Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re so desperate for something to talk about that when I ban someone it’s front page news over there. Don’t people like Richard Hoppe have more important things to do with their time like making sure the entries in the tree of life are in the proper order? I guess not. Who I ban and why is more important than evolutionary biology these days. Ouch.
Just for the record, Febble (Elizabeth Liddle) was banned because she claimed to be a scientist yet didn’t have the first clue about how natural selection works to conserve genomic information. She was writing long diatribes about how rm+ns is “intelligent” yet she didn’t understand and couldn’t be made to understand an important and basic bit about how rm+ns operates. I know people like Richard Hoppe don’t care at all about the evolutionary science being accurate at Panda’s Thumb, but I do care that it’s accurate on Uncommon Descent, and when someone displays that much ignorance, can’t be schooled, and is a critic they get the boot.
Febble wrote:
If it [natural selection] makes a mistake, it doesn’t repeat the mistake. It makes sure that in the future it does what worked last time. So in that limited sense, yes, it “plansâ€Â. It “chooses†what worked, rather than what didn’t. And like us, sometimes it gets lucky by accident, and remembers that trick too.
Gee, I wonder how that works. When a mutation causes death of the individual before it can reproduce how exactly does natural selection not repeat that mistake? Does it send a memo to all the other members of its species saying “don’t try this, it’s a mistake”.
I patiently explained to Febble:
You’re still making mistakes in describing rm+ns. Saying it learns from mistakes is misleading. It needs constant reinforcement of what it learns or it forgets even faster than it learned. This known as conservation of genomic information. Anything that is not immediately useful (no selection value) is not conserved within the genome forever. The genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result. This is really basic stuff you don’t know.
Febble then responded that I was just wrong about all this and she was right. I didn’t bother approving her last response but moved her email address from the moderation list to the spam list.
I’m sure the fresh Doctor Liddle will find a happy home on Panda’s Thumb though. Her claim to fame is writing articles for left wing blogs about how the Republicans steal elections by voter fraud in the United States. That’s right up your alley at Panda’s Thumb – ID is so well refuted by stories of election fraud. How could it be otherwise since George W. Bush supports teaching the controversy. Only a criminal could support teaching the controversy. I’m sure Liddle’s analysis of voting patterns is just as good as her analysis of how natural selection never forgets a mistake… 😆
Update: It has been suggested to me that Liddle did not write that Bush stole the 2004 election through voter fraud. Well, here’s what she wrote. You be the judge.
New: Snark-free Exit Poll analysis, by Febble, Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:00:28 AM PST
Regarding my “fraudster credentials”: I am a fraudster. I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged. It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed.
Maybe someone can explain to me how to parse this language into a claim that Liddle doesn’t think Bush won in 2004 through election fraud. Good luck.