Peanut Gallery

Over at the Adding information to the genome. thread Dr Adequate has again posted a message (Message 203) of the type that he is both famously known for and often suspended for: that Kaichos Man is just too incredibly stupid to be real.I couldn't bring myself to suspend Dr Adequate this time because he says precisely what I'm thinking, and what I think everyone else in the thread is thinking. Kaichos Man is very polite and very sincere, but seriously, he can't *really* be that stupid, can he? Therefore he must be a troll and deserves what he gets, right?Well, I don't think Kaichos Man is a troll. I truly believe he's sincere, but I can think of no explanation for why after a couple hundred posts he seems even further from understanding our explanations. At this point I think few are hoping he'll come to agree with us, we've set much more modest goals of just getting him to the point where he grasps what we're saying. But how he can have four or five people say to him, in effect, "It's blue," and have him come back with, "So you say it's red, good, we're making progress," is just unfathomable.One comment from a friend I had lunch with yesterday: "It sounds like he can maintain understanding of only a single sentence at a time."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Added link to Dr Adequate's message.

I honestly have no idea what might work. Though it makes no sense, to me his behavior is consistent with someone who is working hard to misunderstand what we're saying, sometimes so clumsily as to be beyond belief. If it's true that he's willfully misunderstanding us, then how would we get him to stop? I honestly don't know.Or what if he really isn't capable of understanding? Ignorance can be remedied, but inability to comprehend?Or what if he's a troll? If he's a troll then he's putting on the best act of sincerity I've ever seen, and I can't think of a counter to that, either.Would a one-on-one setting help? Maybe. One thing's for sure, if we keep doing the exact same thing while expecting something different to happen then it's us that's stupid.--Percy

In other words, "Buck up, in some threads it's much worse!" Seriously, that's a Faith and Belief thread, I don't usually poke my head in there. If you get to the point where you think moderator help would help then post to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread and one of the other moderators will check it out.--Percy

Adding to what Nosy said, this is a peanut gallery, a place where members can comment on a discussion in ways that would be inappropriate in the discussion itself, often because they're spectators rather than participants. It isn't a place for spectators to draw participants into additional discussion, and in fact, that's discouraged. If you want to have your own discussion with Arphy then suggest it to him, but one of the reasons he's in a great debate right now is so he doesn't have to respond to too many people at the same time.--Percy

Because I'm moderating over in the Has natural selection really been tested and verified? thread I'll have to satisfy myself with commenting here in the Peanut Gallery.Bolder-dash is beginning to feel that he's getting yanked around by changing definitions of natural selection. People tell him that natural selection operates on variation, and that variation comes from mutations, and he puts two and two together and concludes that natural selection operates on mutations. But people keep telling him he's wrong to reach this conclusion, because while it is true it is also woefully incomplete.After four billion years of life it's a pretty safe bet that every nucleotide in every genome around the world began as a mutation. There must be very few untouched nucleotides left from the very first life. Therefore it could be argued that all nucleotides in all genomes are the result of mutations.But we don't usually talk about mutations this way. We usually consider a mutation to be a genetic change that happened recently in just the last few generations, and this is the definition of mutation that people are using when they explain that natural selection operates on variation rather than mutations.So it's not that natural selection doesn't operate on new mutations in the current generation. Natural selection most certainly does operate on new mutations to the extent that they're expressed. But natural selection also operates on all other variation in organisms. It is true that all this variation came about gradually over eons of time through mutations, but we don't usually call them mutations anymore. Past mutations that have become successful are considered part of the genome and we don't call them mutations anymore, we just think of them as the foundation for variation.--Percy

To those exhibiting quixotic behavior in TOE and the Reasons for Doubt: Everything you're saying has been said before, many times. There's no light bulb to go on. You may as well be conversing with a chatbot.--Percy

Concerning Viv Pope and the Speed of Light thread, Viv appears to have three goals:

1. Avoid describing his views in any comprehensible, consistent way. There's more than a bit of similarity to the creationist style of argument, because he has much to say about what's wrong with current views within physics and very little about his own ideas about what would replace them.
   ​
2. Name drop to his heart's content.
   ​
3. Describe the abuse he's endured at the hands of those unable to free their thinking from the herd mentality, and chastise other participants while praising himself at every opportunity.

I was moderating in the thread for a short while, but his paranoia doesn't exhibit itself too ostentatiously and he seems harmless. Our collective inability to penetrate his evasions has caused me to lose interest in active discussion, but he's a fun read and I continue to monitor the thread.--Percy

Viv begins with a story about physics taking a wrong turn and ends with the same delusions as creationists, that the chemical driven feelings imparted to us by our brains have actual tangible reality in the universe. Looking for ethics and morals in stars and galaxies only leads to fantasies and delusions.--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,What I actually believe is that any spiritual force or presence is not to be found in the natural laws of the universe. Viv's delusional views on physics have apparently grown out of the opposite belief.Cavediver said it right. True scientists say things like, "We're not sure," "We don't know," "This is all the evidence allows us to say at the current time." Charlatans say, "I have all the answers" and then don't provide any. If you think Viv has provided answers, just try explaining his "answers" to someone else. You'll suddenly find you have remarkably little to say.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

My belief in God is an expression of my inner faith and is not based upon evidence from the natural world. I don't know if there is a connection at some level of reality between the spiritual and the natural, but the evidence available today gives no indication that one exists.The western religion most closely allied to my beliefs is Unitarianism, and I am a Unitarian, but the religion ceased to exist as recognizably Unitarian after the merger with the Universalists, who can be more accurately characterized as new age spiritualists.--Percy

I wish I could participate over at What exactly is ID?, but I'm moderating, so here are a couple comments about Message 479 from traderdrew. Traderdrew is apparently unaware of research into RNA as a DNA predecessor as well as other possibilities, and just as unaware of the status within the scientific community of ideas growing out of the work of scientists like Oparin and Miller. This is an inaccurate paraphrase from Stephen C. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell (Stephen C. Meyer is vice president and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture): --Percy

Since I'm moderating over at the What exactly is ID? thread I'll kibitz a little over here in the Peanut Gallery. I think someone should apply this argument there.Smooth operator claims that both beneficial and deleterious mutations increase genetic entropy. I'll assume this is correct and then present an example whereby a contradiction is reached, thereby proving Smooth Operator's claim incorrect.Assume a simple point mutation (beneficial or deleterious, makes no difference). The genetic entropy of the organism increases.Now assume another simple point mutation that reverses the first. The genetic entropy of the organism again increases. The genome is now identical to what it was originally, but it has greater genetic entropy. Obviously this is impossible, so Smooth Operator's claim that any mutation increases genetic entropy is incorrect.--Percy

Unless I'm misinterpreting what's going on, haven't the actors on the stage escaped out into the audience?This thread's for onlookers, not participants. Back to your thread, now, both of you! This isn't experimental theater. --Percy

If Buz, ICANT and Chuck actually get into an extended discussion, then I'm in heaven!--Percy

This peanut gallery thread is a good place for commenting on other discussions, so I'll respond to DBlevins Message 305 in the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread here, where a brief discussion about the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread briefly broke out:I'm not moderating that thread, but in my role as moderator I often view new members as starting with house money. They get a considerable benefit of the doubt until they've been here a whileAs I've said several times, I think Mazzy is sincere, but her style of participation is a concern because it causes threads to spiral out of control. Your concern about the behavior of other participants is legitimate on the one hand (and we do have some evolutionists with a short fuse), but obviously provoked on the other. Each person has their own frustration limit, and when being ignored will usually, to put it euphemistically, up the volume. Mazzy seemed to notice this today, but not in any positive way since she's still ignoring what everyone says.Regardless of participants' willingness to kill Mazzy with patience and understanding, the board still has standards to maintain, and the Forum Guidelines are our guide in this respect. My hope is that at some point she will begin progressing toward better harmony with them, but she doesn't have forever.--Percy