Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 6:51 PM
351 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Granny Magda, granpa, halibut (5 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,055 Year: 25,661/21,208 Month: 1,288/2,338 Week: 45/364 Day: 45/57 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 207 (146285)
09-30-2004 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


we all knew this was coming
The Discovery Institute has responded to the Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article. The first of several proposed responses.

One Long Bluff

First, their supposed rebuttal begins with -- and is characterized throughout by -- a condescending tone and personal attacks on Meyer's motives.

Second, GME claim that Meyer's article contains "serious mistakes" that include "errors in facts and reasoning.” Yet, as we will show, GME misunderstand and/or misrepresent important aspects of Meyer's argument. This calls into question the relevance of some of their critiques and their overall judgment about the quality of Meyer’s reasoning.

Third, GME do offer a potentially significant criticism. They claim that Meyer fails to discuss scientific literature that refutes his main claims. And, indeed, they provide a list of scientific citations that ostensibly solve the central problems that Meyer’s essay addresses, namely, the origin of genetic information and the origin of morphological novelty. As they put it, "Meyer's paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature."

To someone unacquainted with the scientific literature, GME’s list of citations list might seem impressive. An actual reading of those citations, however, shows that they fail to support GME's claims. Indeed, GME appear to be engaged in what might be called "literature bluffing."

enjoy


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 8:14 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 9:15 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3380 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 167 of 207 (146286)
09-30-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
09-30-2004 7:36 PM


No, I'm not happy about that.

I don't get it. I have made a clear distinction between ID and what I call IDIOT theory. I happen to side with him that ID can be scientific even if is not in any position to replace evolutionary theory, and that it is being used by others for nonscientific purposes.

How can this be an insult to HIM, if he is engaged in actual scientific pursuits? The only way it could be an insult is if he is misrepresenting himself and following those I am referring to as IDIOT theorists.

Unless you are saying you dislike my using that term? I find this a bit odd since you are obviously insulting ID theorists by lumping them under the Creationist title which (even according to your description) comes from the discredited movement of nonscientific ends.

Is there a reason why IDIOT theory to directly label the true theory being advanced is any worse than labelling it Creationist? It appears different to me only in degree of bluntness.

If you are saying it just sounds stupid, or childish, and not clever (ah well) and so you think I oughta drop it, that's something else entirely.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 10:35 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 207 (146288)
09-30-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
09-30-2004 7:36 PM


quote:
Percy:
They're anonymous, you know nothing of their qualifications.

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."

Your email buddy agrees with the decision of the reviewers. Also ask your email buddy if they did indeed have the qualifications Sternberg says:

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

quote:
Percy:
Neither McDiarmid nor any of the officers of BSW knew about the ID article before publication. Any responsible editor would have checked before running an article that not only went against the established scientific focal area (taxonomy) of the journal, but also had so much potential to embarrass this previously well-respected journal.

He did NOT go against the scope of the journal. That much is obvious.

BTW my initials are AJ not JP(?).


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 10:16 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 9:20 AM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 180 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2004 2:50 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3380 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 169 of 207 (146291)
09-30-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by ID man
09-30-2004 7:52 PM


appear to be engaged in what might be called "literature bluffing.

Uhhhh... this appears to be your forte. Contrary to your announcement the Discovery Institute has NOT responded to GME's critique of the Meyer article.

I went there expecting SOMETHING, but all there was was an ad hominem attack followed by a promise to back it up with something more substantial in coming weeks.

I am glad you mentioned the DI website. Can you explain how it does not advance religious/political agendas along with ID?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:52 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 170 of 207 (146365)
09-30-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ID man
09-30-2004 8:01 PM


John Paul writes:

Your email buddy agrees with the decision of the reviewers.

JP, read the sentence from McDiarmid again, carefully this time:

"Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."

McDiarmid agreed that the reviewers were in support of Sternberg's decision to publish.

McDiarmid did not say he agreed with Sternberg's decision to publish.

He did NOT go against the scope of the journal. That much is obvious.

But who are you trying to convince, JP? Yourself? Who do you hope to persuade with such bare, unsupported assertions in the face of the evidence, namely the more than hundred year history of the journal, the unanimity among the BSW officers, and the opinions of the rest of science in general.

BTW my initials are AJ not JP(?).

Your IP address is recorded with every message posted here. Your IP address and ID Man's IP address are identical. Thanks go to MrHambre for first noticing the similarity in posting style, and to AdminNosy for checking the message IP addresses to verify.

One of the reasons that the forum guidelines include a stipulation against registering under more than one name is so that people know who they're discussing with. I already knew your position on ID, and had you been honest about who you were I would not have engaged in discussion with you. Your charade has wasted a lot of my and other people's time.

Why is it that whenever someone engages in something sleazy and underhanded that it's almost always a Creationist? Look, Creationists, IDists, whatever you want to call yourselves: the ends don't justify the means. If Creationism and ID replace evolution it will be through honest effort and evidence, not by abuses and tricks like Sternberg's and JP's.

It's no wonder you leap to Sternberg's defense, JP. You're just like him.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 09-30-2004 09:20 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 171 of 207 (146370)
09-30-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Silent H
09-30-2004 7:56 PM


I really shouldn't offer JP (or anyone) any protection under the guidelines here, since moderator guidelines recommend against taking action in threads in which you're a participant. I'm sorta limited to just whining about not following the Forum Guidelines.

My opinion is that it's giving JP something to focus on beside the topic, so it's working against you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:56 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 172 of 207 (146434)
10-01-2004 8:31 AM


Does anyone know what the traditional policy of journals is regarding the anonymity of peer reviewers? I'm wondering if there's any chance of discovering the identities of the reviewers of the Meyer paper.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 173 of 207 (146435)
10-01-2004 8:52 AM


Fact Check
I found this comment over at http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/index.php?p=132:

Interestingly, both ISI Web of Science and PubMed search shows no publications for Sternberg in the last ten years...

I know some of you have access to these services. Do you know if these are the appropriate searches for Sternberg's field of taxonomy? If so, is this true? Because if true, it starkly contradicts Sternberg's own list of "Refereed Publications" at this page of his website.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2004 9:55 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13231
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 174 of 207 (146437)
10-01-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by ID man
09-30-2004 7:52 PM


Re: we all knew this was coming
Well the DI couldn't go on ignoring the problems with Meyer's paper forever but it looks pretty bad for them.

In the context of using CSI as an argument against evolution for instance criticism 'A' even as presented by the DI author is clearly correct. Since by Dembski's defintion of CSI evolution has to be eliminated as a possible explanation before an event can be identified as CSI any attempt to use CSI as an argument against evolution begs the question. Meyer attemtps precisely this sort of argument and thereefore he is logically wrong - probably becaue he has been mislead by Dembski's assertions that "evolution cannot produce CSI" and failed to take into account what Dembski's CSI really is. I suppose it is Dembski's fault for making such a misleading assertion in the first place.

(This is also relevant to the assertion that Meyer has shown that there is CSI in biology - if he so badly misunderstands what CSI is there is no way he could have shown that it is present. He doesn't even know HOW).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:52 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 175 of 207 (146438)
10-01-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ID man
09-30-2004 8:01 PM


Hi, JP!

A few months ago in Message 2 I replied as Admin to a guidelines inquiry from you with this:

There are a few guidelines that when violated will bring swift action: plagiarism, participating as multiple ID's, and huge cut-n-pastes that waste disk space, no matter how apropos.

I provide this information in case you were considering claiming you weren't aware of the rule. Your awareness of the rule is also indicated in the previous message where you said this:

John Paul writes:

8. Please do not participate as more than one ID. You can change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.

John Paul- no need to change.

Yes, there was no need to change.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1655 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 176 of 207 (146445)
10-01-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Percy
10-01-2004 8:52 AM


Re: Fact Check
I just checked on the references on WOK (ISI's Web of Knowledge) and I've found a couple of them the ANOPA paper and the 'role of repetitive elements paper.

I don't think there is any reason to doubt his publication record.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 8:52 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 10:30 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 177 of 207 (146452)
10-01-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:16 PM


Consideration of the Claim that the Meyer Article Was Consistent With Prior Content
Hi, JP!

I wanted to come back to your earlier point regarding this claim from Sternberg at http://www.rsternberg.net:

The journal has published in areas such as comparative cytogenetics, phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, developmental studies, and reviews of faunal groups.

Sternberg provides a list of representative titles in support of this claim, which I reproduce here in it's entirety:

Rickart, E. A. 2003. Chromosomes of Philippine mammals (Insectivora, Dermoptera, Primates, Rodentia, Carnivora). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 116(3): 699-709.

Panero, J. and V. A. Funk. 2002. Toward a phylogenetic subfamilial classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 115(4): 909-922.

Pohle, G. and F. Marques. 2000. Larval stages of Paradasygyius depressus (Bell, 1835) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Majidae) and a phylogenetic hypothesis for 21 genera of Majidae. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 113: 739-760.

Newman, W. A. 1985. The abyssal hydrothermal vent invertebrate fauna: a glimpse of antiquity? Bull. Biol. Soc. Wash. 6: 231242.

Brusca, R. C. and B. R. Wallerstein. 1979B. The marine isopod crustaceans of the Gulf of California. II. Idoteidae. New genus, new species, new records, and comments on the morphology, taxonomy and evolution within the family. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 92(2): 253-271.

Summarizing this list, there is one non-taxonomic title in 2003, one in 2002, one in 2000, one in 1985, and one in 1979.

This means that 40% of all non-taxonomic articles in the BSW Proceedings have come under Sternberg's watch. Before Sternberg, non-taxonomic articles appeared at the rate of one every six years or so. After Sternberg became editor the rate went up to one per year, six times higher.

But that analysis merely takes Sternberg's claim that the list is non-taxonomic at face value. The 2002 article's title is "Toward a phylogenetic subfamiliar classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae)". This is an article on classification, which is what taxonomy is.

Or how about the 1979 article titled, "The marine isopod crustaceans of the Gulf of California. II. Idoteidae. New genus, new species, new records, and comments on the morphology, taxonomy and evolution within the family". The article even has taxonomy in the title.

So the evidence already indicates that Sternberg greatly exaggerates the amount of non-taxonomic content in the Proceedings. Certainly it appears the Proceedings puts EvC Forum to shame when it comes to staying on topic.

But there is more evidence we can examine. While the articles of the Proceedings are not online, the titles and abstracts for the past couple volumes are, and so I provide links to those titles here (the list of titles itself is too long to include in this message).

April 2003
June 2003
September 2003
December 2003
April 2004
June 2004

Let me provide examples of just a few titles:

A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico. Marilú López-Mejía, Fernando Alvarez, and Luis M. Mejía-Ortíz, pages 169–175.

Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus. Akira Asakura, pages 153–168.

A new genus of tiny condor from the Pleistocene of Brazil (Aves: Vulturidae). Herculano M. F. Alvarenga and Storrs L. Olson, pages 1–9.

A new species of Magelona Müller, 1858 (Polychaeta: Magelonidae). María Teresa Aguado and Guillermo San Martín, pages 542–547.

Note the focus on describing new species or redescribing or reclassifying existing species. Now, here's the title of Meyer's paper. Note that even the wordsmithing done by Sternberg and Meyer on the title couldn't hide the fact that it just doesn't fit, not even close:

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Stephen C. Meyer, pages 213–239.

It doesn't even come close to resembling any other title I can find in the BSW Proceedings.

The evidence is clear that Sternberg's claim that the BSW Proceedings regularly deviated from its taxonomic focus is false.

The evidence is also clear that Sternberg's claim that the Meyer article was consistent with prior articles that had appeared in the BSW Proceedings is also false.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 10-01-2004 09:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:16 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 178 of 207 (146453)
10-01-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wounded King
10-01-2004 9:55 AM


Re: Fact Check
Thanks for checking!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2004 9:55 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2004 1:36 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 179 of 207 (146460)
10-01-2004 10:51 AM


A Prediction
Just as the cold fusion fiasco of Fleischman and Pons ruined their careers, Sternberg's ID fiasco will run his. I predict that Sternberg will not hold his current positions for more than another year. Those positions are:

  • Staff Scientist, National Center for Biotechnology Information

  • Research Associate, National Museum of Natural History

He'll probably join Discovery Institute or one of the related theological institutions.

I don't think this is an iffy prediction. Behe maintains his academic position by publishing legitimate scientific articles and by conducting himself with integrity and honesty in scientific arenas. He makes no secret of what he believes, but he's never tried to sneak his ID beliefs into his technical contributions. This is in stark contrast to Sternberg, who has really stuck his neck out professionally with his editorial misconduct and transparent defenses. We'll keep watch during the next year and see what happens to him.

--Percy


    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 180 of 207 (146511)
10-01-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ID man
09-30-2004 8:01 PM


Denial??
BTW my initials are AJ not JP(?).

I am taking this as a denial that you are actually John Paul as Hambre has suggested. The intial breaking of the guidelines is dishonest to avoid the point further is more dishonesty.

You are suspended. You may take it up with Admin by email. The suspension is indefinite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017