Topic Proposal Issues

Faith, luv, the thread is not about you. You don't have to participate.

Well, I hadn't participated there. There are so many threads at EvC that I now consider carefully where I want to get involved, given the demands that are typically (and rightly) made for evidence and responses. Of course, if Percy would put me on the payroll, I'd just post all day!My intention was simply to suggest that you just let some threads go.If you do a drive-by broadside, esp. with excoriating terms like idiotic or silly, and then expect to walk away or only sporadically participate in the thread, you've done a disservice to your own position and to the other participants.But I mostly intended to suggest letting some things go by without you to promote your peace of mind. I'm always happy to see a YEC supporter in any debate. I have little interest in an amen chorus of scientists or anyone else.

I would urge Admin to promote Hoot Mon's PNT, "What exactly are the "forces" of natural selection?" Perhaps the topic could be more narrowly framed as "Are these things natural selection?"He has cited several interlocutors' lists of examples of natural selection, going on to claim that the reasoning behind these lists would also justify listing "rainbows" as selective forces.Wikipedia's definition of natural selection is pretty good:

quote:

---

Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

---

With this general definition as background, a debate of what is and is not an instance of natural selection could be useful.For example, my own mention of a meteor strike could be categorized as a cause of genetic drift (a subspecies population of organisms at ground zero simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time) or natural selection (immediately surviving organisms differentially equipped to survive and reproduce in the aftermath).His citations of others' lists, and his own additions, would make a nice short list within which to frame--and limit--the debate.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Admin, if there is no additional interest in Hoot Mon's natural selection PNT, I'll withdrawn my own--solitaire clay pigeon shoots are not my favorite sport.Perhaps Hoot Mon can propose a more precisely targeted objection to the standard understanding of natural selection instead--his idiosyncratic views on sexual selection have already been dead-horse flogged.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Based on Hoot Mon's recent response in the PNT forum, his main purpose is to object to terminology he justifiably finds loose.Mea culpa.I see no reason for a full thread about a terminological quibble: I agree that it makes more sense to speak of an instance or process of natural selection, for example, rather than "forces" of evolution or natural selection.I don't see what else there is to say.Edited by Omnivorous, : sp

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I'd particularly like to correct his misapprehensions about the swallow arrival and departure seasons.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

He has a flashier presentation here.Please, Admin, can we have him?If he falls short of standards, put him in Free For All.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I'll be so good--and so chock full of content!--you'll think I'm Herbivorous.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Yes, I am anxious to perform this kindness. Suppose he spouted his nonsense at a proper table?!Inviting him in for a quiet word is the only decent thing to do.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I just wanted to express my interest in Dr Adequate's offer to author an intro to geology.I have no doubt he would do cogent work, and the experiment with crowd-sourced improvements would be fascinating.

Most of us (not all) are armchair evolutionists without relevant professional qualifications--yet we all expound repeatedly, at length, on this complex subject.I see no reason why Dr A shouldn't enjoy the same privilege with respect to geology. He has already stated his willingness to listen to and incorporate evidence/source-based critiques, whether from professionals or fellow amateurs. If he posts errors, we will all learn from the process; treating the matter as a peer-reviewed or pre-screened publication will simply slow things down and deny us all an opportunity for crowd-sourced, participatory learning.After all, he proposes to write a series of posts on introductory geology for which he takes responsibility, not to publish a book with the imprimatur of EvC. A standard disclaimer should satisfy any doubts in that regard.If other members wish to register dissatisfaction with the result, give them a peanut gallery. I understand those are popular.

Not an auspicious beginning: a handful of wrong in every bite.

Please don't put my panties in a twist by promoting this piece of crap. Let GIA carry the burden of argument where GIA began it.*____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Respecting by pronoun absence GIA's gender mystery, although it seems a Bizarro Planet version of innocence...

After mulling it over a few days, I decided I should clarify my position. I'm aware this isn't intended as a debate thread, and I'll limit myself to this one clarification.I have no desire to suppress any discussions. In fact, the topic GIA proposes in his new thread was already under discussion in his existing thread: the two threads are mirror images, halves of GIA's dilemma:"Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?" or "Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?"GIA's advocacy of the former led quite naturally to discussion of the latter. Unfortunately (for both GIA's case and the discussion), GIA made demonstrably counterfactual claims and then refused to defend them. Consequently, the thread became a joke field: for the failed discussion, read up to the pajamas; for the jokes, start with the pajamas. Darn good jokes, too.So now GIA wishes to shake off the dust of that behavior--a refusal to support the unsupportable, i.e., the untrue--in favor of a thread which contains neither examples of GIA's willingness to misrepresent the facts, nor GIA's refusal either to defend them or acknowledge them as untrue.Sure, GIA could turn to the Coffee House. Fine. But I thought the topic promotion process was intended for something more serious than sweeping the proposer's ongoing catastrophic failure to debate honestly on the same topic under the rug.GIA should engage the challenges already made to the counterfactual claims, and then, if possible, make the case at hand. Letting GIA step from 'Should we let them beat their wives?' to 'Should we all beat our wives?' is absurd enough. Doing so when the active thread displays an embarrassingly cavalier disregard for the facts rewards dishonest debate.