement.
> >
> > > No, we can't agree on that. Talk.origins isn't a movement at all.

> > Glenn agreed with you on this and corrected me thus:

> > "You're right, it is a political site, specifically an atheist site, within the movement."
> > I get the impression that you have killfiled Glenn, so I will be quoting things from
> > him on this thread from time to time, until I hear otherwise from you.
> >
> > Glenn is right, except that he does not identify "the movement". I think the
> > movement that best fits the context is the movement of secular humanism, which even
> > has its own manifesto, updated from time to time.

> I simply stayed within the bounds John provided. Creationism as a movement to counter atheism and evolutionism
> is swamped by the anti-creationism movement.

That's how it loves to style itself, but I think it is more accurate to call it the anti-ID movement.
ID is what is behind the siege mentality you see in talk.origins, and Harshman has
transported it to sci.bio.paleontology.

The siege mentality is evident in the way everyone is afraid to debate abiogenesis and
evolution with me. I really put my finger on it on Friday on the thread, "Gaining Function,"
that you began.

That reminds me: I also did hard-hitting posts earlier last week on two other threads that
you began, "Wonder" and one with an even shorter title that I can't recall right now.
The one on "Wonder" was IMO the strongest reply I ever did to Ron Okimoto. Did you see it?

> My spell checker recognizes "anti-creationism" but not "evolutionism".

I believe only creationists like the word "evolutionism." ID theorists should much prefer
"evolutionary theory" because when that is properly defined, ID theory doesn't do
too badly in comparison with it. In fact, it's a level playing field IMO when one takes into account
the 4-fold head start that evolutionary theory has over ID theory. I mentioned this to Oo Tiib on "Gaining Function".

>
> "Political movement, a coordinated group action focused on a political issue or ideology
> Social movement, a coordinated group action focused on a social issue
> Religious movement, a coordinated group action focused on a religious ideology"
>
> They don't list "scientific movement".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement
>
> "Coordinated" may not be the best word in such definitions.

Yes. Anti-ID is a noisy, disorganized political movement that is ultimately dependent on a scientific issue:
did intelligent design play a role in either earth OOL or earth evolution?

Peter Nyikos

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >
> > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> >
> > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> >
> >
> > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> >
> > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> >
> > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> >
> > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> >
> >
> > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > authors are not creationists?
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."

> For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
>
> https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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

I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article..

Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
"Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?

>
> The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.

That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
is far better than Bechly's review.

>
> The previous thread is here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY

Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.

Peter Nyikos

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > >
> > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > >
> > >
> > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > >
> > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > >
> > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > >
> > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > >
> > >
> > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > authors are not creationists?
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
>
>
> > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> >
> > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
>
> Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?
> >
> > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> is far better than Bechly's review.
> >
> > The previous thread is here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
>
> Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
>
Oh I don't know about that. In the title of the thread, 'very likely" seems trollish to me, even in this group. Especially in this group, supposedly a science group.

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > > >
> > > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > > >
> > > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > > >
> > > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > > >
> > > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > > authors are not creationists?
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
> >
> >
> > > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> > >
> > > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> > I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> > resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
> >
> > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?

For some reason, I don't expect Erik to answer these questions.

> > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > >
> > > The previous thread is here:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> >
> > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> >
> Oh I don't know about that. In the title of the thread, 'very likely" seems trollish to me, even in this group. Especially in this group, supposedly a science group.

Simpson does get trollish fairly frequently here in s.b.p., but I wouldn't call him a troll on that account.

Peter Nyikos

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > >
> > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > >
> > >
> > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > >
> > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > >
> > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > >
> > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > >
> > >
> > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > authors are not creationists?
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
>
>
> > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> >
> > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
>
> Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?
> >
> > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> is far better than Bechly's review.
> >
> > The previous thread is here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
>
> Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

I see my link doesn't work. Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874

It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
summarize. If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
may expect no further communications from me.

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > > >
> > > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > > >
> > > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > > >
> > > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > > >
> > > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > > authors are not creationists?
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
> >
> >
> > > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> > >
> > > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> > I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> > resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.

This was, in fact, the only use of the word "glide" anywhere in the article..

> > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?

<crickets>

> > >
> > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > >
> > > The previous thread is here:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> >
> > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> I see my link doesn't work.

It worked just fine for me. On the other hand, the link you gave below doesn't show the text at all,
and nothing happens when I click on "Download PDF". I did get a practically unreadable XML document,
but not the pdf that your earlier link gave me right off the bat.

> Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874
>
> It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
> summarize.

I believe, from what you write next, and what I have read of the article,
that you are hoping I will make some nasty remarks about what you've written just now.

> If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
> your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
> may expect no further communications from me.

Do you imagine that you are displaying civility here?

You and I made a commitment to civility here in April of 2015, along with John Harshman,
joined later by Richard Norman. Less than a year after Richard disappeared, you unilaterally
broke it in early 2018. Do you deny this?

If you do, please tell me how you define the word "civility" in a way that distinguishes it
from "being a doormat".

Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > > > >
> > > > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > > > >
> > > > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > > > >
> > > > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > > > authors are not creationists?
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
> > >
> > >
> > > > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> > > >
> > > > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> > > I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> > > resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
> This was, in fact, the only use of the word "glide" anywhere in the article.
> > > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?
> <crickets>
> > > >
> > > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > > >
> > > > The previous thread is here:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> > >
> > > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
>
> > I see my link doesn't work.
> It worked just fine for me. On the other hand, the link you gave below doesn't show the text at all,
> and nothing happens when I click on "Download PDF". I did get a practically unreadable XML document,
> but not the pdf that your earlier link gave me right off the bat.
> > Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:
> >
> > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal..pone.0176874
> >
> > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
> > summarize.
> I believe, from what you write next, and what I have read of the article,
> that you are hoping I will make some nasty remarks about what you've written just now.
> > If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
> > your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
> > may expect no further communications from me.
> Do you imagine that you are displaying civility here?
>
> You and I made a commitment to civility here in April of 2015, along with John Harshman,
> joined later by Richard Norman. Less than a year after Richard disappeared, you unilaterally
> broke it in early 2018. Do you deny this?
>
> If you do, please tell me how you define the word "civility" in a way that distinguishes it
> from "being a doormat".
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

Try this from my dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0

If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > > > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > > > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > > > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > > > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > > > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > > > > authors are not creationists?
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed.."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> > > > I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> > > > resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
> > This was, in fact, the only use of the word "glide" anywhere in the article.
> > > > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > > > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?
> > <crickets>
> > > > >
> > > > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > > > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > > > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > > > >
> > > > > The previous thread is here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > > > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> >
> > > I see my link doesn't work.
> > It worked just fine for me. On the other hand, the link you gave below doesn't show the text at all,
> > and nothing happens when I click on "Download PDF". I did get a practically unreadable XML document,
> > but not the pdf that your earlier link gave me right off the bat.
> > > Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:
> > >
> > > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874
> > >
> > > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
> > > summarize.
> > I believe, from what you write next, and what I have read of the article,
> > that you are hoping I will make some nasty remarks about what you've written just now.
> > > If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
> > > your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
> > > may expect no further communications from me.
> > Do you imagine that you are displaying civility here?
> >
> > You and I made a commitment to civility here in April of 2015, along with John Harshman,
> > joined later by Richard Norman. Less than a year after Richard disappeared, you unilaterally
> > broke it in early 2018. Do you deny this?
> >
> > If you do, please tell me how you define the word "civility" in a way that distinguishes it
> > from "being a doormat".
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

I can see from your response that you have been your usual mischievous self in these last two
posts. It's nice to know that all your talk of "civility" was just flippant banter.

> Try this from my dropbox:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0
>
> If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

Who cares whether it works or not? You are mischievously disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked.

And so, I also believe now that your comment,

> > > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results ​more completly than I care to
> > > summarize.

was just you pulling my leg (and Glenn's too) about a summary that takes 0 keystrokes to type.

Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 3:06:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:21:55 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A much better bibliography (and far better review) than Bechly's is found at
> > > > > > > ... a site where there is no mention of the concept of glide symmetry:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.3055
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Calling something a "bilaterian" without even acknowledging a crucial countervailing feature
> > > > > > > is akin to calling a Rangeomorph a "sea pen" --- something that was once taken for granted,
> > > > > > > but now has been thoroughly discredited.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, there seems to be a fallacy of begging the question in the authors' words,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Based on recent work, we assume that these taxa were animals.."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This looks like a source of bias for their cladogram in Figure 1. By ignoring the concept
> > > > > > > of glide symmetry, they make all but one of these Ediacarans bilaterians just on the basis
> > > > > > > of a rough bilateral symmetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What, in your opinion, makes this "a far better review"? Just the fact that the
> > > > > > > authors are not creationists?
> > > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > > > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > > > > > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > > > > PS I'd like to see the thread where you said this was "derailed."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > For symmetry of Dickinsonia, see:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal..pone.0176874/1/pone.0176874.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20210617%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20210617T231648Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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
> > > > > I saw only one use of the term "glide ... symmetry", and that was a general comment in the introduction that promised no
> > > > > resolution between conflicting claims of its existence later in the article.
> > > This was, in fact, the only use of the word "glide" anywhere in the article.
> > > > > Did you actually read anything tending towards a resolution later on, or did you just post this long url because
> > > > > "Google was your friend" and this was the first research level you could find with the words "glide" and "symmetry" in it?
> > > <crickets>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The authors may or may not be "creationists" (I doubt it), but they are prominent scientists active in this area.
> > > > > That doesn't answer my question about why you think their review (if that's the right word for their research article)
> > > > > is far better than Bechly's review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The previous thread is here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/_1O9jwW2CnU/m/SkuwXDHjAwAJY
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. Reading it, I get the impression that you don't know the difference between a gadfly and a troll.
> > > > > Glenn is a gadfly, but he is no more of a troll than you are.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > >
> > >
> > > > I see my link doesn't work.
> > > It worked just fine for me. On the other hand, the link you gave below doesn't show the text at all,
> > > and nothing happens when I click on "Download PDF". I did get a practically unreadable XML document,
> > > but not the pdf that your earlier link gave me right off the bat.
> > > > Here's a link from which you can download the pdf:
> > > >
> > > > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176874
> > > >
> > > > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results more completly than I care to
> > > > summarize.
> > > I believe, from what you write next, and what I have read of the article,
> > > that you are hoping I will make some nasty remarks about what you've written just now.
> > > > If this post and the following remarks in a subsequent post are any indication,
> > > > your committment to "civility" doesn't sound too deep. Unless some changes happen, you
> > > > may expect no further communications from me.
> > > Do you imagine that you are displaying civility here?
> > >
> > > You and I made a commitment to civility here in April of 2015, along with John Harshman,
> > > joined later by Richard Norman. Less than a year after Richard disappeared, you unilaterally
> > > broke it in early 2018. Do you deny this?
> > >
> > > If you do, please tell me how you define the word "civility" in a way that distinguishes it
> > > from "being a doormat".
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> I can see from your response that you have been your usual mischievous self in these last two
> posts. It's nice to know that all your talk of "civility" was just flippant banter.
> > Try this from my dropbox:
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5sqx1w1ozrg2dz/Dickensonia%20%28Evans%2C%20Droser%2C%20Gehling%29.pdf?dl=0
> >
> > If that doesn't work, you're on your own.
> Who cares whether it works or not? You are mischievously disregarding my assurance that your original long url worked.
>
> And so, I also believe now that your comment,
> > > > It answers your questions about "glide symmetry" and the results ​more completly than I care to
> > > > summarize.
> was just you pulling my leg (and Glenn's too) about a summary that takes 0 keystrokes to type.
>
> Peter Nyikos

?? Bye.