Elizabeth Liddle Runs Away

phoodoo; It would be easier to list sites that do it worse. Hmmm ... I can’t think of any for sure; Jerry Coyne’s WEIT maybe, but it’s been a while since I visited that one. sean s. sean samis

Well what do you know, its clear that these guys are obviously wrong about everything just like Stephen Meyer.... https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150505-a-surprise-for-evolution-in-giant-tree-of-life/ NOT! Andre

Sean, What sites on evolution and science facilitate reasoned discussion? Here lays out the science for all to see, and you can discuss it if it you like. Where do they do a better job of discussing evolution? Give an example. phoodoo

Elizabeth did not run away. She walked, slowly, head held high, secure in the knowledge that she was right and held the moral high ground. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. Mung

If Elizabeth has chosen to walk-away from this blog, it's not hard to justify, Barry. You explained it yourself in your post called "The Meat of the Matter": "[Elizabeth] could go through a point-by-point rebuttal of [your] comments, but it would be pointless, because far from rebutting the central thrust of [her position, you have yet to] lay a finger on it." There are two kinds of discussion sites on evolution and science in general, those that encourage and facilitate reasoned discussion and disagreement, and those that are intended for ideological cheerleading. This site is one of the latter. That is not a criticism; this kind of site is all too common. But it is a reason for persons who want to exchange rational views on the topic instead to go elsewhere. There's little to learn here except to explore the depths of human depravity. Obviously, THAT is a criticism. sean s. sean samis

#71

DNA_Jock: I think most (sane) readers would interpret those two sentences as meaning just what your italicized phrases mean.

I strongly disagree, for reasons outlined.

DNA_Jock: No attempt to defend Meyer against Elizabeth’s critique, I note.

I don't think that is necessary. Box

Did you miss the bit about his getting the actual predictions wrong? And the link she provided to her explanation of exactly how he got the predictions wrong? I think most (sane) readers would interpret those two sentences as meaning just what your italicized phrases mean. I agree it's tedious. No attempt to defend Meyer against Elizabeth's critique, I note. Yawn. DNA_Jock

DNA_Jock,

DNA_Jock: Now might be a good time to re-read what she actually wrote.

If you insist ... this is getting tedious though.

Lizzie: But he is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong.

Now explain to me why Lizzie does not, in effect, say: it is a problem that Meyer is no palaeontologist. Also explain where it is (only) said that: not being a palaeontologist puts him at risk making a mistake ? Or where does she (only) say: it may be a possible reason for him making a mistake ? Box

DNA_Jock It was you never showed how PCD evolved...... Andre

by unequivocally stating that it is a problem that Meyer is not a paleontologist—“it is a problem though”—Lizzie goes way beyond... [Emphasis added]

It is traditional, polite even, to quote people correctly when using direct quotation marks. Now might be a good time to re-read what she actually wrote. The 'problem', really, is that Meyer doesn't see his lack of expertise as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong. [link to TSZ present in original] DNA_Jock

Andre, What PCD argument? This one? Thank you for the reminder; that was fun. DNA_Jock

Phoodoo Hats of to you nonetheless. Andre

Andre, It was just the same old predictable stuff repeated nonstop. I also can't read it too long, but I enjoy knowing there is this resource to see the true nature of uncensored skeptics. I find it ironic that Mark Frank said he is leaving here, because comment could be censored at any time, and people aren't polite enough. So he prefers TSZ?? Where good manners abound? Lizzie seems to have the same complaint. "I like it at TSZ where people can say whatever nonsense they want. Why aren't they more polite to me at UD?" phoodoo

Phoodoo Did the lot at TSZ ever refute my PCD argument? Hats off to you for being able to resist the bile there. I can't do that. Andre

I will save people the trouble of reading through Lizzie's winded objection to Meyer's book. It goes like this: "Well, does ID have a better idea? " To which the answer is clearly, "Sure, any." phoodoo

Poor DNA Jock, Its so hard to admit when you are wrong isn't it? How long did it take you to try to find an error in his book somewhere, that isn't even an error at all. Keep up the faith Jock! phoodoo

DNA_Jock,

DNA_Jock: What Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Lizzie is not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support the claim that he made a rookie mistake. Rather, she is using it to explain a possible reason for the mistake.

I congratulate you on your effort, but nope, by unequivocally stating that it is a problem that Meyer is not a paleontologist—"it is a problem though"—Lizzie goes way beyond saying that it is possibly a problem, or a "possible reason for the (alleged) mistake". Box

Like I said all along (#36): what Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Meyer has indeed made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no paleontologist would make.

Close, but no cigar. What Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Lizzie is not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support the claim that he made a rookie mistake. Rather, she is using it to explain a possible reason for the mistake. See my post 35. You are welcome to engage on the subject of whether Meyer made a rookie mistake, but only vjtorley seems to have even tried. And no, I do not count Mung's and your incoherent scribblings on the subject as engagement. I do get a laugh out of people like phoodoo who will happily use a press release from 1989 in order to defend Meyer's writing a whole book about the complexity of the cell and failing to mention that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme. Comedy gold! DNA_Jock

DNA_Jock,

DNA_Jock: When we say “Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.” We mean that Jack’s lack of plumbing education put him at risk of making this rookie mistake. It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.

It doesn’t make sense to talk about being “at risk” of making a mistake, after it is concluded that a mistake has been made—“Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong”. So, allow me to rephrase that: we mean that Jack’s mistake was made possible due to the fact that he is no plumber. IOW Jack made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no plumber would make.

DNA_Jock: In precisely the same manner, it is not ad hominem fallacy to say “Meyer got the predictions wrong because he is no paleontologist.”

Like I said all along (#36): what Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Meyer has indeed made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no paleontologist would make. To be clear: not only must you show that Meyer made a mistake, but also that the alleged mistake qualifies as a rookie mistake. Now I have stated that I rule that possibility out (post #36). And I see no effort by you to point out that Meyer made such a rookie mistake other than a referral to Lizzie’s incoherent scribblings. Box

Colin @47 I might agree with you usually, but Lizzie not only has a site which is ten times more toxic to outside opinions than here, she actually brags about the fact that her site is not designed to be polite. I would say she pretty much encourages nastiness on her own blog. So I am not so sure she should be able to come here and claim she knows more about evolutionary theory than Stephen Meyer and get away with it, without comment. phoodoo

phoodoo, tone please. Remember the broken window theory. KF kairosfocus

Sidney Altman, USA and Thomas Cech, USA for their discovery that RNA (ribonucleic acid) in living cells is not only a molecule of heredity but also can function as a biocatalyst. This discovery, which came as a complete surprise to scientists, concerns fundamental aspects of the molecular basis of life. Many chapters in our textbooks have to be revised. Many chemical reactions cannot occur without a catalyst. A catalyst is a molecule which can facilitate a chemical reaction without being consumed or changed. Virtually all chemical reactions taking place in a living cell require catalysts. Such biocatalysts are called enzymes. Until the results of Altman and Cech became known, all enzymes were considered to be proteins. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html So when should we be expecting your Nobel Prize Jock? Should I tell them to send it to your hole ? phoodoo

DNA_Jock, It should be quite clear that a philosopher of science whose PhD was earned on origin of life with relevant background going on to pen sustained best selling books on OOL and OOBP should have more than passing familiarity with core claims and evidences, comparable to utter ABC basics like before working on plumbing, lock off the pipes -- something I think I first consciously encountered at about age 4-5 when a bathroom faucet washer had to be replaced -- and no plumber was in sight. (And BTW, when I taught introductory control systems my first assignment, invariably, was go lift the lid on our friend John, with its float-ball level controller or more modern forms, on the firm belief that familiarity with a basic practical case was pivotal. Familiarity enough to do some fiddling as necessary.) This makes the issue of a lockout of those without the union's seal of approval regardless of actual knowledge content, highly comparable. I am sure you are familiar with the debates over closed shops and their consequences. KF kairosfocus

DNA Jock, The only hole being dug is the one burying you. Most enzymes are proteins, but that doesn't mean an enzyme has to be a protein. "Enzymes are known to catalyze more than 5,000 biochemical reaction types.[2] Most enzymes are proteins, although a few are catalytic RNA molecules. " From Wikipedia, your favorite source of truth. Also: Aminoacyltransferases Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase Peptidyl transferase More: "Enzymes That Are Not Proteins: The Discovery of Ribozymes " "Most, but not all, enzymes are protein molecules, and even protein-based molecules can contain non-protein components." And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwEgcH1zsXw Still: Enzymes "There are a few things to remember about enzymes. First of all, all enzymes are proteins (just about - there are a few exceptions but you will not come across them in this class)" http://www.austincc.edu/emeyerth/enzymes.htm Also: What are some examples of non-protein enzymes? - Quora www.quora.com › ... › Medical Sciences › Biochemistry And: www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/2CD13D36-0C47-4017.../Enzymes.pdf Enzymes are molecules (mostly proteins) that control the rates of specific reactions Its getting deeper Jock, you want to climb out yet? Sorry that your schooling stopped so long ago that you can't keep up with the latest discoveries. Enzymes are catalysts. Its a catalyst. Meyer never said it was a protein. But it just goes to show how ill informed, and low you will stoop to try to be right-even when you are wrong. phoodoo

DNA-Jock: on FSCO/I, I think this should be more than an answer: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-sparc-et-al-vs-the-patent-reality-and-relevance-of-wickens-organized-systems-which-must-be-assembled-element-by-element-according-to-an-external-wiring-diagram-with-a/ . . . especially as we are dealing here with a descriptive phrase for a commonplace observational phenomenon with trillions of cases in point. If patent facts as common as the text strings in posts in this thread and the configuration based functionality of ever so many systems backed up by 40 years worth of recognising that this reality is relevant to OOL and OOBP does not help you, then your problem is not the merits. KF kairosfocus

Are you aware that Meyer earned his PhD in Phil of Sci with a focus on life origins, and has linked background in history of sci? At one of the leading universities in the world.

Yes, I am aware. Thank you for the kind words about my alma mater.

If he is in error, it is appropriate to say that, but it is increasingly unseemly to suggest a closed shop lockout.

I don’t see the parallel.

So, far too much of the above comes across as a red herring led away to a caricature strawman loaded with ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issue.

I thought you’d say that.

A good place to start afresh is with the commonplace reality of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, and its only observationally known, analytically grounded adequate cause: intelligently directed configuration, aka design.

I’ll echo Winston Ewert here: has this “FSCO/I” thing been published anywhere other than your blog? DNA_Jock

phoodoo, You are in a hole: try to stop digging. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/enzyme Medical Definition of ENZYME : any of numerous complex proteins that are produced by living cells and catalyze specific biochemical reactions at body temperatures Are you claiming that peptidyl transferase is a protein, phoodoo? Wiki:

Peptidyl transferase activity is not mediated by any ribosomal proteins but by ribosomal RNA (rRNA), a ribozyme. This RNA relic is the most significant piece of evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis.

Given the subject matter of "Signature in the Cell", calling peptidyl transferase a protein is a pretty huge mistake; I didn't claim it was the biggest one. DNA_Jock

Box writes:

DNA_Jock, From ‘every plumber shuts off the mains’ follows that being a non-plumber is a necessary condition for making the mistake of not shutting off the mains. So, it’s okay to say:

Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.

Here [BECAUSE] is used in a rather loose sense. As in: “the importance of a wedding ceremony escapes you, because you are not a woman.” If you wish to argue that a ‘necessary condition’ is not a ‘sufficient reason’, which I obviously agree with, and that therefor [BECAUSE] is inappropriate, then fine. [Emphasis added]

We agree absolutely; you are making my point for me. When we say “Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.” We mean that Jack’s lack of plumbing education put him at risk of making this rookie mistake. It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition. In precisely the same manner, it is not ad hominem fallacy to say “Meyer got the predictions wrong because he is no paleontologist.” Elizabeth had explained previously the exact nature of Meyer’s mistake. She never claimed that not being a P was a sufficient condition for the error. Please re-read my post #40 to see that it is the confusion between the strict, logical use of [BECAUSE] and that looser, colloquial use of [BECAUSE] that the source of the problem here. DNA_Jock

DNA_Jock: Are you aware that Meyer earned his PhD in Phil of Sci with a focus on life origins, and has linked background in history of sci? At one of the leading universities in the world. If he is in error, it is appropriate to say that, but it is increasingly unseemly to suggest a closed shop lockout. Particularly, when in fact the base facts are actually admitted by EL in her attempted critique, namely that to get wide "morphological distance" on the usual branching ToL model, you have to first start with a v small one between sub populations then cumulatively build up descent with modification, per Darwin's phrase. The issue at stake is, this strongly points to a statistical expectation of a pattern dominated by transitional forms, rather than the RW one of finding dozens of top level body plan level differences in absence of observing significant numbers of precursors on a branching pattern, and seeing such top level diversification in a narrow timeline window on the usual dating techniques. An expectation that should be undergirded by observed demonstration of how chance small variations plus culling out of less successful varieties accumulates to descent with modification up to significant body plan feature level. After 1/4 mn plus fossil species with millions of samples in museums etc and billions more in situ, from the whole world and all fossil eras, it is no longer plausible to appeal to poverty of record in hand and want of exploration to date. Not after 150 years. The gaps are strongly present with the Cambrian as capital example. Likewise, observed demonstration of adequate causal capability is still conspicuous by absence. If you had one or the other, you could make a plausible case for the missing other half. But, you have neither. What instead we see is Lewontin's imposition of ideological materialism by the back door and reading all evidence based on that ideological imposition. And philosophers of science are well qualified to take that kind of issue up. So, far too much of the above comes across as a red herring led away to a caricature strawman loaded with ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issue. Instead, to the merits we must go, and that points to the stunning predominance of gaps as one goes down looking for the sources of the branching patterns being put forth. And it gets worse once one looks to expectations of molecular level branching, given the divergence of different molecular "trees." The time has more than come to ask whether the epicycles are simply moving you into ad hoc patchwork territory to patch a favoured but fundamentally flawed school of thought. A good place to start afresh is with the commonplace reality of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, and its only observationally known, analytically grounded adequate cause: intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Begin where Meyer did in his PhD research: origin of life, the root of the tree, in some warm pond or whatever other pre-life reasonable setting. Then, show us analytically and with adequate observations, how one plausibly gets from a chemical soup of realistic concentrations, to cell based life with an embedded, integrated von Neumann kinematic, code using self replicator. OOL, the root. Next, show us adequate cause for origin of body plans [OOBP] via chance variation and culling by differential reproductive success leading through descent with [increasing] modification, on to branching tree macro evolution. If you can toss in a suggestion or two as to how this then gets us to origin of rationally contemplative, language using, knowing mindedness, that would be a bonus. This is of course the essence of the longstanding, never adequately answered, UD pro-darwinism essay challenge; which had a 6,000 word suggested limit (feature length article). KF kairosfocus

DNA_Jock, From ‘every plumber shuts off the mains’ follows that being a non-plumber is a necessary condition for making the mistake of not shutting off the mains. So, it’s okay to say:

Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.

Here [BECAUSE] is used in a rather loose sense. As in: “the importance of a wedding ceremony escapes you, because you are not a woman.” If you wish to argue that a ‘necessary condition’ is not a ‘sufficient reason’, which I obviously agree with, and that therefor [BECAUSE] is inappropriate, then fine. Box

I think that people laid it on a little thick against EL. I wouldn't want to come back here, if I were her. Collin

peptidyl transferase noun pep·ti·dyl transferase \?pep-t?-?dil-\ Medical Definition of PEPTIDYL TRANSFERASE : an enzyme that catalyzes the addition of amino acid residues to the growing polypeptide chain in protein synthesis by means of peptide bonds http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/peptidyl%20transferase Apparently this is the biggest problem DNA Jock could find in Meyer's book. phoodoo

DNA Jock, If your biggest problem with Meyer's book is that he calls peptidyl transferase an enzyme, his book must be pretty darn accurate. Thanks for the seal of approval. phoodoo

DNA_Jock:

1) Of course I meant “wrong” in the narrow “in this specific case” sense.

And I "defaced" Reciprocating Bill's post but you forgot to leave off the scare quotes. Mung

Box, First two minor points: 1) Of course I meant “wrong” in the narrow “in this specific case” sense. 2) You ask:

Do you have reading comprehension issues as well? What part of Lizzie’s “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” is in the form of your version: “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong?

This part: “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” corresponds with “This is wrong. This is wrong because it is factually incorrect.” Whereas: “But he is no paleontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though…” corresponds with “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong” More importantly, you might want to brush up on logic 101. I wrote, and you failed to understand:

The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”.

Let’s break this down: “He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist “ i.e. Not a P, therefore wrong Which is the same as Not wrong, therefore a P, or as I put it:“only a P could get this right” You were trying to equate Not a P, therefore wrong (i.e. He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist) With “error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make.” Which is P, therefore not wrong This last statement is equivalent to Wrong, therefore not P You were committing the fallacy of the inverse. Look it up. Do you have any interest in discussing why Meyer was wrong (about phylogenies, or about peptidyl transferase) or would you rather continue to display your ignorance of logic? I did enjoy your attributing to me the logical error that you had made. DNA_Jock

DNA_Jock #40,

Box: He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make.

DNA_Jock: Oh dear. Let’s suppose, arguendo that “the error is of the kind that no paleontologist…would make”.

Okay, let’s do that.

DNA_Jock: From this we can safely conclude that “If he is wrong, therefore he is no paleontologist”, (…)

Unless you meant to say “If he is wrong on this specific topic which no paleontologist gets wrong…” you have failed to grasp the simple point of my argument.

DNA_Jock: (…) and the rather goofy, but logically equivalent, “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong”, (…)

“Goofy” indeed, unless you meant to say “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong on this specific topic which (as far as we know) no paleontologist gets wrong” My simple point is that there may very well be specific basic knowledge that is shared and adopted by every member of a profession X. If anyone makes a specific mistake, which stems from a lack of aforementioned specific basic knowledge, it follows that such a person is not a member of profession X.

DNA_Jock: The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”.

Oh dear … Your conclusion is based on a logical mistake, which no logician would make; therefor I can safely conclude that you are no logician. Do you see how this works, DNA_Jock? You think that “only a non-paleontologist makes mistake A” is logically equivalent to “only a paleontologist does not make mistake A”. This is of course utter nonsense. I doubt that there is even a name for it.

DNA_Jock: This is not an argument that anybody has made here.

Finally something I can agree with. You are the author of this absurd argument.

DNA_Jock: Rather, Elizabeth’s argument was of the form: Because Meyer is not a molecular biologist, he is at risk of making elementary mistakes about molecular biology.

Do you have reading comprehension issues as well? What part of Lizzie’s “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” is in the form of your version: “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong?

DNA_Jock: Elizabeth has previously explained why it’s a mistake.

Hahaha! Box

How does one define another as being "good" or not so "good" at their profession? How is that definition employed? Is it based on concensus? That is odd, for how can one assign quality of workmanship or intelligent thought to agreeing with a majority? It is even odder still when you consider the majority of significant scientific findings have come from those going against the current concensus; questioning it, daring to stand against the flow and challenge thought that has prevailed through tradition. Further, talk to almost any very great scientist and they will tell you that great success, innovation and discovery comes from questioning every consensus and choosing to not ignore those things others ignore and dismiss. So unless one can provide evidence of flaw and unsound reasoning in an argument, it seems tenuous at best to classify another as "not good" when this is based on largely the lack of agreement with concensus. That is the sort of attitude that leads to scientific stagnation and sadly is one of the chief attitudes and arguments among materialists, and as such, can tantamount to ad hominem in its attack. Dr JDD

Box writes:

He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make

Oh dear. Let’s suppose, arguendo that “the error is of the kind that no paleontologist…would make”. From this we can safely conclude that “If he is wrong, therefore he is no paleontologist”, and the rather goofy, but logically equivalent, “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong”, which reveals the appeal to authority hidden in your premise. The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”. This is not an argument that anybody has made here. Rather, Elizabeth’s argument was of the form: Because Meyer is not a molecular biologist, he is at risk of making elementary mistakes about molecular biology. When he wrote a book about molecular biology, he called peptidyl transferase an enzyme. This is wrong. This is wrong because it is factually incorrect. [Not part of Elizabeth's argument, but one might say, colloquially, that he made this error because (note the subtly different meaning of the word ‘because’) he is no molecular biologist.] Because he is ignorant of the fields about which he writes books, he puts himself at risk of making elementary mistakes. This is a problem for any author who pontificates from a position of ignorance. His lack of qualifications does not affect the veracity of what he writes, but it does make him run the risk (the realized risk in Meyer`s case) of looking like an idiot to the non-ignorant.

Needless to say that this doesn’t go for Stephen Meyer and the alleged mistake.

If by “Needless to say” you mean “no point in saying” then I guess so. Elizabeth has previously explained why it’s a mistake. DNA_Jock

Lizzie states that Stephen Meyer gets “the actual predictions wrong” and that this follows from the fact that “he is no palaeontologist” ...

No, she does not. Lizzie may have made those two quoted statements, but she did not state that one followed from the other. Roy Roy

MF:

Removing all of someone’s comments without any explanation or even recognition is straight out of 1984.

LOL. You people are delusional. UD is not government website. It is a private site run by private individuals. You have no rights here other than those given to you by the operators of the site. Nobody owes you anything because there is no contract between you and the operators. Live with it. Now using our tax money to teach our children to believe in a bunch of government-mandated, Darwinian, dirt-did-it, fairy tales is straight out of 1984. Mapou

Actually, the two statements work together to form an emergent property neither of the constituent statements have on their own: the property of non-contradictory contradiction. William J Murray

He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make. Only if someone makes a basic mistake that no plumber in the world would make (e.g. not shut off the mains), does it make sense to say: he made the mistake because he is no plumber. Needless to say that this doesn't go for Stephen Meyer and the alleged mistake. Box

It’s pretty simple, really:

I don’t think Richard Dawkins is stupid at all. I think he’s rather smart. But he is no philosopher, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets his epistemology wrong.

And then

I am certainly not a philosopher. And nor is Dawkins. I do not criticize Dawkins because he is not a qualified philosopher. I don’t even criticize him because he, not being a qualified philosopher, writes a book on philosophy. I do criticize him for the errors in that book. If you think that Dawkins is qualified to write the book, then I am just as qualified to point out the errors. In other words, qualifications are irrelevant. What matters is the content of the book. If anyone here disagrees with my critique of his book, then please defend Dawkins against my critique.

But I contradict myself. Apparently. DNA_Jock

Mung @ 33. You need to warn me when you are about to say something like that. I was drinking coffee and some came out my nose as I laughed. In the future, please preface such observations with "Put your coffee down." Barry Arrington

Barry, you just don't understand the meaning of the word complementary. The two statements are complementary in that they complement one another [combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another] to show that when taken together they are contradictory. Mung

RodW,

RodW: Meyer is wrong; this may be because he is not a paleontologist.

And when a paleontologist is wrong, about let's say feathered dinosaurs, is that because he is a (qualified) paleontologist?

WJM: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist.

Indeed! Box

RodW, re-read the OP. It is about Lizzie thinking she can make mutually exclusive statements and then claim the mutually exclusive statements are perfectly complementary. Barry Arrington

WJM said

RodW: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist.

Certainly, and people can be self-taught experts in a particular field. Barry, Yes I know it was about Meyer's expertise etc. But I thought the whole squabble that led to Lizzie leaving began when she was accused of making an ad hominem. RodW

Mung: I forgot that "qualified" means "never makes mistakes". My bad. William J Murray

RodW, Go back and read the post. The point made does not hang on whether Lizzie's remarks fall within the definition of ad hominem. To the readers: You know what is perhaps more fascinating than Lizzie contradicting herself in the same comment thread and then insisting that she did not? People like RodW who come in and suggest that mutually exclusive statements are actually quite complementary because it is all subtle and stuff. Barry Arrington

WJM, But if Meyer was a qualified paleontologist he would not have made "Meyer's Mistake." Get it? Mung

RodW: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist. William J Murray

A statement that Lizzie made but you guys ignored:

Ad hominem: Meyer must be wrong because he is not a palaeontologist. Not Ad hominem: Meyer is wrong; this may be because he is not a palaeontologist.

This is a subtle but valid distinction so you guys should stop your attack. I think she's wrong to bring it up though, its irrelevant. If Meyer thought it was worth his while he could go back to grad school and get a phd in paleontology. My guess is that it wouldn't change his views in the slightest. After all, it didn't change Well's views and Kurt Wise got a phd in geology from Harvard and still claims the earth is 7000 years old. RodW

MF and other defenders of EL: If EL was not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support her criticism of his work, why bring it up at all? William J Murray

If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one’s posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people’s personal info.

People are "welcome" at the TSZ if they are willing to put up with the worst kind of outrage. I visited that playpen a couple of months ago to correct the errors contained in KeithS's wildly skewed series on (against) Christianity. Since he could not address my arguments, he decided to blashpheme the Holy Spirit by name. I left without saying goodbye. I will never return. StephenB

Elizabeth Liddle:

If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one’s posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people’s personal info.

Well, no. that's not exactly true. Elizabeth recently edited a post made by Reciprocating Bill. Her justification was that I had edited that same post by Reciprocating Bill (I had indeed added a comment at the end). So that means the same post got edited twice! But that won't happen at TSZ. LoL. See, her statement is true, but it's not exactly true, so there's no contradiction. See how easy that is? Must be the exception that proves the rule, or something. Mung

I am quite sure she has better things to do over at TSZ. Haven't you noticed the increase in guano since her return? Mung

You have to marvel at Liz's brass neck! Liz reminds me of a mad friend of my brother, whose brakes failed as he tried to draw up behind another car at the traffic-lights at the junction of Church Street and London Road in Enfield. He immediately got out of the car and said to the woman who eventually emerged from the car in front, 'What's the big idea?' 'What's your game?' That sort of nonsense, presumably implying that she'd pulled up sharply in front of him, when in fact she'd been completely stationary. Albie used to wear a pork-pie hat, before the Spaghetti Westerns, put both feet in the table in the ABC cafeteria, although in the upstairs part, jump off trains to Liverpool Street, between stations, trains which used to move at about 15 mph and chase across the gardens of the private houses, etc, lining the railway tracks. Soho, to Albie, was Chinatown. Just anything madcap to make life more exciting! Anything that is, except setting off explosives in Hilly Fields, a sort of park, which his even madder mate, Sam favoured. I know it sounds incredible, but I believe he owns an art gallery now! Anyway, it occurred to me, do you think it possible that Liz is a kind of female version of Albie. The way she talks sound very prim and proper, as befits an academic lady, but that wild streak of incorrigibility and bare-faced denial, you know...? Barry: How true that Poe's Law! Axel

Upright BiPed @ 8, You have doubtless heard of Poe's Law (without a clear indicator of an author's intention, it is often impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of such extremism). I think we just saw something similar. People like Mark Frank are so blindly invested in one side of a controversy, that they can't tell the difference between sarcastic and sincere support of that side. Barry Arrington

Box @ 17:

I’m sorry to see Lizzie go.

I am too Box. Her incoherent rantings in defense of materialism are the best evidence I can think of against it. Barry Arrington

Lizzie: I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you why those two posts (which you don’t even have the courtesy to quote in full) are perfectly consistent. People can judge for themselves.

Lizzie states that Stephen Meyer gets "the actual predictions wrong" and that this follows from the fact that "he is no palaeontologist" and goes on to conclude that therefor Meyer being no palaeontologist is "a problem". On its own this is muddled thinking: does Lizzie hold that Charles Darwin got his predictions wrong because he was no palaeontologist? And to what do we ascribe the countless wrong predictions offered by qualified palaeontologists? Anyway, she goes on firmly contradicting herself by saying:

“I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist.”

Still not admitting her mistake, forces us to think very little of her.

Lizzie: So no, I won’t be posting at UD in the future.

I'm sorry to see Lizzie go. By having a knack of being wrong about everything all the time she unknowingly provides a sheer infallible compass. Has anyone ever heard of her being right about anything? For instance, when she says that Meyer gets "the actual predictions wrong", one can be pretty sure that those predictions are spot on. Or when Lizzie says "those two posts are perfectly consistent" one does not have to actually read those two posts to state with near certainty that they are not. Box

EL, you know exactly what has been going on for years centred at a cluster of hate forum and blog sites. That has now reached the point where the publishing of non online info in a local newspaper site (subsequently removed by the Editor on tort grounds once it came to his attention) indicates on the ground stalking of remotely connected persons. All I will further say is that the time has more than come for some serious reflection on what has been enabled for years and where it has now reached. All that was really needed if the facts were there to back it up was simply show that blind chance and mechanical necessity were credible, observed actual causes of FSCO/I. There has never ever been any justification for the hatred, hate sites, slander, outing, outing of uninvolved family, stalking, unhinged bully-boy tactics, crude and cruel caricatures abusing RW photographs [including of a Grandmother], general thuggishness, ill-bred smearing, attempted undue undermining of livelihood [FYI, I am not a "fraud" -- part of what was put up by snide suggestion in the context of my dealing with a case of abuse of parliamentary privilege . . . which itself is directly actionable . . . ] and venomous abuse that you full well know of. It is high time that these things are faced for what they are and are cleaned up at an alphabet soup list of fever swamp sites that you know of. KF kairosfocus

KF:

I see outing is now on the TSZ list (though under a euphemism), one hopes including outing tactics at remote hate sites and fora and linked stalking including on the ground stalking and target painting: we know you & where you are, those you care for to remote degree & where they are as well as where they have businesses etc. Unfortunately, years of enabling behaviour have already happened.

No euphemism, KF, just precision, and it always was. I have just clarified the rule, as the issue arose. It should now be clear to all TSZ posters that the rule applies to people we know only offsite as well as regular posters. My concern is not simply with "outing" per se, or it would not apply to people who have "outed" themselves elsewhere, but rather with preventing google searches for a person's real life name from turning up posts on blogs that they do not want to be associated with. Obviously the rules at TSZ do not, and cannot, cover what people post at other sites. Elizabeth Liddle

Mapou

And dear Lizzie is qualified to judge this because of what again?

Barry was not playing his debating games with Lizzie over her qualifications. He was trying to catch her out for being inconsistent.

This whole thing is kind of scary though and smacks of the underlying fascism of it all.

Removing all of someone's comments without any explanation or even recognition is straight out of 1984. Mark Frank

F/N: Just for record, kindly cf 61 - 63 ff to about 81 in the thread below on on Dr Meyer's qualifications to speak to issues, what he actually has said and how the point at stake seems to mainly pivot on saying the same thing from a different perspective: https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-device-18-the-youre-too-stupid-to-understand-why-im-smarter-than-you-dismissal/#comment-564072 KF PS: I see outing is now on the TSZ list (though under a euphemism), one hopes including outing tactics at remote hate sites and fora and linked stalking including on the ground stalking and target painting: we know you & where you are, those you care for to remote degree & where they are as well as where they have businesses etc. Unfortunately, years of enabling behaviour have already happened. kairosfocus

Isn't the real problem here that Liddle is backing a horse she thought was lame but is actually dead? If Darwinism wasn't intellectually dead, its big champs wouldn't be Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne, etc. Meyer did nothing other than raise the questions we all have if we take an interest in the period, questions that the dead order can't answer. It doesn't fit their box. A "correct" paleontologist would never have done what Meyer did. Take heart, Darwin followers, there are still jobs for you, fronting establishment rot. Always remember to pull the forelock to the right pretentious asses as you make your way. News

Barry: I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why those two posts (which you don't even have the courtesy to quote in full) are perfectly consistent. People can judge for themselves. But I am going to point out that to accuse me of "running away" to an "echo chamber", coming from someone who regularly bans anyone whose views he dislikes, frequently without acknowledgment, and, in a recent case, in a manner that also deletes their entire posting history, is scarcely in a position to talk about "running away" and "echo chambers". I see absolutely no point in spending time composing posts for this forum knowing that if you don't like them you will simply delete my entire contribution from your database, and I don't see why anyone else should either. In my case, on this occasion, you have chosen your alternative tactic: to malign me from your bully pulpit. So no, I won't be posting at UD in the future. You can keep your echo chamber to yourself. If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one's posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people's personal info. Indeed, you are very welcome yourself, Barry. Elizabeth Liddle

MF:

In the first comment Lizzie was not criticising Meyer for his lack of qualifications but for his lack of ability as a paleontologist.

And dear Lizzie is qualified to judge this because of what again? This whole thing is kind of scary though and smacks of the underlying fascism of it all. What these morons are telling us is that they alone are qualified to decide whether or not Darwinian evolution is correct. We, the unwashed bozos, just need to accept it as fact because they say so. IOW, do as we say and worship our god because you are too stupid to know any better. Yeah, right. I'll tell you what you can do with your little idol. Mapou

Yeah, I come across these people way to often, when talking origins. Like the time the subject, between myself and this Darwinist got to the subject of defining... what a theory was vs. what a law--observable, testable, repeatable fact was. The conversation somehow got onto the subject of gravity, and he (at least I believe that it was a he) was convinced--tried his hardest to convince me, that gravity was only a theory (NOT a fact/law....with actual laws, that accurately predict its affect/properties). I explained to him that there was more than one "theory", that attempts to explain the mechanism/cause behind this phenomenon/fact we call "gravity". And when I even provided the dictionary definitions of the words "theory" and "law", he claimed that I was just confusing the issue ....huh?! It was like... WOW, really!!! lol. Needless to say, my response--from that point, wasn't too "politically correct" ....my bad. 55rebel

Mark, spit the hook out. Upright BiPed

UB You are right - the word "qualified" makes all the difference. In the first comment Lizzie was not criticising Meyer for his lack of qualifications but for his lack of ability as a paleontologist. Mark Frank

No Barry, in the first sentence she said "palaeontologist" but in the second she very clearly said "qualified palaeontologist". The modifier is not something you are talking into account, as if you think all palaeontologist are the same - and they surely are not! See how easy it is. Upright BiPed

Someone has suggested that the text I left out somehow changes the meaning of the sentence. Here is the full sentence.

But he is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong.

Let us parse this. Liddle makes four claims: Claim 1: Meyer is not a paleontologist. Claim 2: Meyer does not see the fact that he is not a paleontologist as a problem. Claim 3: It (i.e., the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist) is a problem though. Claim 4: It is a problem because he gets the predictions wrong. Claim 3 stands on its own. She flat out says that his not being a paleontologist is a "problem." Thus, Liddle has criticized Meyer for not being a paleontologist unless the statement "his not being a paleontologist is a problem" is not a criticism on the ground that he is not a paleontologist (and that is absurd). To be sure, she goes on to explain why she thinks it is a problem. That does not change the fact that she called it a problem. Conclusion: It follows that the the following statement is false: "I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist." Barry Arrington

This is what happens when you assume things Dr Liddle assumes too much. Andre

part 6 In this segment, Casey discusses the sixth problem: how molecular biology has failed to yield a grand “Tree of Life.” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-6/ part 7 In this segment, Casey discusses the seventh problem: how convergent evolution challenges Darwinism and destroys the logic behind common ancestry. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-7/ part 8 In this segment, Casey discusses the eight problem: differences between vertebrate embryos and how they contradict the predictions of common ancestry. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-8/ part 9 In this segment, Casey discusses the ninth problem: how neo-Darwinism struggles to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/05/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-9/ part 10 In this segment, Casey discusses the tenth problem: how neo-Darwinism has a long history of inaccurate predictions about vestigial organs and “junk DNA.” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/05/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-10/ bornagain77

OT: Casey Luskin finally has all ten parts of his podcast series up: podcasts - The Top 10 Problems with Darwinian Evolution, part 1 - Casey Luskin In this first segment, Casey discusses how there is no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-1/ part 2 In this segment, Casey discusses the second problem: that unguided chemical processes cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-2/ part 3 In this segment, Casey discusses the third problem: that random mutations cannot generate the genetic information required for irreducibly complex structures. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-3/ part 4 In this segment, Casey discusses the fourth problem: that natural selection struggles to fix advantageous traits in populations. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-4/ part 5 In this segment, Casey discusses the fifth problem: how abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-5/ bornagain77

Good. We should not be afraid of the Darwin cult. They love to dish it out but they can't take it. They're all a bunch of wimps and crybabies. Mapou