Further to: Is microbiologist Kaz Thomas’s criticism of Darwinism “wrong or outdated”?, BA77 sensibly pointed out that Darwin’s trolls couldn’t easily get Kas Thomas fired from the software industry, where he now works.
He’s probably right. Anyway, they are now at 551 comments, and Thomas started to talk back at some point:
Andre, thank you for this comment. Indeed you are right: I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way.
When I disagree with something I read online, I leave a single comment, then move on. Unfortunately, that’s not how bullies operate. A bully has to get the last word.
It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are.
Dear Bullies: You’ve made your point. I hear you. We all hear you. Now please, move on.
Good in general, but that last bit is mystifying. What does Thomas mean, move on? Where, exactly, is a Darwin troll to go? What’s he to do?
Only the government and dead people fund Darwin now.
Dead people fund Darwin? Think endowments and bequests
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Jerry Coyne is a bully and a jackass? Say it isn’t so.
Kas Thomas believes there is no visible evidence for one species evolving out of another? And that survival of the fittest is a tautology? Actually, there is plenty of evidence for speciation when species that live near one another across a desert or on opposite sides of a continent or across ravines, or on islands just off the mainland, are compared. And survival of the fittest is one of the most obvious things that population geneticists note, namely that reproduction occurs unevenly, with some having more offspring than others, while the rest either don’t produce as many offspring, or they die before leaving any offspring because they could not make it over the multitude of hurdles HURDLES that life/nature places in each organism’s way from conception until they reach the age at which they can reproduce.
At least the mindless Darwin troll-bots don’t control the entire internet. Klinghoffer comments over on ENV:
Yes, “survival of the fittest” or “whatever survives survives” is a tautology.
EdwardTBabinski, you claim,,,
The evidence you speak of is nothing but trivial reproductive isolation. Moreover, The best known example is a fraud!
The Grants (who studied Darwin’s finches) made a long presentation at Stanford in 2009 on their work. It is available for all to see on the internet. In it they give the game away. All the so called Darwin finches can inner breed. Doesn’t happen much but it does happen and they have viable offspring that reproduce. Here is the link:
To save you some time. Start at about 109:00 and follow Rosemary for a few minutes till at least 112:00. Then go to 146:30 and listen to Peter. Before this is the inane prattle by two of Stanford’s finest who do not understand that the Grants are saying that the whole evolution thing is a crock.
As well, there is this embarrassing little fact that just came out,
Moreover, the true way (sub)speciation occurs is through loss, not gain, of genetic information:
a few more notes:
Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);
Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin’s speciation FAQ as a ‘literature bluff’
Related note:
@Mr. Babinski
When I read Kas’s article a couple days ago I took it that he wasn’t referring to allopatric or sympatric speciation but was talking about greater distances. These types of speciation are very common and I doubt he would question these. Even hypothetically there’s nothing difficult about populations separating and selection in their new environments eliminating alleles from a more diverse founding population, or drift removing the child populations ability to mate with one another.
But this is not the process that leads to all the new gene/protein families with new function and little-to-no homology in anything else, that we find an abundance of in animal genomes. From a study on ants:
This is a very different process that allele filtering or loss of reproductive compatibility, and I’m fairly certain differences such as these are what Kas Thomas is referring to. Note that “species” is used for both definitions.
This guy is still wrong. its more likely religious people are hardly bullying. Its the other side as far as it is.
He complains about bullying and then accuses creationists etc.
Reaped what he sows.
Who needs ya!
The Darwinist responses are a hose….. Not one of them have actually addressed the issue other than calling him stupid, a creationist and a slew of abuse we have all become very familiar with…..
News:
A useful update.
One thing, I think there is a difference between speaking once for record in a hostile context where the loudest voices are not likely to respond reasonably and engaging in profitable dialogue.
If what is going on is a focus on merits or there is some significant sign that onlookers want to find an outline and pointer to the other side of the story, there will be a place for some discussion. But if you would only feed the trolls, make a brief point for record, link where a fair-minded person can go for more and refuse to feed the trolls.
I disagree with Mr Thomas: bullying is as bullying does.
In this case, verbal, personal abuse and accusation joined to refusal to discuss reasonably on the merits. I have found that a particularly strong sign is the trifecta cluster of fallacies: red herring distractors, led away to strawman distortions soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, distract, poison the atmosphere, polarise and generally induce a sub-rational frame of mind suitable for indoctrinating those vulnerable to partyline tactic games.
I am also a lot less than convinced that there is the sort of “equal blame” that the sort of “even handed” remarks he made suggests.
That sails uncomfortably close to blaming those who are most often the targets of strident secularist rhetoric . . . and, worse than mere rhetoric.
Yes, you can find Creationists and design supporters who have become abusive. That, too, is unacceptable.
But it is obvious that the overwhelming pattern of abusive behaviour is coming from secularist fever swamps and those whose zealotry is driven by such.
So much is this a pattern, that if UD were to relax its fairly strict moderation, it would be swarmed down by trolls of the ilk of the one who recently tried to “out” and trumpet my residential address — an obvious and utterly thuggish threat against my uninvolved wife and children.
That sort of ugliness needs to stop.
Now.
And, those who tolerate or hang out where this goes on unchecked are enablers of such thuggishness.
Which, given horrific history, is yet another huge red warning flag.
KF
Bab:
I am pretty sure he wasn’t talking about the lame speciation of alleged reproducive isolation. Most likely he was talking about macroevolution with its new body plans requiring new baody parts.
“Speciation”, almost as ambiguous,equivocal, and useless a word as “Evolution”.
Is there a pattern here? Do other theories have a tendency to base themselves on broken terminology?
looks like Kas deleted my comment and his reply seems the to me that The Darwinists can reach beyond those in the sciences….. so much for free speech….