…and this is a 
I know, I know already. We're getting creationist and religious ads appearing on the right sidebar.
Seed has farmed out some of their ad space to a generic ad provider, which doesn't pay us much and which stuffs in ridiculous ads from any old desperate wanker who wants to buy some attention. In this particular case, I know the guy behind the ad: he was one of those obsessed cranks who, for a while, was sending me nagging emails every day demanding that I read his ReVoLuTiOnArY ThEoRy. I guess he got tired of the cold shoulder and decided to buy space on the web, a sure measure of exactly how much validity we should assign to his claims, i.e., none.
Anyway, I read his site so you don't have to. Really, you don't: these are ads paid for by impressions, not clicks, so every time you load this page and get served up that ad, you are costing him money. So don't click on the ad at all, that's what gives him a sense of accomplishment. The best thing you can do is visit Scienceblogs over and over again, bleeding away the money he sunk into the ad and transferring it to my pocket, and never once click on it.
Anyway, his schtick is really clumsy. He wants you to visit his page in which he makes lots of dramatic claims, and then in order to go on and read more, you have to give him a name and address and get on his mailing list. Don't do it. It's like signing up for a subscription to have moldy maggoty tapioca poured in your ear every day.
Here's what he says if you were to waste your time clicking on his ad. It's a prediction that Darwinism will expire in a few years.
It's no different than the Berlin Wall in 1986, Enron in 2000 or the US financial markets 3 years ago: It's a bubble propped up by academic theorists, atheist zealots, politics and shell games - not hard science.
All that needs to happen is for the right 3-5 scientists to step forward and expose the evolution industry for what it is.... and it's not a question of "IF", it's only a question of WHEN. Darwinism has about 2-5 years left. And when the !@#$ hits the, fan it's it's gonna be quite a spectacle.
But that's not the important part! The real crime is that the "evolutionists" never bothered to tell you how evolution REALLY works. The evolutionary process is neither random nor accident. It's purposeful, it's pre-programmed, it's so ingenious and elegant it takes your breath away.
In fact the evolutionary paradigm I'm about to share with you was first proposed more than 60 years ago. It was an object of derision and ridicule until it won the Nobel Prize for Science in 1983.
No, he doesn't actually share the secrets with you. You have to sign up for his ego-serving mailing list, and then he'll tell you. Maybe. He was dunning me with email for a long time, and he never managed to say anything that made sense or even revealed a speck of biological knowledge. He's an electrical engineer and he's an idiot. Surprise!
By the way, there is no Nobel Prize for Science. There is a Nobel Prize in Physics, which was won in 1983 by Chandresekhar and Fowler for work on stellar evolution and the formation of elements; I don't think that's it. There's a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, won by Henry Taube for work on electron transfer reactions; even less likely. Then there's the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, won by Barbara McClintock for the discovery of mobile genetic elements; BINGO. McClintock's work was certainly surprising, amazing, wonderful…and also difficult to understand, and I can tell you that I've always been dazzled by the astounding insight she brought to that work, but no, it doesn't revolutionize evolution in any way. It's all pure genetics, no magic, and certainly has no implication of a designer.
As for his claim that Darwinism is in trouble and will end in 2013 — <snore>. It's a creationist cliche, and they've been saying this since before Darwin. Predictions that evolution is doomed have been collected by Glenn Morton in The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. The funniest one there is Dembski's prediction in 2004 that "molecular Darwinism" will be dead in the next five years. The only interesting thing about these predictions is that they set a date for the next creationist-mocking party. See you in 2013!
Comments
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 14, 2010 10:42 AM
Wait, wasn't the world supposed to end sometime late 2012?
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
July 14, 2010 10:42 AM
He sounds like the same guy who's been trolling my blog since its inception (which by the way - looks like it may be a good flick.) DM or whatever. I think the guy has no life seriously.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
July 14, 2010 10:42 AM
Dammit...all I'm getting are ads for Best Western...
Posted by: raven
|
July 14, 2010 10:44 AM
Can't happen, not in 2013. The world will end in 2012 because jesus uses the Mayan calendar.
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 14, 2010 10:44 AM
Wait
So what are we doing right now?
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 14, 2010 10:45 AM
And every other day in between then and now...
I've noticed that these interwebs have a curiously high idiot density.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 10:45 AM
I notice the ad seems to have already disappeared.
One of the things they do is pay a fixed sum at a given rate per thousand impressions; you can do something like pay $5 (or less, sometimes much, much less) for a thousand views, and on a site like this one, it means it shows up for ten or 15 minutes, and then the payout is exhausted and it goes away.
But the mockery...that can go on for years.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
July 14, 2010 10:51 AM
I have Adblock installed, so I don't see the ads at all. I wonder if I still cost him then... Anybody know?
Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com
|
July 14, 2010 10:51 AM
We are ignoring the elephant in the room: PZ is using a PC. !!!
Posted by: Whore of All the Earth
|
July 14, 2010 10:52 AM
The "evolution industry"? What exactly does that industry produce?
Posted by: IanM
|
July 14, 2010 10:52 AM
We have to wait till 2013 to mock this idiot?
Posted by: dobbinriddle
|
July 14, 2010 10:52 AM
What is it with electrical engineers? I hope that I've avoided that tendency toward woo, but maybe it's already too late. Is there a test for idiocy?
Posted by: Phodopus
|
July 14, 2010 10:54 AM
WoAtE, it produces your favourite brand of canned breakfast baby meat.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 14, 2010 10:54 AM
I'm now getting that ad as the top banner. Previously it was one for a right wing website.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 14, 2010 10:58 AM
I believe the evolution industry is responsible for the quality of electrical engineers. Which means that someone has fallen down on the job, since this one is still blathering... Is there a form I can fill out to alert the quality control department?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 14, 2010 10:58 AM
Please stop hating on engineers! The fact that creationists flaunt theirs as a substitute for scientists doesn't actually mean engineers are more likely to be insane in the membrane.
Posted by: browne.as
|
July 14, 2010 10:59 AM
I hope "Darwinism" does die out by 2013, along with "evolutionism". I hate those terms.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 14, 2010 11:02 AM
Now I'm getting ads telling me how evil my democratic governor is. I hate Google AdSense. Need to go do some more online shopping, I much preferred the ads for tents to the ads trying to convince me to make a radical 180 in my politics and my acceptance of science.
Posted by: HappyHead
|
July 14, 2010 11:02 AM
Electrical Engineering is a very difficult and stressful program - I myself chose not to sign up for it, because I value sleep too much, and most of the people I knew who took it didn't get much more than a few hours a week. Quite often, this results in the less stable people in the program cracking mentally, usually in very dramatic ways, though not often quite as public as the one this guy seems to have picked.
The most odd local example I can think of is the one who got arrested for urinating from the tops of multiple buildings around campus after his exams.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 14, 2010 11:02 AM
No one's hating on engineers, we're just wondering where the evolution industry's quality control squad is when you need it. Clearly this guy needs to have some quality performed on him.
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 14, 2010 11:02 AM
The fall of "Darwinism" is perpetually just around the corner... just like the Rapture, the Second Coming, or any number of less Jebus-ish apocalypses or utopian scenarios. What is it with the woo crowd and their need for huge drama, any day now? Isn't the real world exciting enough? If you want things to look forward to, just read up on the LHC and Fermilab!
Posted by: Whore of All the Earth
|
July 14, 2010 11:06 AM
@ Phodopus #13, you mean spam?
Posted by: happinessiseasy2
|
July 14, 2010 11:08 AM
I thought most advertising companies had terms of service to where you can't specifically tell people not to click on the ads.
Posted by: rieckg0245
|
July 14, 2010 11:09 AM
Hey, I am an electrical engineer and take exception with your calling me an idiot - by inference.
Wait, make that unscientific inference.
Okay, resume bashing the idiotic creationists!
Posted by: iHunger
|
July 14, 2010 11:09 AM
I too am an Electrical Engineer, and as such feel qualified to predict the fall of creationism in the spring of 2317.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
July 14, 2010 11:14 AM
So which is better, to not take the money from these guys, or to keep taking it and exhaust their money?
It is amazing how some people can read a little bit of science and then get all crazy with an implication that isn't born out by real life. Transposons are proof against evolution? Its ludicrous, like some people that think epigenetics is proof against Darwinism. All it is are just additional mechanisms that can be used to produce variation. Its like the biology equivalent of all those new age people that read a bit of A Brief History of Time and think that they're all magic energy people. It must be tough for science popularizers to make this stuff accessible by the layman and yet not provide them with some way of justifying the nonsense they want to believe.
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 14, 2010 11:14 AM
I have always wondered what it was like watching people stay on a sinking ship. I am curious if this behavior was seen before European exploration across the Atlantic occured. The educated people knew that the Earth was round, but there were still crazies out there trying to dispell the "myth." It's really strange how the mind of people like this work. In the face of all this information that clearly points toward evolution they say, "Nope. Not convinced." And then when someone is on trial for his/her life and these types are in the jury pool you hear things like, "He's guilty! Why else would the cops arrest him?" Some days it make me laugh. Some days it makes me angry. Today is an ANGRY day!
Posted by: Greg F.
|
July 14, 2010 11:17 AM
He's an electrical engineer and he's an idiot. Surprise!
As someone in comp sci, I can't help but facepalm when another instance of the Salem Hypothesis rears its ugly head.
Just so you don't think that enegineers and programmers are lining up to promote Creationism 3.0 aka Intelligent Design in droves, I actually use concepts from biology all the time in my research and so do most comp sci people I know.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
July 14, 2010 11:20 AM
Jeez, PZ, I already come here 200+ times a day. What else do you want?
MikeM
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 14, 2010 11:23 AM
That Templeton ad which had Darwin being bounced offstage was the final straw for me. I have had AdBlocker ever since.
Posted by: Egaeus
|
July 14, 2010 11:28 AM
As an electrical engineer, I would like to remind you, PZ, that the Salem Hypothesis states that creationists who claim scientific authority turn out to have engineering degrees. The converse is not true.
In my small department in the southeast, I know for a fact that over 25% of the faculty are atheists, and that the same number are christians. I don't know about the rest, but the point is that atheists are overrepresented.
Posted by: bob the squid
|
July 14, 2010 11:28 AM
Hate to disagree with our Atheistic Overlord, but the ad in question is still up on the site -- there's two versions I've seen so far. Actually, I'm rather having fun spamming the refresh button and costing this guy (admittedly small amounts of) cash.
Posted by: startlingmoniker
|
July 14, 2010 11:35 AM
If you're still getting ads, consider switching over to Firefox with the AdBlocker plugin. It's free, and you don't end up seeing this crap ever again.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 14, 2010 11:36 AM
Yeah, just showed up at the top for me.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 14, 2010 11:37 AM
So when did Seed start farming out the ads? Because now that you mention it, they all seem more annoying than I remember and I'm not sure if that's just because one has been pointed out. I did notice a right wing ad before this post came out.
Posted by: Elf Sternberg
|
July 14, 2010 11:37 AM
Wait a second, I know this guy. He challenged me to an on-line "debate" after I posted my Amazon review of Signature in the Cell. I actually read the whole thing and panned it. He had the same claim last year, but his date was 2012 then. I guess it's always "just three years out" or so.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
July 14, 2010 11:43 AM
@Phodopus:
Depends on how you have Adblock configured. You can set it to not download, you can set it to download and hide.
For those of you using Chrome, unless they've changed things recently, the adblockers there only hide.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 14, 2010 11:44 AM
For those of you worried about your investment, you can sell all your Darwinism to me (at a greatly reduced price, of course).
Posted by: bob the squid
|
July 14, 2010 11:52 AM
#33 (startlingmoniker)
Nah, I've never minded the ads too much and in this case I hardily approve of them. Because when I first saw an anti-evolution ad on Pharyngula of all places, I burst out laughing. I know it doesn't actually work this way (obviously), but can you just imagine the following conversation:
Dogmatic Moron: "I must spread my word of inane enlightenment far and wide! Who first shall hear my message?"
Ad Provider: "I can offer you space on a site which prides itself on skepticism and critical thinking."
Dogmatic Moron: "Exquisite."
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 14, 2010 11:52 AM
@ dobbinriddle #12
Haha!! When I was going through my transition to Atheism I went to a pretty conservative church to hear what they had to say. Of course the pastor greeted me after the service as I was a first timer to the church. Anyway, when he found out I was a Chemist he introduced me to this guy who was an EE thinking we would have a lot in common. That guy was the most batshit crazy person I have ever met. I ran away and never looked back (not to say that EE's are crazy, just that this guy was and he was an EE).
Posted by: koyote_ken
|
July 14, 2010 11:59 AM
Please, please PZ.......
I'm an electrical engineer as well. Yet I'm further "south" of creationism and religion than even perhaps yourself. Yet my profession gets lumped in with all of those morons. Why, oh why..............
Posted by: anmachao
|
July 14, 2010 11:59 AM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PZ why is your screenshot windows!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I'm supremely disappointed. Worst Operating System, ever.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 14, 2010 12:00 PM
#23 - happinessiseasy2:
I believe that's for pay-per-click ad companies. PZ's is a pay-per-impression.
Also, I doubt this is the work of David Mabus. That guy's too incoherent for what we're seeing here. I doubt he'd even have the mental capacity to learn how to use an advertisement company.
Posted by: agentwhim
|
July 14, 2010 12:03 PM
Nice to see so many Linux advocates here.
This guy believes that DNA is like a programming language and therefore can't have been created "randomly" (in his world natural selection is random).
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 14, 2010 12:08 PM
The problem with engineers is that they often take a very intensive and narrowly focused set of classes. They take enough chemistry and physics to get the basic principles that underly engineering, and no more. They have very little time (if any) for any classes outside their departments. This means that their views on all sorts of subjects will go unchallenged, so if they go in as creationist (or some other kind of) nuts, they'll likely come out the same way. The Comp Sci/Comp Eng department that I took some classes in required very little from outside the department. Basically, physics, chemistry, calculus, maybe English composition. They even created their own class specifically to meet the "social and ethical issues" requirement.
Posted by: jbowen42
|
July 14, 2010 12:08 PM
@bob the squid #39:
That's exactly what I thought. Does the idiot actually think he's going to convince anyone here?
Posted by: agentwhim
|
July 14, 2010 12:11 PM
He has an amazingly dull presentation which explains his theory. One key slide says: "Proof of an intelligent designer: (1) DNA is a code (2) All codes we know the origin of are designed (3) Therefore DNA is designed"
Seems familiar...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 12:17 PM
Who are woefully inadequate, when compared with crank engineers.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Roel
|
July 14, 2010 12:18 PM
Rowan Atkinson is an Electrical Engineer. Should that be was?
I guess this is the reason I find Electrical Engineers more hilarious than Civil Engineers.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 14, 2010 12:19 PM
I haven't got that ad once yet.
Coupla 'Bible CD' ones. Some weird 'Which of these pictures is a woman?' thing ('Laquelle est une femme?', technically... I often seem to get stuff in French--IP address based mebbe? I do read said language passably well, but don't use it much online). Some European stock trading outfit. But no 'EVOLUTION IS FINISHED111!1 LOL11!1' stuff, yet. Tried doing a few reloads; no dice.
I feel left out. Honest.
But at least my reloads burned some cash off the Bible CD folk. I can approve such enterprises only if they affix a proper warning sticker in the front: 'Warning: in case you haven't niced, the contents of this book are batshit wacko. Following any instructions herein is roughly as wise as would be listening to Son of Sam's dog.'
(/'If at any time while reading this book you begin to experience any of the following symptoms: sweaty palms, shortness of breath, the urge to do your hair with Brylcreem and/or become a televangelist, the urge to give a televangelist money, the urge to lie to and alarm your children and/or random passersby by telling them this book is in any way true, discontinue use of this product immediately and contact a competent physician or mental health practitioner...')
Posted by: Stuart
|
July 14, 2010 12:23 PM
I'm in the UK and using Chrome and am not/wasn't getting the ads. All the ads on your blog are for UK companies (Thomson Holidays, TM Lewin, o2) so I suspect it's regionalised and not everyone would have seen it*.
One of the ads on rotation you'll be glad to hear is for the film 'The God That Wasn't There'
*although Chrome does have the habit of showing me ads for things I've previously searched for like mobile phones
Posted by: gcedwards10
|
July 14, 2010 12:34 PM
I believe he was referring to the Nobel Prize for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Posted by: dingdong
|
July 14, 2010 12:37 PM
Ads are like the Intelligent Design arguments - easily removed with some simple science.
Use Firefox and Adblock, people.
I didn't even know this site HAD adverts until this post.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 14, 2010 12:41 PM
What is it with electrical engineers? :)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 12:41 PM
Perhaps it's worth noting that the whole "Darwinism will be overthrown in ...." schtick is the usual (typically) religious attempt at scaring people into switching loyalties before it's "too late."
In the science view, well, what if evolutionary theory was overthrown in 2013? To be sure, many people would hang on in denial (let's not pretend that scientists are above that), but most would just move on to the newer, better theory.
But Marshall and like dolts aren't interested in science and its reasonably non-traumatic switches to better ideas. This is all about magic, and with which magician you align yourself. Indeed, a major problem we have is that there are no predicted "dire consequences" for rejecting knowledge, just the certainty that idiots, etc., will throw out good contingent science in fear of reprisals after, say, 2013.
There's always an implied threat behind these "predictions," then. Don't ever suppose they'd be gracious winners if, inconceivably, they ever were accidently right. At best, there would be reprisals for the "persecutions" they've "suffered." At worst, well, what have we seen happening when theocrats take over (probably not as bad as Iran -- at first)?
Then too, if Marshall were more than an ignorant blowhard, he'd be telling us what would cause an overthrow of "Darwinism." Real predictions involve causal factors, which is why "Darwinism" makes scientific predictions (and rarely predictions about the future), while IDiots make empty threats to cow the gullible.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: M.
|
July 14, 2010 12:43 PM
Oh, that guy is a FANTASTIC crank. Mark Chu-Carroll had some fun with him and his interpretation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem a few months ago.
I actually occasionally use his site (Cosmic Fingerprints) as a teaching tool - it is one of the best practical demonstrations of Kruger-Dunning effect one could think of.
Not just evolution, but math, physics, pure genetics...everything is fair game. I personally especially like his conviction that the frameshift mutation that produced nylonase is an example of conscious/intentional exon shuffling process.
Posted by: Bob L
|
July 14, 2010 12:57 PM
Kind of amazed at all these professionals who start declaring themselves experts on fields totally outside their education. Take this crank, you would think after just working with MEs and Programmers he might get the clue his EE doesn't mean he know it all.
Posted by: Gary
|
July 14, 2010 1:00 PM
@gussnarp#45 - While working to get my BSEE, the two best non-EE courses I took were Intro to Geology and Intro to Astronomy. Both of these improved my understanding of how the planet and the universe work, and enhanced my Atheistic worldview. I've been in industry for 30+ years now. FWIW, most of the engineers here at work who are born-agains are Firmware Engineers (mostly CS degrees?), not Hardware designers like me.
Posted by: Stuart
|
July 14, 2010 1:00 PM
@dingdong
easily removed with things like adblock but then you're just taking money away from the likes of PZ!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 1:07 PM
By the way, none of this gets Seed off the hook.
Gee, let's farm out our ads (which presumably are necessary) to people lacking in any consistency with the science we're pushing, then we'll disclaim responsibility for woo promotions on our site.
Bullshit is called.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: grudgedk
|
July 14, 2010 1:08 PM
What happened to the Berlin wall in 1986? By the way, I have a degree in engineering, so you might have to explain it to me in monosyllabic words.Well for those of you who aren't engineers, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, which is what I'm sure he's referring to, was in 1989. Thus one can conclude that if he has a 3 year margin of error, on "predicting" things that happened 21 years ago, his chance of accurately predicting something which hasn't happen yet, is astronomically low. Just saying.
Posted by: Flex
|
July 14, 2010 1:08 PM
What gets me, as an electrical engineer, is that none of these creationists who try to impress us with their engineering street cred ever use their engineering knowledge. It's still the same old crap.
Where are the tensor products? The root-locus plots? The phasor diagrams? The complex equations? Linear algebra? Cracky, I'd settle for even some elementary calculus!
The lack of evidence for a god suggests that the question of the existence of a god has a limit of zero with an ever tighter epsilon as we learn more about reality. I'll concede that there may still be a delta which could squeeze a god in there, but for all intensive purposes the limit of F(GOD) = 0.
Mind you, my calculus theory is a bit rusty. ;)
Posted by: monado
|
July 14, 2010 1:15 PM
I turned off AdBlock for Scienceblogs so I'd see the ads and fund the site.
I was also hoping to see a "where are the readers" world map.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 1:19 PM
I moved the world map to the bottom of the about page. It's easy to put it anywhere, but some people griped at the distraction.
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
July 14, 2010 1:23 PM
Damn, I'm on Firefox with AdBlockPro.
*switches to Internet Explorer*
*Hits F5, a lot*
Posted by: David Utidjian
|
July 14, 2010 1:23 PM
Harold Camping of gravelly voice and Family radio fame predicts... no he is certain (this time) that the world will end on October 21 2011 and the rupture will happen on May 21 2011. He says get ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping
He is also a civil engineer so he should know, right?
Posted by: Crazyharp81602
|
July 14, 2010 1:24 PM
I got the same ad on my sites, too. A lot of times I visited my own sites to check on how much traffic there is on my site and sure enough there it is. At least I have filters on my adsense account to get rid of the likes of that ad.
Posted by: Heaventree
|
July 14, 2010 1:30 PM
We need to get a Millerite-style sect of Christer wackaloons to don white robes and sit chanting on a mountaintop while they await the fall of Darwinism.
Posted by: Ñbrevu
|
July 14, 2010 1:31 PM
#28
Yes! We even use something called "genetic algorithms", also called "evolutionary algorithms", which actually are an extremely simplified simulation of natural selection.
I always make distinctions between scientist and engineers. Most non-scientists, and that includes engineers, don't see the difference. Creationists commit the same mistake, because an engineer may sound like he knows very well what's he speaking about while actually having no clues (just because "engineer" sounds respectable), and this is what you always get whenever a creationist talks about biology.
By the way, Windows is not THAT awful, at least it has a lot of compatibility (specially if you aim for games). At least PZ uses Firefox.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 1:31 PM
Yeah, crazy creationist doesn't buy his ads from Seed -- there's an ad farm site that he buys time from, which then buys slots in all kinds of places, like here.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 1:47 PM
Yes, the Berlin wall moment is nigh for Darwinism-Evolutionism-Atheism.
Just 3 years before the fall of wall, communism still seemed strong but glasnost and perestroika would see it to its demise.
This is why atheists-evolutionists are so determined not to make the same mistake by allowing more openness and criticism of their naturalistic religion.
But regime change is inevitable and people like Myers are destined to be consigned to the ash heap of history sooner rather than later.
FREE SCIENCE NOW!
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 14, 2010 1:48 PM
re 45:
Is this really unique to engineering? I think that most scientific degrees also fit this description. As an EE I suppose I am particularly sensitive to this generalization and get a little defensive everytime some creationist tries to argue from the authority of his BSEE degree.
I would really appreciate a little more "correlation is not causation" or at least questioning which causes which. I think that it is more likely that a creationist will be more comfortable with an engineering degree than engineers are more likely to become creationists.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 1:58 PM
Yes, we're so good at preventing openness and criticism of our religion (you're right, moron, religion is an insult -- now run off to your real religion, flee our real science).
I mean, we'd never allow, say, a "Discovery Institute" or a "Biologic Institute" to exist. Never would something called Darwin's Black Box be allowed to be printed, or a moronic book like Signature in the Cell. Censorious creationist sites by a "William Dembski" and called "Uncommon Descent" will never exist while our iron grip is on all of the organs of power.
Indeed, we'd never allow stupid shit like yours to exist on "our sites," would we?
Glen Davidson
Posted by: ereador
|
July 14, 2010 2:00 PM
Moggie:
That is excellent. The real world is more magnificent than any god-monger's made-up bullshit. Insisting on some anthropomorphic creator-patriarch severely demeans the reality we see all around us.Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 2:01 PM
That's right! Evolution is doomed. Doooooomed. Soon you will find that DNA is not genetic material, but strands of dual pasta. Yes, my friends, you are all puppets dancing to the somewhat dulcet tune of the One True Pasta, the FSM Itself!
So preach it, Brother Nemesis! Preach the word of the fiddle-playing caller of the song of life, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let these Darwinian fools learn the truth from the rounded and full-lipped mouth of a True Believer.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 14, 2010 2:06 PM
I do like the "balancing" ad for The God Who Was Not There. I know they're random, but it is cool when they are both on the page at once.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 2:07 PM
Dude, could you please remove your iron grip from my organ of power? Please?
It's kind of uncomfortable.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl6D5g7Wx6GyHJjkTz0ZpOMyUfLuwe1Tv8
|
July 14, 2010 2:07 PM
I remember Perry when he posted this stuff on IIDB, on what became one of the longest-running threads ever. He even trumpets that on his site, but the reason it was the longest-running thread ever is that he was one of the most obstinate creationists ever.
Basically, his argument boils down to what agentwhim described @47: DNA is a code, all codes are designed, ergo DNA is designed. Literally hundreds of pages explaining why both premises are false completely passed him by.
Posted by: Snitzels
|
July 14, 2010 2:08 PM
So if I just keep hitting refresh, it's costing this moron money? Sweet.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 2:10 PM
Yes, if you are an atheist-evolutionist it might be better to deny the information-bearing nature of DNA altiogether.
But it is becoming painfully clear that the "simple cell" is an holistic information-processing and communication system of unparalleled complexity.
The "science" journals are staffed with ideological Darwinists who despise any criticism of their "theory". One can't even get a mildly critical letter to the editor of PNAS published let alone a manuscript.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS is what I have to say to you! Darwinism is kept alive through censorship.
FREE SCIENCE! REGIME CHANGE NOW!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 2:10 PM
I designed the code for water.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 2:11 PM
Yeah, I argue that because DNA is not designed (we have millions of pages of evidence that it is not), no codes are designed. That's why I pirate all my software.
Well, it's as intelligent as the opposite "argument" -- which apparently is Stephen Meyer's only actual "argument" in hundreds of pages of filler of Signature in the Cell.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 14, 2010 2:13 PM
re 45:
On the lighter side (sorry if it is old and tired), at MIT we used to say that MIT teaches more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing; while Harvard teaches less and less about more and more until you know nothing about everything. [It was unclear which was better.]
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 14, 2010 2:14 PM
Dude, you are not my nemesis.
(/Darwin Horrible.)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 2:21 PM
What pisses me off is that all of the "physics" journals are staffed with ideological Einsteinists and quantumists, while my theory of intelligent electrons never is allowed through.
And they even know that the standard model is inadequate, but they won't even consider that intelligent electrons are behind all of physics.
Einsteinism is kept alive only via censorship!
FREE SCIENCE! REGIME CHANGE NOW!
(notice my clever use of capitals and exclamation points? I do it to prove that I'm right)
Glen Davidson
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
July 14, 2010 2:21 PM
The ad I just saw on your page was for articles by America's greatest economist- Ben Stein.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 2:25 PM
I am not denying that censorship in peer review goes beyond the "theory" of atheism-evolutionism.
It is extensive - but the Darwinists know that the moment they allow objections to their "theory", it will be swept aways like communism was.
The number of dissenters in the scientific community continues to grow - Fodor is the latest to attack Darwinism. It is now only a matter of time before the Ark of Evolution sinks.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 2:30 PM
"Attack" is the right word for it, Perry.
But "scientist" is not the right word for Fodor, you dishonest git. Nor is his BS particularly new.
Do you really think that sheer stupidity and lies will sink the evil that is evolution?
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2010 2:33 PM
To be fair, some would call Fodor a "scientist," as in "cognitive scientist."
But that's stretching the term, to say the least. It's a potentially useful branch of knowledge (that is, I believe it is often useful, though a lot of BS comes from it as well), however it's far from the sort of science that neuroscience is.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 14, 2010 2:35 PM
Darwin's Nemesis, I do not give a flying fuck if you are serious or a Poe but your act is sad and anti-funny.
(Anti-funny sucks the humor from everything around it. The level of laughter decreases because it exist. Do not mix funny and anti-funny, you can guess what will happen.)
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 14, 2010 2:40 PM
Wait, Darwinism has an Ark? Can one rent it for cruises?
This is even better than discovering that evolution is an industry.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 2:40 PM
Glen,
Thanks for admission that evolutionism is satanic.
I suggest you read up on gene duplication - the research of the last decade has effectively destroyed this central pillar of the atheists' theory.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 14, 2010 2:44 PM
I dunno, Janine. I'm still laughing at this bit of priceless:
Glen:
Fruit loop:
Seriously, that's just awesome.
Soooo... let's go for a towfer:
(Clears throat...)
Y'know what gets me, too, is I've got this perfectly valid theory of gravity in which magical invisible space bunnies hold everything down so's it doesn't all fly off into space. And them durn Nazis at Nature won't publish a word of it, dagnabbit!
And I's got so many perfectly valid objections to that durned, hugely overrated relativity, too! Like, y'know how they say there's a redshift? Well, they're suppressing this, and you're not supposed to know, but you can still see blue stuff in the sky, too! Explain that, 'scientists'!
It's all a conspiracy, I tells ya. On the verge of collapse. Any instant. Or year. Mark my words, by
200120022003200320042005200620072008200920102011, there'll be no more talk of this Einsteinian nonsense, and my theory'll be all the rage! I shall be vindicated!(/Waits by baited hook expectantly...)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 14, 2010 2:44 PM
Darwin's Nemesis, enough! Your act is not funny.
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 14, 2010 2:47 PM
conflationism-strawmanism.
Um, aside from the 'holistic' qualifier, this has been the scientific understanding on the matter for a long time. It's the (fallacious) inferences that you then draw from it that you should be concentrating on. Are you too stupid to know where your own argument lies, bad as it is?
I predict you are either an obtuse, unteachable, glassy-eyed troll, or a very boring Poe.
Posted by: rieckg0245
|
July 14, 2010 2:49 PM
Re: 45
I am a EE (MS). I am also a chemist (BS). And by just enough physics, if you mean enough to score in the 90th %-ile on the GRE physics exam with a chemistry degree. If by narrow you mean a minor in geography with another minor in art history and a boatload of course work in biology (with more advanced courses in cell biology and genetics); then I guess you are right.
Let's face it, stereotypes are prejudicial crap. Creationists demonstrate a wide range of intellect, from Drs. Collins and Miller to the idiot in PZ's post.
Time to stop drawing boxes around groups of unknown people and judge individuals for their actions and words.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 2:51 PM
John Maddox, the late editor of Nature:
""I was so offended by it, that I said that while it's wrong that books should be burned, in practice, if book burning were allowed, this book would be a candidate (...) I think it's dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency. It's unnecessary to introduce magic into the explanation from physical and biological phenomenon when in fact there is every likelihood that the continuation of research as it is now practiced will indeed fill all the gaps that Sheldrake draws attention to. You see, Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy,"
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 14, 2010 2:55 PM
Killfile.
Posted by: ralfnausk
|
July 14, 2010 2:55 PM
I am jealous. As i view the site from Germany, i never get these interesting ads, placed at the right target-audience. Instead: Advertisement for the iultimate browser game an a promising "Klicke auf den Körperteile, um deine ideale Frau zu bauen", which seems to have been translated by Google or by the Oriental Languages Department - it says "Click on the Bodyparts to build your ideal woman". So sorry that i don't get the american Ads. They seem to be more fun ;-)
Posted by: jaybgee
|
July 14, 2010 2:59 PM
I haven't ever even looked at the ads on the side until after I read through about 40 of the comments here.
And why would anyone do pay-per-impression?
Posted by: vic.tanner
|
July 14, 2010 2:59 PM
Not all engineers are narrowly focused, but if one is narrowly focused, they could do worse than to wind up in engineering. I've often thought about writing a book about some of the engineers I work with. It could be quite humorous.
Anyway, I went around a few years ago with the technicians and engineers that I worked with, and, with that random sampling of 12 that just happened to be in the room at the time, 50% of us were atheists. Though, of those that weren't, I knew at least a couple of them were creationists. I think I just happened to have gotten a pretty high number that day. 25% atheist seems to be a pretty likely number on average.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 14, 2010 2:59 PM
Miller? Collins? They are creationists now? O RLY?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 14, 2010 3:01 PM
Whew, because I'm sick of having to pay for it.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 14, 2010 3:03 PM
It is a recent proposal of conveniently unnamed persons investigating morphic fields that people who write with boldface emphasis randomly interspersed throughout their text frequently will also be discovered to write their letters to the journals in crayon.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 14, 2010 3:05 PM
"Darwin's Nemesis" wouldn't happen to be the aforementioned EE student would he? The one with the ego-stroking mailing list who thinks transposons are proof that evolution is a consciously-guided process? I don't think he's a Poe honestly.
Really now, I thought the idea that DNA was a programming language had been debunked ages ago. For one thing, languages follow a power law of sorts for word distribution don't they? The DNA code doesn't. For another, WHY would a code with 64 different 3-letter "words" have only 21 end expressions? It's like me saying UGA and UAG are the same word (stop codon IIRC).
A little knowledge and a little pareidolia is a dangerous thing. He knows of codes, and he knows that something looks like a code, but he doesn't know some properties of codes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 3:08 PM
The only think that occurs with peer review is that the rules of science must be followed. Rules that ignore your imaginary deity. Rules that require real, not manufactured evidence. Rules that require one to demonstrate they are right. Funny how the poor creationists and IDiots can't follow the rules of science and evidence. Almost like they are religious ideas (not scientific theories)...Posted by: Qwerty
|
July 14, 2010 3:11 PM
Christians and/or creationists have also been predicting the end of the world for some time, but we are still here.
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 14, 2010 3:15 PM
@97: I love how the unhighlighted parts in your quote affect the whole goddamn meaning.
It's like you're quote-mining in plain sight.
Also, got anything better than a 20-year-old interview addressing a single idiotic book? You were promising much bigger things just a few comments ago.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 14, 2010 3:18 PM
@SteveM, Gary, rieckg0245, other engineers. I'm not claiming that studying engineering causes one to become a religious wacko in any way, I know full well it doesn't. My point, and it probably got lost in there, is that when wackos study engineering, they are often allowed to not interact with any material that will challenge their preconceptions. So if they start out wackos, they stay that way. I'm sure there are also engineers who take much broader courses of study (though I don't think it's actually possible to minor in anything the engineering programs at the school I graduated from). I do think there's a problem with the way we educate engineers, in that they seem to be encouraged to take a very narrow field of study from the very beginning undergraduate level. I don't think that this is unique to engineering either, just that engineering provides good examples of it. I may also be completely wrong, my sample of engineering programs is one, and it's a very intensive one. Maybe the others aren't like that. I also think it's a relatively new phenomenon. So anyway, that probably didn't help much. Especially since everyone knows engineers have no sense of humor.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 14, 2010 3:21 PM
ARRRRRRRGH! Curses! Foiled again by the forces of good and rightousness! They've uncovered our dastardly plot!Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 14, 2010 3:22 PM
"Thanks for admission that evolutionism is satanic."
Dude! Wicked! \m/ O_O \m/
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
July 14, 2010 3:23 PM
Ralf#99
We get that ad, too. It was odd to see it in the thread about women in science and skepticism.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 14, 2010 3:24 PM
forgot *Snidely Whiplash*
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 14, 2010 3:25 PM
Darwin's Nemesis @ 71;
Evolutionary Theory is emphatically not a religion. The very term "naturalistic religion" is an oxymoron. Evolutionary Theory is the best explanation currently available for the evidence we have gathered thus far. It is not some kind of dogma, a 'sacred cow' that is above criticism. If credible new evidence is found that casts doubt on the theroy, or a better explanation is put forward, then Evolutionary Theory will be replaced. Thus far, however, no such explanation has been forthcoming.
Your analagy is flawed. Science is a method for understanding reality, a means of mitigating the tyrany of the subjective with intellectual rigour. It is not some kind of oppressive conspiracy, and still less a political movement akin to the communism of the USSR that was.
"Free science" from what exactly? Free it from intellectual rigour? From the requirement that research be replicatable and peer reviewed? From the very need for an evidential base itself?
What you advocate is not the emancipation of science that you seem to believe it to be. It is the bastardisation of science into mere propoganda.
@ 80;
DNA forms chromosomes, that are the unit of heredity. By its very nature, DNA is an information bearing structure. I do not see why this should be seen as problematic for Evolutionary Theory. Also, one can be an atheist without supporting Evolutionary Theory. All that is required for atheism is that one does not believe in god. Rationalism and scepticism are often associated with one another, but they are not joined at the hip.
Citation needed.
Are you certain that such missives are not published because of "ideological Darwinists"? Is it not possible that such denialism simply lacks the scientific worth and intellectual rigour to be published? Where is the credible alternative explanation to evolution that does not rely on inately anti-scientific supernaturalism?
This is quite the accusation to hurl at academics, yet I am not seeing much in the way of evidence to back it up. The florid turn of phrase employed by John Maddox in the passage you quoted @ 97 is hardly evidence of censorship, merely that he feels that evolution denial lacks scientific worth because it seeks to contaminate science with supernatural woo, an eminently reasonable objection from someone who deals professionally with the real world, rather than with Bronze Age creation mythology.
Posted by: Perspexo
|
July 14, 2010 3:26 PM
Oh Noes, they've discovered that evilution is a satanic plot, quick, to the ark immediately! We must escape to plot more oppression of the vulnerable christian minority.
Posted by: writzer
|
July 14, 2010 3:27 PM
2013? But isn't the world going to end in 2012? So confused!
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 14, 2010 3:28 PM
He certainly has the same hubris-driven penchant for strained metaphors: the 'Ark of Evolution sinking' vs. the 'Berlin Wall of Evolution coming down', etc.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 14, 2010 3:30 PM
I'm feeling left out. As a mechanical engineer I can be as loony as whole sack of EEs and CEs, but none of us of can compete with those physicists
(sadly overlooked in our hometown)
Posted by: Leon
|
July 14, 2010 3:31 PM
Hey, he got one thing right, anyway! Or two, depending how you count it.Posted by: timgueguen
|
July 14, 2010 3:37 PM
Personally I care much what ads turn up on my blogs. If I can make money off of kooks all the better. Not that they're clicking much....
Of course it's not just evolution that generates "Waaah, you're all horribly wrong and suppressing the troooof!!!!!" There are plenty of physics cranks. Just look at Infinite Energy magazine. The most recent issuee includes an article that takes seriously a book co-written by early Theosophist Annie Besant describing "revelations" about atomic theory discovered via clairivoyance.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 14, 2010 3:41 PM
FREE HUEY NEWTON! RELEASE THE FODOR FIVE! TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO! I LIKE IKE! FIFTY FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT! Just trying to make you feel at home....carry on....Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 3:42 PM
Gregory,
Get real. The wheels of Darwinian evolutionism have been falling off for some time now. It IS a religion - like Marxism and Freudianism are.
The Human genome project showed massive evidence of the CONSERVING power of natural selection in over 22,000 genes.
Gene duplicates, which make up about 80% of eurkaryotic genomes, have not gone off to evolve weird and wonderful functions - they have been preserved for their redundant and compensatory utility.
Natural selection reduces diversity and acts against variation. It is an anti-evolutionary force in biology championed as something creative.
The sooner science realises that the all major kinds of organism were created from clay and placed on the earth by divine fiat in the not so distant past, the sooner we can move on towards a brighter future.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
July 14, 2010 3:44 PM
The best way to stop the 2013 end to evolution is to use our powerful atheist spells, incantations, curses, and magic powers!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 3:50 PM
Play with "Darwin's Nemesis" like a chew toy, but he'll be clapped in irons later tonight. I just got word that he's a known troll elsewhere, and also that he was banned at the RDF for massive sockpuppetry. Don't expect much from him -- he's a repetitive and unimaginative dullard -- but maul him while you can.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 14, 2010 3:53 PM
*popcorn popping* *getting comfortable on the couch in front of a warm monitor* No, actually at work but this is going to be interesting to get back to just to watch the slapdown ensue.(This is what you got from the Human Genome Project? Really?)Posted by: Cannabinaceae
|
July 14, 2010 3:56 PM
Goddamnit1: I was just going to go like this:
But now I can't. Guess I should have stopped at a "two-beer" lunch. Would've got me back in time.
I can't help pronouncing this "god-dam-nit" - anybody else?
Posted by: CJO
|
July 14, 2010 3:57 PM
all major kinds of organism were created from clay and placed on the earth by divine fiat in the not so distant past
Well, jeez, when you put it like that, it all sounds so reasonable! How could we have been so blind?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 3:59 PM
If you tell lies like that, you wouldn't know the truth if you tripped over it.Here is one truth. You must prove scientifically that your imaginary creator/designer/deity exists with hard, conclusive, physical evidence. All anti-evolution idjits to date try the presupposition argument. They presume a deity without demonstrating the conclusive physical evidence for one. In a nice linear, not circular, pattern. Science will not that circular reasoning. It must be linear. You must present your conclusive physical evidence, and only then can the deity be considered. An eternally burning bush would be nice. Othewise, science explains everything. Not the way you want, but the way things really are. Show hard conclusive physical evidence for your deity, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, where your insane attitude and presuppositions are meaningless...
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 14, 2010 4:06 PM
It was hit with radioactive fallout from Chernobyl?Posted by: bastion of sass
|
July 14, 2010 4:06 PM
I kinda get a chuckle out of these preposterous ads on Pharyngula of all places.
Similarly, I am almost always greatly amused by the Christian Twits who follow me on Twitter. Not the people who follow me who happen to be Christians, but the twits who tweet about their faith and who link to "I'm a Christian and Jesus loves you" web sites. I suspect that they become my followers when they pickup on keywords in my tweets, like "god" and "Jesus."
Given the nature of my tweets which mostly are either links to my blog posts which...well...they aren't exactly the kind of posts that most of these Christian twits would appreciate, or retweets of other atheists' tweets, I'm surprised that it takes most of them at least several days to stop following me.
The Christian Coalition is still following me though, after weeks now. If I were conspiracy minded, I'd suspect they were keeping an eye on me. Heh.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 14, 2010 4:09 PM
"The sooner science realises that the all major kinds of organism were created from clay and placed on the earth by divine fiat in the not so distant past, the sooner we can move on towards a brighter future."
Complete looney.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
July 14, 2010 4:09 PM
True as regards deleterious mutations.
False as regards beneficial mutations.
Given that you'd expect most mutations to be deleterious (at least change of function types - I guess there's an arguement to be made that neutral mutations are the norm considering the vast amount of nonsense in the genome) then in any experimental timeframe on creatures with generation times longer than a few months you'd pretty much only see selection against deleterious mutations.
If only someone like Lenski would come along and run a 40,000+ generational study on E.coli looking for natural selection for beneficial mutations in multiple populations.
Oh, wait.
Posted by: Leon
|
July 14, 2010 4:10 PM
For some time? You mean since 1825, when the first of dozens of claims were made that evolution's demise is imminent? I guess the claim never gets old...Sort of like Mendelianism, capitalism, and positivism are, I guess? See, "Darwin's Nemesis", when you use the term religion the way right-wingers use communism, you distort the term to the point where it becomes simply meaningless.
You must not be following the news. LOTS of people make objections to evolution--they're just never able to back them up with any evidence.
But, like other hard-core creationists, I guess you're uninterested in evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions. Sad, really.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 14, 2010 4:10 PM
re 128:
Actually, natural selection does reduce diversity. That is what "selection" means. What the troll fails to understand is that selection is only part of the process. There is the mutation part that creates the diversity from which the selection can occur. And then there is the inheritence part that preserves the results of the selection.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 14, 2010 4:14 PM
Andy Schlafly is an EE.
Posted by: stvs
|
July 14, 2010 4:17 PM
General advice for online privacy and security: do everything through a filtering proxy like privoxy, which also blocks annoying ads and popups.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 4:19 PM
But . . . Clay!
Seriously. Just look at the insane holistic complexity within the cell. It could only come from one place: clay!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 14, 2010 4:23 PM
It seems more reasonable that this holistic whatchamacallit came from dust. Clay is just sort of there, but dust causes sneezes and is more easily picked up by a vacuum cleaner. No, it's obvious that Darwin's Nitwit meant to say dust instead of clay.
Posted by: evogene
|
July 14, 2010 4:24 PM
The fall of Darwinism by 2013?????
The evidence for evolution by natural selection will disappear, or someone will come up with a better idea?
Posted by: stvs
|
July 14, 2010 4:25 PM
Andy Schlafly is an EE.
From a clown college.
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 14, 2010 4:25 PM
Darwin's Nemesis
hmmm...I would say that there are a billion people in China that would argue that Communism hasn't been swept away. So you are saying that Evolutionary Thoery isn't going anywhere. I agree!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 4:25 PM
I have a divine Fiat. It keeps breaking down. But it attracts the fancy of some members of the opposite sex. Well, and some members of the same sex, too.
It's all good.
Posted by: stvs
|
July 14, 2010 4:27 PM
Andy Schlafly is an EE.
From a clown college.
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 14, 2010 4:30 PM
Darwin's Nemesis
hmmm...I would say that there are a billion people in China that would argue that Communism hasn't been swept away. So you are saying that Evolutionary Thoery isn't going anywhere. I agree!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 14, 2010 4:36 PM
I do have a serious question or two. What is the unit of complexity? And, at what point does complexity necessitate design?
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
July 14, 2010 4:40 PM
Please provide a list of rejected papers.
Is there also a anti-Darwinian scientist called Jerry Fodor? It's strange how he has exactly the same name as that philosophy professor who wrote a book attacking Darwinism.
Am I the only one imagining a future scenario, where a psychiatric nurse kindly tells him this, having gotten the idea from a biography of Antonio Salazar?
Posted by: tomhuld
|
July 14, 2010 4:48 PM
As an electrical engineer I feel officially qualified to divulge to you that in fact 2013 will never happen as the world will end in 2012.
BECAUSE:
In 2012 Sarah Palin will be elected president whereupon the universe will disappear and be instantly replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
And now for a bit of jingoism: is it possible that the Idiot Engineer is a particular U.S. (and maybe British) phenomenon? My impression is that in the English-speaking world you go for a fairly early specialization and rather little general education, where the Continental European tradition is to give a broader education before university. This doesn't guarantee that you won't make a fool of yourself outside your own field. What it does is tell you just how little you actually know.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
July 14, 2010 4:50 PM
Darwinism will be dead by <?php echo date("Y")+3; ?>.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 5:01 PM
Depends on how you have Adblock configured. You can set it to not download, you can set it to download and hide.
where are the settings for this located?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 5:06 PM
The evidence for evolution by natural selection will disappear, or someone will come up with a better idea?
actually, it would require not only BOTH of those, but somehow to completely undo everything we know about genetics, biogeography, much of modern medicine, etc., etc.
don't short shrift the ToE, baby!
It's one of the most well-supported theories in history, support coming from across dozens of disparate disciplines.
It's not going anywhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 5:09 PM
There is the mutation part that creates the diversity from which the selection can occur.
...and the sex! don't forget the sex!
well, for those of us types that engage in it, anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 5:13 PM
...oh and for the people crosstalking "diversity", it entirely depends on which level you apply it.
the fact that selection can reduce variation within a population, is the very thing that drives diversity between populations.
otherwise, you'd be missing the big "origin of SPECIES" part.
Posted by: Perspexo
|
July 14, 2010 5:15 PM
Every needs to more respectful towards Darwin's nemesis, as he has pointed out himself he's going to win a noble prize in the future for discovering the information bandwidth of life.
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1011851#post1011851
Not even the best Poe could come up with his crap
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 14, 2010 5:18 PM
@ Tis - Actually, Schlafly is an EE and a lawyer. Princeton/Harvard, amazingly enough. Just shows you how much education you can avoid in the Ivy League...
Posted by: TCC
|
July 14, 2010 5:19 PM
AdBlock is good and all, but if you visit a site regularly, you might consider turning it off so you can see the ads and occasionally click on one if you are slightest bit interested. I browse with it on, but the sites I know and value, I disable it on those sites just so I can do my little part.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 5:25 PM
Dude, could you please remove your iron grip from my organ of power? Please?
ROFLMAO
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 14, 2010 5:27 PM
"Nemesis," my ass! He couldn't nemesis his way out a wet paper bag. I hate wet paper bags. Been anxious for a chance to slip a Marvin reference in here.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 14, 2010 5:39 PM
Yessss, Masssster. Thank you, Masssster.Posted by: kilternkafuffle
|
July 14, 2010 5:43 PM
Download the "hosts file". I see no ads on this site and almost no ads on any site. YouTube is so pristine.
Also, at whoever thinks Windows is "the worst operating system" - you are silly and have no ground to stand on.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 14, 2010 5:57 PM
Darwin's Nemesis @ 122;
It is worth it for the laughs alone...
Lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that life was somehow divinely created, in defiance of all evidence. Why do you assume (sans evidence) that it was created by one god over any other? Why not Odin, Brahmen or Allah rather than Yahweh (assuming that Yahweh is your prefered flavour of godhead)?
Why do you assume life was created from 'clay' rather than just 'poofed' into existence from nothing, if we are talking in terms of supernatural powers?
And the biggie, why claim that life was created in the "not so distant past" contrary to mountains of cosmological, archeological, paleontological evidence? This doesn't add up even if we give you a pass on the whole 'unevidenced creator deity' thing.
So adaptive divergence is just a myth then? Once you pair random mutation with natural selection, then it is a whole new ball game.
Mutation throws up the new biological attributes randomly, and natural selection is the process by which those mutations that are advantageous to a given organism's chance of passing on its genes grant a competetive advantage, and thus are passed on until they either become an attribute of the species as a whole or cause a species to subdivide into sub-species. You have got it exactly backwards.
I know this, and I am merely an interested layman.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 5:57 PM
Don't expect much from him -- he's a repetitive and unimaginative dullard -- but maul him while you can.
I have already received enough virtriol from the ideologues controlling the science journals who have reacted with consternation and contempt at my most excellent manuscripts which completely eviscerate the modern evolutionary synthesis.
The level of insecurity and denial is proof positive that Darwinism is nearing its collapse.
Humanity has been hijacked by an old bearded guy's fantasies for over 150 years.
It is time to see the light of creation once again.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 6:02 PM
Somehow they, unlike you, follow the rules of science. Which makes your claim inane and insane.Nope, you only have the darkness of ignorance and belief in imaginary deities and mythical holy books.The only denial I see is from idjits like yourself who can't even supply any physical evidence for their imaginary deity/creator/designer. What losers, as that is the very first thing you must supply...Posted by: Brett G
|
July 14, 2010 6:05 PM
What in the blue hell is the 'evolutionary industry'??
Posted by: Leon
|
July 14, 2010 6:08 PM
Much longer than that, even--more like two to three thousand. But we're working on reversing that bit by bit.Posted by: hyperdeath
|
July 14, 2010 6:16 PM
Darwin's Slightly Annoying Crank:
Examples please. (PDF format preferred.)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 6:19 PM
I have already received enough virtriol from the ideologues
I don't think so.
You're still posting nonsense.
thus, it can't be enough.
Of course, I rather doubt it would ever be "enough".
Posted by: chelfj
|
July 14, 2010 6:21 PM
Now I'm worried. I just changed my college major to chemical engineering with an environmental specialization from environmental biology. Does this mean that I'm likely to end up bat shit crazy?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 6:22 PM
What in the blue hell is the 'evolutionary industry'??
It's this big conglomerate of all business interests, including BIG OIL ~and~ BIG PHARMA, run by the illuminati and the UN, and headed by...
THE MAN.
...and we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 6:26 PM
I can't post them as I have submitted them to some of the leading science journals.
I could supply an abstract.
Actually, I sent PZ one of my manuscripts for pre-submission review...he never got back.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 6:31 PM
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity DN, and still no evidence your mythical holy book is anything but fiction. What a loser, as the proof for both must come before any claims of a creator/designer/deity. Still losing the debate due to lack of empirical evidence...
Posted by: stilgar
|
July 14, 2010 6:33 PM
For some species evolution has already ended from what I can tell about our society, evolution for humans has already stopped. Some stupid person jumps into a lion pit at the zoo, they tranq the lions, get him out, and he goes home, and fathers a kid, hence spreading whatever genes he has that made him dumb enough to jump into a lion's den.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 14, 2010 6:34 PM
Do I see "most excellent manuscripts"? Party on, dudes!
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
July 14, 2010 6:36 PM
So PZ is your academic advisor, now?
Not that you seem willing to accept certain expert advice.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 6:38 PM
LOL. The "beneficial mutation" is a profound evolutionist myth. Countless examples of mutations that confer disease resistance are used by the atheists-evolutionists to defend their ideology. But they almost always involve a "loss of function" EG:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5943/998
It is like if you amputate your limbs you won't get gangrene.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 6:38 PM
For some species evolution has already ended from what I can tell about our society, evolution for humans has already stopped.
you need cites for both statements.
I can't recall any population of individuals entirely exempt from selection, let alone drift.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 6:40 PM
I can't post them as I have submitted them to some of the leading science journals.
which ones?
when?
if it's been more than a couple of months, go ahead and post them.
You won't be violating any protocols, as most likely they are lying in a circular file somewhere.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 6:44 PM
No, it is a ploy by the religious ignoramuses like you to pretend evolution didn't happen.Still no evidence for your deity or babble. What an intellectual loser...
Posted by: Snakebite
|
July 14, 2010 6:56 PM
I just keep getting Pakistani Girls UK - Muslim Dating site adds. I can marry them and then get the, was it, hooked rods of iron?
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 14, 2010 7:03 PM
LOL. The "beneficial mutation" is a profound evolutionist myth.
You truly are an idiot. The reference to Lenski is an example of gaining a useful function. It is not simply a resistance through loss of function.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 14, 2010 7:10 PM
Cue some bullshit about how Lenski's experiment wasn't natural so it doesn't count for anything and/or it proves intelligence is necessary.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis
|
July 14, 2010 7:14 PM
I have sent my manuscripts to the following journals:
Nature
Science
PNAS
Evolutionary biology
Evolution
Gene
Genetica
Bioscience
Biological journal of the Linnean society
Genetics
Molecular genetics and genomics
and many others besides.
I am happy to email my manuscripts on request:
postdarwinism@ymail.com
If PZ is interested, he can too make a request.
One of them will surely overthrow the T of E if it is allowed to be published. It is absolutely devastating.
[“I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” “Why, so can I, or so can any man;. But will they come when you do call for them?” This guy is just too dumb to tolerate. And another one gets tossed into the dungeon. -- pz]
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2010 7:18 PM
Since there is no real science in them (based on your inane posts), don't hold your breath. They are in a paper recycling facility somewhere, safe from making your inane and insane.Still no evidence for your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble. What a loser...
Posted by: MJP
|
July 14, 2010 7:19 PM
@174
Oh, no! We must cower before your Mighty Knockdown Argument against Evolution!
The Nylonase mutation was definitely an increase in function, and that's just one example off the top of my head.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
July 14, 2010 7:28 PM
Actually... I'm tempted to sign up. My right ear has been clogged with wax all day and it's driving me fucking nuts. I think that stuff you describe just might do the trick.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 14, 2010 7:32 PM
Wow.read your link. This speaks against evolution how, exactly? And regarding Lenski,a beneficial mutation that also may confer some functional loss that is not a lethal mutation doesn't exactly scream creationism, does it? I mean god wouldn't screw up so badly as to come up with lethal mutations in the first place(you know the kind that are well documented in the medical literature),right? Please illuminate,let us bask in your brilliance.And yes, we would LOVE to see your manuscripts.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 7:36 PM
The Nylonase mutation was definitely an increase in function, and that's just one example off the top of my head.
don't forget this one, if the "lab" example is insufficiently "natural" for our current chewtoy.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 7:38 PM
I am happy to email my manuscripts on request:
I don't give cranks my email.
However, if you feel you CAN email them, then there is nothing stopping you from posting them.
the same rules apply, so you can't argue you are concerned with *ahem* integrity.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 7:39 PM
And another one gets tossed into the dungeon.
damnit, I'm too slow on the draw today.
time for lunch.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 7:53 PM
Yeah, I'm reading your mind and preemptively whooshing anyone you reply to into the dungeon.
Use your powers wisely.
Whatever you do, don't reply to yourself!
Posted by: Leon
|
July 14, 2010 8:03 PM
One quick note, DN. I mean this seriously and as helpful advice, though I expect it'll go right over your head. Scientific theories aren't suddenly overturned by a single paper that claims to disprove it, no matter how well-supported the paper may be.Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 14, 2010 8:15 PM
@ darwin's "nemesis"
Why would we do that? It has plenty of functions that are clearly demonstrated.
You misunderstand. It's painful for religion when evidence emerges that contradicts religious claims, because religion has no basis for refining its ideas in the face of new evidence. Scientific ideas are never presented as the unerring word of a deity, and thus we are free to revise our ideas as we see fit. And by the way, everyone knows the cell is very complex; this isn't news, and it isn't fatal to evolution.
What everyone despises is criticism that comes out of ignorance. Legitimate challenges have arisen multiple times, and the basic theory has always been reconciled with them. But, yeah, go in screaming about satan and conspiracies and no educated person will take you seriously.
Regime change? To what? Don't be silly; your rants and bullshit aren't useful to anyone, and neither are the lies that you've ingested.
If you want to be taken seriously go to school and make an honest attempt to understand evolution. Science doesn't owe any consideration to your uneducated and narcissistic "refutations".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 8:17 PM
Whatever you do, don't reply to yourself!
what happens if I reply to you?
oops.
:P
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 14, 2010 8:24 PM
Is it just me, or are you a little touchy on the Mighty Hammer today, PZ?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2010 8:28 PM
Oh, no -- paradox! This blog will self-destruct in 30...29...28...
No, not touchy. We seem to be having a wave of idiots barreling through right now. I've also got my laser sights on Strigoi in ">this thread -- he's spazzing out in a major kook eruption.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 14, 2010 8:30 PM
I think Strigoi is really a sockpuppet of Popeye the Sailor.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 14, 2010 8:40 PM
Upon review, I guess you're right, PZ. It has been an unusually stupid day. Wonder what that's about. Just plonkings are usually so rare...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 14, 2010 8:49 PM
Bang! Bang!
PZ's silver hammer came down upon his hand.
Bang! Bang!
PZ's silver hammer making sure that he was banned.
Posted by: mortal
|
July 14, 2010 8:50 PM
Okay, I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I just want to defend my peeps; we aren't all batshit crazy.
Posted by: jaybgee
|
July 14, 2010 8:53 PM
I know this is from way upthread, but am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a Poe? (Because really, how does knowing we were all made from clay by a deity help us advance at all?Posted by: Robbie
|
July 14, 2010 9:22 PM
Isn't creationism the longest running falsehood in creationism?
Posted by: davegodfrey
|
July 14, 2010 9:34 PM
I've come across "Darwin's Nemesis" elsewhere. He seems to think he disprove evolution by looking at shared primitive characteristics. Its rather bewildering really.
Fortunately he was kind enough to post two of his rejection letters, from Biology Letters who gave him pretty short shrift, and not even Theology and Science have any truck with him.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 14, 2010 9:42 PM
"I have already received enough virtriol [sic] from the ideologues controlling the science journals who have reacted with consternation and contempt at my most excellent manuscripts which completely eviscerate the modern evolutionary synthesis."
A little prideful, are we? A little full of shit, are we?
These "most excellent manuscripts" are probably resting alongside others "explaining" cold fusion, time travel and clairvoyance. All those submissions to that panoply of publications without any apparent positive feedback would send a message readily understood by a sane person.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
July 14, 2010 9:43 PM
Maybe I should buy ads and just put art on em. I mean, if anyone can buy ads like that.
Advertising is so ever-present, a nice break would be a good thing for everyone.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 14, 2010 9:46 PM
Based on the letters of rejection linked above, I posit that DN is a Behe clone.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 14, 2010 9:46 PM
No I think DN was a poe too...or so dumb that I doubt he can figure out how to eat.
but...did he really give us his e-mail? postdarwinism@ymail.com?
Was he REALLY that dumb? *goes off to plug the address into a few porn subscription sites*
Posted by: raven
|
July 14, 2010 10:40 PM
This is someone who is crazy or pretending to be crazy. Maybe manic phase of bipolar.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 14, 2010 11:16 PM
I inferred that DM might be a Behe clone. (pun in there somewhere) because of his use of the bacterial flagellum in a rejected paper. The same flagellum was destroyed in Dover, PA.
Posted by: Marella
|
July 14, 2010 11:58 PM
(Because really, how does knowing we were all made from clay by a deity help us advance at all?
It helps you get to heaven of course silly. And what more do you want after all? This life is merely the antechamber to eternity and of no real consequence, except that without it you don't get to sit at the feet of god for the rest of forever. All this 'make the world a better place' stuff is for the foolish who don't realise what the real game is, heaven!
This is how the likes of mother Theresa justify their callousness, and no doubt the pope as well. That's one reason why sinning priests get more consideration than their victims, being a victim doesn't interfer with your chances of heaven, being a practising pedophile does.
It's all completey nuts, but that's how they think.
Posted by: Asclepias
|
July 15, 2010 12:48 AM
Oh! Oh! The evolution industry gave us opposable thumbs! Useful little suckers they are, too!
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 15, 2010 12:58 AM
He reminds me of those apocalypse-crazed idiots who have been predicting the end of the world ever since the supposedly first coming of Jebus and when the predicted date comes to pass, they says "Oops! I screwed the calculations." And, the idiocy continues.
Posted by: RBH
|
July 15, 2010 1:37 AM
Perry spent some time pushing his code B.S. years ago on the late lamented Internet Infidels Discussion Board. His song hasn't changed in the years since then.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkr4shflArPYMT_xwVZPUHj6c0_g5gHXU8
|
July 15, 2010 1:40 AM
If he were predicting the fall of RELIGION on 2013, then maybe he might be on to something. Though I doubt religion is going to die for sometime yet, maybe in a few more decades.
Posted by: Darwin's Nemesis' Nemesis
|
July 15, 2010 9:35 AM
@davegodfrey
You have missed what is, by far, the best example of a the reviews that "Darwin's Nemesis" has received.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 15, 2010 9:37 AM
It's weird how much these anti-science folks CRAVE validation from science journals. Hey, 2013 Dude and the (maybe-a-poe) Lex Luthor of Evolution upthread, there is NOTHING stopping you from publishing online. If the science in your papers is sound and you truly are being censored from the publishing world, there is a vast network of people who would take interest and bring attention to your hypotheses. The more attention you have from people with a more solid reputation than yourself, the more likely you will be published!
Here's the thing: you are probably not a professional scientist. Given that fact, online publishing is a much better route than the science journals. It's just a matter of fact that science journals don't tend to publish work from non-scientists (much as any professional journals would not accept submissions from people not in the field; this is not discriminatory on orwellian censorship, it's just a fact of life in any professional field). Just as you can't play pro baseball without sepnding years playing in lesser leagues and school teams, you can't just wander into science and expect to be published alongside people who devote their lives to the field! You need to spend years studying the relevant material (not on the internet, in a classroom), participate in scientific studies, prove you understand how to design a study, get the funding for your study, and complete it. You can't just write up any old idea you have based on half-baked google-educated crack-pottery and expect to get published. If your ideas ARE good though, you can publish online and hopefully get the attention of somebody who has the experience and expertese to help test your hypothesis. That's a big "if" though.
It's more likely that your ideas are dumb and you are dumb.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 15, 2010 10:00 AM
@213
hahahah... holy shit, what a takedown. And of course the only criticism he acknowledges is that of his sem-colon usage (the last thing mentioned, and actually a pretty good indicator of his level of experience if he doesn't know how to properly cite stuff).
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 15, 2010 10:03 AM
No I think DN was a poe too...or so dumb that I doubt he can figure out how to eat.
but...did he really give us his e-mail? postdarwinism@ymail.com?
Was he REALLY that dumb? *goes off to plug the address into a few porn subscription sites*
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 15, 2010 10:08 AM
No I think DN was a poe too...or so dumb that I doubt he can figure out how to eat.
but...did he really give us his e-mail? postdarwinism@ymail.com?
Was he REALLY that dumb? *goes off to plug the address into a few porn subscription sites*
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 15, 2010 10:26 AM
Wow that response was far greater than I thought.
My rejection would have been at a level proportionate to the scholarly work...so a huge red letter "FAIL" and a GF of a cat laughing at him.
Posted by: mdcaton
|
July 15, 2010 3:28 PM
When you see these kinds of claims, always always ALWAYS try to bet them. You will either shut them up, make some money, or make them look like doubletalking wimps. There's no way around "even without doubting your sudden conviction that betting is wrong, it's curious that you're behaving exactly the same as someone who knows they're wrong and doesn't want to bet but doesn't want to admit it."
Posted by: george
|
July 15, 2010 3:44 PM
Re: 102
You do not consider Drs. Miller and Collins creationists? Both believe in God, at least to my understanding. The single most uniform definition of God is creator - viola!
You may confuse creationists that are also science deniers versus creationists that are not yet science deniers. With a God of the gaps, it is matter of time until they change their stripes of become science deniers.
Posted by: george
|
July 15, 2010 4:02 PM
Re #109
Now that is a point with which I can (mostly) agree. Although, there is an engineer you need to meet. He has a sense of humor, although we often wish he did not.
I especially agree with your point on how we educate. But would generalize it to most all degrees at the BA/BS level. We need more time spent broadly studying material outside you field.
Posted by: Lars
|
July 15, 2010 5:32 PM
I'd rather click the ad and give him a false sense of accomplishment. Am I evil? I guess I am.
But alas (well, not really), I use adblock.
By the way, PZ, you said he was dunning you with email. So, didn't he krueger you as well?
Posted by: rallymodeller
|
July 24, 2010 11:32 AM
Why is it that I can envision Darwin's Nemesis laughing maniacally and rubbing his hands together while saying things like, "they laughed at me! They jeered me at Evolution and Nature! Well, I'll show them! I'll show them all!"
Sad, really.