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.

>>>> 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. EN&V is a
political web site.

>>> 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.
>
> Yes, I can bet that you will not approach the reasoning I cite in my upcoming thread
> on its own merits, but will be looking to read the mind of Bechly.
>
> I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't think I will, given your attitude.

What do you know about Bechly? Have you read other things he's written?
Have you read his web site manifesto?

>> Would you cite
>> an article from Answers in Genesis or trust any of its scientific content?
>
> I'd investigate it further. You, I surmise, would not even look at it and thereby miss out
> on some amazing facts, like a population of plovers where each makes its way from Alaska
> to one of the Hawiian islands without sight of land for thousands of miles.

Already knew that, so I'm not missing out. AiG is a poor place to get
your scientific information, even though they manage to get the
occasional fact correctly. But I see that you have avoided an answer to
the question.

>>> 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.
>
> You explicitly said what I call "Your excuse." And I stand by what I wrote, because you aren't
> trying to come up with a single example of you trying to argue science with him.

I have no interest in convincing you. Your bias against me is showing,
and I don't see any point in trying to overcome it.

>> But here
>> you're going off on a wide tangent,
>
> It's highly germane to the subject of what is political and what is not, where paleontology and evolution are concerned.
>
>
> > and I'm going to snip the rest of it.
>
> Is that because you are unable to remember ever putting the scientific screws to Kleinman like I recounted
> in the part you snipped?

No.