Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 19 of 527 (577443)
08-28-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
08-28-2010 2:32 PM


TimeTimeTimeTimeTimeTime
How did Evolution manage to put the correct joint in the appropriate position?
The inheritability of characteristics, differential breeding success, and random mutation operated over vast stretches of time. For more detail, consult crash's posts--he's done a masterful job.
*yawn*
Is incredulity really all you got?

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 2:32 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 8:51 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 24 of 527 (577453)
08-28-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICdesign
08-28-2010 8:51 PM


What you answered, what you didn't
Look, ICDESIGN, here's what's happening.
You made your case for design based on the engineering marvel of the human body.
Your name defines what you see: you see design.
You got two major types of reply before my previous one: what makes you think this design is so hot, and why couldn't evolution have produced it.
You answer the first by repeating how amazing the body is; you answer the second by repeating how amazing the body is: both answers repeat your initial claim.
Then I replied by noting the mechanism of evolution in a little bit different terms and noted, sarcastically, that all you've offered is your amazement. I also remarked on how important deep time is to the process of evolution, both in my text and in my subtitle.
So, yes, I was gently mocking your replies, but I was also adding to the debate while reminding you that you hadn't answered any of the counterarguments. You replied to my sarcasm with your own--but you didn't answer my points.
Like Admin noted, repetition spawns repetition and spirals into a closed thread.
It's not enough to say the amazing, marvelous body must be designed. You have to say why, and you have to respond to counterarguments. Otherwise, we're just throwing rocks at each other for fun.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Edited by Omnivorous, : typos

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 8:51 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 10:37 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 31 of 527 (577464)
08-28-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICdesign
08-28-2010 10:37 PM


Re: What you answered, what you didn't
ICDESIGN writes:
Actually sir, I haven't been making the case for a designer if you will look at my opening statement.
Yes, I saw your wish to leave questions of design origin out of this discussion. I ignored it because it is a disingenuous tactic: you wish to use ID assertions without the ID baggage.
I did not need to be told to assume the ToE is correct; I am already confident of that; and I will not engage in the fiction that your arguments are not those of Intelligent Design.
Nonetheless, I did not dismiss your arguments as ID boilerplate, I merely noted their character. I replied, as others have, substantively. The record is clear on the evidence for evolution: you could spend the rest of your life reading the primary sources and exploring primary collections. I do not think you have spent a single day in the endeavor.
So, no, you don't get to make bare assertions, reply to counterarguments with bare assertions, and then demand reams of scientific data when your bare assertions are pointed out.
You made an assertion; there were counter-assertions, supported by evidence cited and known by both sides of the debate to exist. This is where you present your citations of evidence and alternate explanatory reasoning, not where you demand to be tutored.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICdesign, posted 08-28-2010 10:37 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 292 of 527 (581774)
09-17-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Wounded King
09-17-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Peer review
Have a great vacation.
Do you really think that a review process that entails the author/editor picking his reviewers, knowing that their comments will be made public, will result in as vigorous a review process as anonymous reviews?
I can see that anonymous reviews are sometimes abused--axes ground, etc.--but surely those occasional opportunities for mischief in the anonymous process would be outnumbered by the ever-present opportunities for reviewer timidity in an open process.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2010 11:52 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 1:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 309 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2010 2:25 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 311 of 527 (584164)
09-30-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Wounded King
09-30-2010 2:25 PM


Re: Peer review
Welcome back--I hope you didn't encounter any annoying tourists from Indiana in whatever part of the galaxy you enjoyed.
WK writes:
Well many review processes ask you to suggest someone people you think would be a suitable reviewers already so as far as 'picking' reviewers goes I think there is already an established element of this.
Picking seems different from suggesting, though both would definitely reduce the number of axes to be ground.
As to comments being made public, I don't see why it should necessarily change what they say, in some ways this is a reflection of the way the system is organised.
Speaking for publication is always different.
Because the reviewers need to be on the editorial board many of them are not in a position to be cowed. These aren't necessarily people just starting out on their research careers who need to avoid treading on the toes of big guns. When Nature and others did some experimental testing of open peer review in the 90's they found that a lot more people refused to review papers when asked, but the editorial board of Biology Direct already know the score and have signed up for it.
That's more persuasive--but it also sounds like evidence for the notion that making comments public makes a difference.
I'm not sure why the opportunities for abuse of anonymous review are only occasional and those for reviewer timidity in open review are ever-present. I would have thought that the opportunities are ever present in both cases, but similarly often not pertinent. But the opportunity existing seems to be all you are going on, and I have to say that the reviews for the Koonin paper don't seem all that timid to me.
The abuse of anonymous review seems more likely to be only occasional for several reasons. First, in all cases, I assume the likelihood that the folks reviewing the paper are scientists with a personal and professional commitment to good science. Human nature being what it is, I also assume some scientists will exploit the opportunity--for personal grudges or professional rivalries, perhaps. I think that the authors' opportunity to suggest reviewers, the more probably objective perspectives of the other reviewers, and the possible consequences of gaining a reputation as a poison pen would all help to minimize both the occurrence and the impact of abusive anonymous reviews.
Allowing authors to select reviewers whose comments will be made public, on the other hand, makes a structural element of the converse difficulty--obtaining reviews that are as sharp and objective as possible. I assume the best of all parties involved in this circumstance, too, but I also assume there will be abuse here as well.
The inhibitory effect of published comments, and the inhibitory effect of biting the hand that chose you, seem ever-present and difficult to manage. Appraisers who value homes under the pending purchase price too often don't get repeat business; reviewers who more highly appraise others' work, rather than losing the opportunity like abusive anonymous reviewers, might well instead gain opportunities. You move from a process that would appear to reduce the possibility of an anonymous poison pen to one which would appear to eliminate it nearly completely--but at the price of a constant risk of allowing the selection of sweet pens, with no specific countervailing structure.
In the case at hand, I understood the author was an editor selecting reviewers from his own editorial board. I would have thought that, like Caesar's wife, an editor's submission would have more independent review than other authors', even at journals with open review processes.
I certainly think there is room for a diversity of different approaches to editorial review and it certainly doesn't hurt the vigour of scientific research if we don't just limit ourselves to one review model.
That sounds reasonable, but I wonder how we would gauge any pernicious effect of the change.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2010 2:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Percy, posted 10-01-2010 7:58 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 363 of 527 (597165)
12-20-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Flatland
12-20-2010 12:20 AM


Flatland writes:
ICDESIGN writes:
As I also stated before; all a person needs to refute ToE is common sense because ToE fails to pass the simplest of common sense tests.
You and common sense obviously do not get along at all...
I dunno--there's a good reason his sense is called common.

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Flatland, posted 12-20-2010 12:20 AM Flatland has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024