FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2003, 09:34 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Question Who is Nelson Alonso?

I'm just trying to keep up with the ID personalities. This one doesn't seem to be a pseudonym, and he seems pretty verbose and persistent about defending ID. Also, he's a Mike Gene copy-cat. I am curious, because he's posting at ISCID, ARN, and AE.

Has anyone else met him before?
Principia is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 09:45 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,302
Wink ohhhh boy...

Have I ever....

Not only is he a Mike Gene-wannabe/copycat, he simply will not EVER concede error. No matter what.

A mere sampling form my archives:

*******************************************
Quote:
Scott:
Gee, I don't know Nelson - I forgot, your unknown and unknowable designer who works in unknown and unknowabloe ways must have magically caused speciation. Silly me.

Nelson:
Sorry Scott, but this has nothing to do with speciation. Nice try, but ID does not posit unknown and unknowable designers. It posits known and knowable designers, intelligent design by intelligent agency.
Really? You'd better tell Dembski! One should wonder then why Gene wrote:

“It may also be possible that many of these similarities are a function of rampant lateral transfer that may be associated with origin events.”

And what is an ‘origin event’ if not speciation? Or do you really think that ‘origin events’ ala Gene means the creation ex nihilo of a biological entity as-is by some designer?

But tell us about the known and knowable designers that gave us ribosomes and bacterial flagella. This should be most interesting.
Quote:

Scott:
Nelson, I have to ask if you are ever going to credit your ARN hero for that quote of his you keep using ad nauseum. How can I point out the fact that you asked 2 questions when I don't know what the hell you are talking about?

Nelson:
So you don't know what "evidence of evolution is not evidence of it's mechanism" means?
I do. But I have to wonder why you try to run away from your own distortions so often. Lets look at what REALLY transpired:

Quote:
Scott:
I was simply asking if Jack saw evidence of ID in the papers posted by lucas - papers which Jack said did not 'prove' RM&NS.

Nelson:
So once again I ask, what does common descent have to do with RM&NS?

My response:
Gee, I don't know Nelson - I forgot, your unknown and unknowable designer who works in unknown and unknowabloe ways must have magically caused speciation. Silly me.

quote:
Scott:
Nowhere did I see any mention of the origin of life - why must you so frequently alter the words and concepts of other board participants? Are you really so shallow and arrogant to think that no one will actuially see through your ruse?

Nelson:
Scott, I was wondering if you could point out the fact that I asked two questions,you have to realize that evidence of evolution is not evidence of it's mechanism, and what does this have to do with the origin of life?
The origin of life bit is from the king of smoke, Nelson, from earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Nelson:
Hey Scott, what does common ancestry to do with detecting intelligent intervention at the origin of life? Hmm?
Silly me – I forgot that nelson likes to pretend that his own words no longer exist when they come back to bite his arse… But what do we get from Nelson now?

“So you don't know what "evidence of evolution is not evidence of it's mechanism" means?”

What better way to avoid your own gaffes than to simply omit them from the discussion and pretend you were talking about something else!
Quote:


Scott:
Please try to keep topics separate - I know you have a long standing inability to do so, but it is most annoying. Once again, I asked jack if he saw evidence of design in the papers lucas posted as Jack had claimed that he did not see evidence that the time honored IDC strawman of "RM&NS" was the sole force behind evolution.

Nelson:
This is easy. For one, Jack asked about evidence for random mutation and natural selection. Lucas started talking about common descent. And Jack pointed this out. To which you ask the irrelevant question "Where do you see evidence of intelligent design?".
Spin baby spin! My question was irrelevant to what Jack had asked – two separate phenomena, I know its hard for you. Here is what Jack wrote:

“ The previous post (by lucas)was an attempt to support the concept of common ancestry but I see no evidence to confirm that the historical data used to support common ancestry was the result of random mutations and natural selection.”

I asked:

“Did you see anything to support the concept of 'Intelligent Design'?”

A fairly simple, straightforward question which deserved a simple, straightforward answer. And what do I get? Multi-paragraph quotes of Gene and Thomas. I know that the fact that I asked a NEW question based on Jack’s response to lucas is a foreign concept to you, but the fact remains that my question was irrelevant to the content of the papers lucas referred to as far as you favorite ‘RM&NS’ goes – I asked if there was any evidence for ID in the papers, since Jack saw none for ‘RM&NS’.
Quote:

To which I asked, what does intelligent design have to do with common descent?
You still have no answer to this question I guess.
Actually, it is a good question. I ask it myself. What DOES intelligent design have to do with descent? It appears that it has nothing to do with it – since the only things the designer appears to have designed are ribosomes and bacterial flagella. After that it must be all natural processes. If so, one has to wonder why IDCists bristle at the thought of natural processes driving speciation. Perhaps I should modify my question to Jack:

If the papers presented by lucas say nothing of the mechanism of speciation, what alternative explanation do you have for the data based on a teleological perspective?

It shall be interesting to see how rapidly Nelson deletes that question.
Quote:

Scott:
I infer common descent via the use of tested methodologies utilyzing well understood biological concepts. How is it agin that ID works? Oh, right - humans make motors, flagella look like motors, therefore a human-like intelligence was behind it all... Well, behing bacterial flagella at least...

Nelson:
Nope, this is called the concept of functional constraint. This is a method of science already used by scientists. You study the system, and you note that it is irreducibly complex, that certain parts are essential to function.
You mean that you believe that it is IC. You must also presuppose that the system arose as-is because you believe that the function being performed is required and that any evolutionary precursors must have been functional. But these are all assumptions, if not presuppositions which have yet to be established.
Quote:

These specified arrangement of parts are not only complex, but their function specifies them. This is a pattern we know is indicative of intelligent agency, since we observe this mechanism at work today. This is exactly what SETI does. So we have the inference to the best explanation.
Yet we know how the human intelligent agency operates. How does/did the intelligence behind bacterial flagella operate? And you MUST know, since you said above that the designers of such things act in known and knowable ways (contrary to what Dembski believes). If only SETI were involved in finding the designer of the bacterial flagella…
Quote:


Scott:
It was very relevant to the issue at hand. It is no wonder that you did not see that as you have your own little agenda to push and are not really concerned with the topics you respond to. If you look back at the real topic, it was that Jack felt that ID was valid because dawkins mentioned it in the subtitle of his book.

Nelson:
No you mentioned tooth fairies. Tooth fairies have nothing to do with this.
LOL!!!
Are you so blinded by your need to prop yourself up that you can’t see what is really written and why? Amazing…. I mentioned Tooth Fairies as an example of how silly Jack’s extrapolation was – he claimed that because Dawkins mentioned ‘design’ in the subtitle of one of his books that it must have scientific merit and I asked if the existence of the Tooth Fairy would have merit had IT been mentioned rather than design. I see that is too much for you.
Quote:

The fact that things look designed, is relevant yes, because it is the reasons that they look designed is why we infer it. Like you say something looks evolved. Then you infer it evolved. But if you are going to tell me that what I am looking at is not what I am looking at well, where is the evidence?
I don’t think anyone has ever said something ‘looks like it evolved.’ Something may very well look like it was not designed, but that is just common sense. We infer evolution based on a number of things, and as far as I know one of them is not if something ‘looks’ evolved. I enjoyed your last (barely decipherable) sentence – I can just imagine someone saying that about lightning coming from the gods a few centuries ago…
Quote:

Scott:
Yes - beavers are intelligent. So are bees. Does that mean that a bee-like intelligence designed and built bacterial flagella?

Nelson:
Nope, only that we see and note patterns of intelligence that is common to all forms of intelligence, specified complexity. We are noting the difference between intelligence and natural random processes.
But I thought you knew that selection isn’t random? Huh…
Quote:

Scott:
Why not? I saw Scientific American Frontiers the other night, and there was a bit n how computers 'designed' and built their own little (very simple) robots - would you say that the computer is therefore 'intelligent'? Or would you take the usual IDCist tact and ask instead about Who designed the computer?

Nelson:
No if a computer designed and built their own little simple robots it did so using algorithms built by intelligent agents. This is a great example of intelligent design.
Like I said…
Quote:

Scott:
[thanks to "Dr.Salmon", but it is irrelevant to the point being made. That is all well and good for infants, but do we not have the ability to 'spot a face in a crowd'? ]

Nelson:
The major point here is that pattern-recognition is different from pattern-seeking. We do not simply infer design because we want to. We infer design because of empirical methods.
Really? Maybe you can lay out the empirical methods that were used to find design in bacterial flagella.
Quote:

Scott:
Oh really? Amazing. why don't you use that amazing criteria to tell us all what the last common ancestor of apes and humans was.

Nelson:
And once again, what does common descent have to do with intelligent design? See how it all goes back to my question?
Was your question: “Why do I make a fool of myself so often?”
Here, lets look at what I responded to:
Quote:
I had written:
Scott:
What better criteria to use in a scientific endeavor than mere appearance! How does something ‘look evolved’? Does Thomas give an example? Clearly, she accepts evolution at some level, so she must know. I wonder – does the type III secretory apparatus look evolved to Julie? If not, why not? Perhaps you can ask her?

Nelson replied:

Nelson:
I know. The criteria is the same as that which we use to infer design, structrual qualities and characteristics that exhibit specified complexity, such as the bacterial flagellum. These concepts helped in delineating what evolved from what, what is the last common ancestor of what, was the original state etc. The very same criteria you use for other areas, such as common descent.
So I simply asked a question based on your extraordinary claims. Is that so wrong? Or is it just wrong when you leave out context and try to make it appear as though you were talking about something else?
Quote:

Scott:
Of course, you simply do NOT know.

Nelson:
Don't know what? I infer design at the origin of life.
Again, a context issue. You wrote:
“I know.”
In response to:
“How does something ‘look evolved’? Does Thomas give an example? Clearly, she accepts evolution at some level, so she must know.”
I must assume, as that is the only place the question about ‘knowing’ something is asked. So you claimed that you do know how something looks evolved. Well, tell me!
But I’m curious – how does the suspicion of design in flagella and ribosomes cause you to infer ID in the origin of life? And if you only see a designer at the origin of life, why do you so frequently argue against common ancestry and descent via natural means? It makes no sense at all.
Quote:

Scott:
All you did was a sort of question begging.

Nelson:
There is no question begging here.
You assume that life is the product of design because you assume design is a ‘true’ concept.
Quote:

Scott:
I asked how one can tell if something evolved or was designed. All you did was say that when the data indicates descent, the IDCist can claim to use the ID approach to see which evolved from which. That is not what I asked.

Nelson:
You are confused. You asked how does one infer design, I stated clearly what methods one uses to infer intelligent design. You say that humans and apes evolved through a common ancestor. What if I said, humans and apes only look like they evolved through a common ancestor, what would you say then?
I’m confused? Hmmm… Lets see:
In response to my question about how something looks designed, you wrote:

“These concepts [identifying design] helped in delineating what evolved from what, what is the last common ancestor of what, was the original state etc. “

So how, exactly, am I confused when I write :

“All you did was say that when the data indicates descent, the IDCist can claim to use the ID approach to see which evolved from which. That is not what I asked.”

My statement above follows directly from your statement.
What would I say if you said that it only looked like apes and humans shared a common ancestor? I’d say that you have never opened a relevant scientific journal. That or your preferred designer went to great pains to try to fool us.
Quote:

Scott:
Question: How do you know that there had to be functional precursors?

Nelson:
Natural selection only works through functional precursors.
Guess you’ve never heard of the Neutral theory… Of course, you are assuming that the precursors performed the same function that the extant structure does (I guess)… Any evidence for this?
Quote:


Scott:
And again all we see is 'that show we do it, so it musta' been designed'. Fine I'll give it to you. So now you have bacterial flagella and ribosomes. Amazing handiwork by your crack team of Intelligent entities - how did they do it again?

Nelson:
How does SETI think that ETI are building communication devices?
I don’t know, I don’t work for SETI. I’ll have to ask a SETI scientist what their evidence is for a non-earthly intelligence designing and building bacterial flagella.
Quote:

Scott:
Ahhhh - evolutionary noise.... Thats a goody. I think I'll wait until your amazing scientific insights make it into print.

Nelson:
Thanks Scott.
I suspect it will be a long wait – unless of course you go the Behe-Dembski-Wells-Johnson route and bypass peer-review….
Quote:

Scott:
Why not just posit that both were Designed?

Nelson:
Because in science there are things we call "evidence".
So if the ‘evidence’ indicates the descent of related structures, you accept it, but if no evidence is presently in existence right now for the descent of some other things you infer design…. I gotcha….
Quote:

Scott:
Gee, I wasn't aware that this has been worked on for 100 years - maybe you could demonstrate that this is so? Also, I see that you have simply not been keeping up on your IDC gurus' writings...

Nelson:
I was talking about evolutionary theory in general. And over 50 years of working on the origin of life.
Oh, I see…
Quote:

Scott:
Hmmm... I thought IDC was so all-encompassing and paradigm busting that it could explain all things biological?
Yes. science is tentative. Funny then that IDCists cling so dogmatically to a few flimsy shreds of speculation....

Nelson:
Then here is a suggestion, why don't you stop reading these mysterious "IDCers" and start reading "ID" and not some strawman version. Because there is no flimsy shred of speculation.
Right – there are contrived statistical ‘filters’ and lots of incredulity.
Quote:

Scott:
Funny - that is EXACTLY what this fella did! Better straighten out all IDCists - maybe punish them for not towing the party line?

Nelson:
Maybe you should stop talking to IDCists and start talking to IDers.
Like Dembski? Johnson? Wells?
Quote:
Scott:
Yes. We know it is complex. And we know that there are no step-by-step evidence backed naturalistic explanations, and if we use coin-toss analogies, we can conclude that it was the product of design.

Nelson:
Again, stop talking to those darn IDCists. It is specified complexity not just complexity.
Oh, right – if only I would use the right terminology it would all make sense. Funny thing is – they call themselves IDers, too….
Quote:

Scott:
But didn't you just write that we know more about the flagellum today then when it was first concluded by mathematicians, theologians, and lawyers that it was the product of design?

Nelson:
Why do you ignore the biochemists, like Dr. Behe, and the entire scientific community that notes we have to use engineering princples in order to study molecular machines like the flagellum?
Because I’ve read the works of your Dr.Behe and I realize that the study of things biological using engineering principles does not mean that the things being studied were also engineered. That is like saying that lightning is the product of intelligent design because human intelligence designed and built the things used to study it.
Quote:

Scott:
How true. And the 'evidence' indicative of design is:
1. if it looks designed, it was

Nelson:
It is the reasons and evidence that is why we say it looks design that leads to the inference. If it looks evolved we say it evolved, it looks designed we say it is designed. If reality is ambiguous and we don't really know anything, then no one can say it is evolved or designed. We must rely on evidence, and the evidence suggests design.
Your record is skipping. Again I ask how does something look like it evolved? You said above the evidence indicated evolution – here again you are saying that looks are enough. So, what does something that evolved look like? You say ‘the evidence suggests design.’ But in another thread you stated implicitly and explicitly that suggestions are not enough, that things must be demonstrated. So which is it?
Quote:

Scott:
2. the Darwinists don't have an irrefutable step-by-step evidence backed explanation

Nelson:
This is false as well. Darwinists don't have detailed explanations or evidence that it evolved. That is why a better explanation is offered. But this has nothing to do with having an irrefutable one. Just that it be testable thats all.
You did not show that the first was false. Indeed – it is one of ‘Julie Thomas’’ main criteria! So you say that the hypothesis of design is testable? How shall we test the hypothesis that the flagellum was designed?
Quote:

Scott:
3. we know that humans design stuff, so if we see something that looks like a human designed it, it musta been desinged

Nelson:
Nope, this is not even remotely close to the inference.
Actually, it is exactly the ‘logic’ you’ve been using on this forum from day 1.
Quote:


Natural selection and random mutation has several abilities, it also has several inabilities. Same with intelligent agency. As SETI does, as archaeology does, as all
teleological based sciences do, when we see something that is designed, because of patterns indicative of intelligent agency , we infer that it was designed.
Do you really think that archaeologists infer that civilization X lived here because they used a teleological approach when they found some pottery and deduced that the pottery was the product of ‘Intelligent Design’?
Quote:
Scott:
Funny - that is in reality Dembski's position .

Nelson:
Actually no, this is not Dembski's position.
Again a context issue. Lets take a look:

YOU WROTE:
“This is different from Scott's position. Where no matter where the evidence goes, it evolved anyway.”

I replied:
“Funny - that is in reality Dembski's position .”

You of course had to protect your hero with a fact filled and irrefutable retort:
“Actually no, this is not Dembski's position.”

Isn’t it?
Well, these are not directly related to the issue at hand, but are interestingnonetheless. Among the ID ‘research ‘ avenues that an acceptance of design will offer are these gems:

*****Ethical Problem -- Is the design morally right?

*****Aesthetics Problem -- Is the design beautiful?

*****Intentionality Problem -- What was the intention of the designer
in producing a given designed object?

Ah, yes – I cannot wait to hear about the scientific studies into the morality of the design of the appendix…

But these are relevant:

“Thus a supernatural action that moves particles or creates new ones
is beyond the power of science to disprove because one can always
claim that the system under consideration was not isolated.

There is no logical contradiction here. Nor is there necessarily a
god-of-the-gaps problem here. It's certainly conceivable that a
supernatural agent could act in the world by moving particles so that
the resulting discontinuity in the chain of physical causality could
never be removed by appealing to purely physical forces. The "gaps"
in the god-of-the-gaps objection are meant to denote gaps of
ignorance about underlying physical mechanisms. But there's no reason
to think that all gaps must give way to ordinary physical
explanations once we know enough about the underlying physical
mechanisms. The mechanisms may simply not exist. Some gaps might
constitute ontic discontinuities in the chain of physical causes and
thus remain forever beyond the capacity of physical mechanisms.”

“But what if the designer is not in the business of moving particles
but of imparting information? In that case nature moves its own
particles, but an intelligence nonetheless guides the arrangement
which those particles take.”

“It's at this point that critics of design throw up their hands in
disgust and charge that design theorists are merely evading the issue
of how a designer introduces design into the world. From the design
theorists perspective, however, there is no evasion here. Rather
there is a failure of imagination on the part of the critic (and this
is not meant as a compliment).[ad hominem]”
- so it takes IMAGINATION to be a design advocate!

Jack used quotes from the same essay.

And here [http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/dembski.html]

“When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no
intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining
that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion.
False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false
negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is
that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions
indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to
know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.”

So the designer might have just designed in such a way as to make it look like natural processes were at work…. Silly designer – we can see through you!
Quote:
Scott:
Please show where I have said or even implied this. Simply because I do not think that positing some supernatural entity in places where we lack discreet evidence is hardly the position you foisted upon me. Projection ala Nelson.

Nelson:
I do not think that we should posit supernatural entities either. So I don't know what you are talking about. I am talking about intelligent agency.
An ‘unembodied intelligence’ (ala Dembski) is natural? What ‘natural’ intelligence did you have in mind for the design of bacterial flagella and the like?
Quote:

Scott:
What an absurd and asinine analogy! I really enjoy the frequency with which SETI is brought up - if only I were a SETI advocate it might have merit. As far as archaeology - that ridiculousness does not even deserve a rebuttal!

Nelson:
Translation: Uh uh uh uh your stupid!
If you say so. Of course, as I already pointed out above, it is stupid to claim that archaeologists use ‘intelligent design’ in their work – we KNOW that humans: made pottery; constructed buildings and other abodes; left artifacts indicative of their presence. It is not necessary – or even indicated – that some contrived ‘filter’ be used to figger’ out whether a pottery shard was made by humans that we know made such things or some ‘intelligence’ was behind it.
Quote:

Scott:
Let me interrupt Nelson's distortion party for a second. You know Nelson, if you didn't pick apart posts so indiscriminately, you might - might - not make such an ass out of yourself, at least not as often. Ad hom? You bet! Why? I'm a bit pissed off that Nelson pulls this crap so often. Lets review my original post:

Nelson:
Yes lets review!
Hoping that your confidence will outweigh your distortion tactics?
Quote:

Gene:
quote:[here is the important part - PAY ATTENTION NELSON - emphasis mine]
“ We really need lots of genomic data and that will be some time a coming. It may also be possible that many of these similarities are a function of rampant lateral transfer that may be associated with origin events.

Scott:
References? None. But Gene said it, so it MUST be so... Of course, what we see is that ever-popular creationist misconception as to what molecular studies actually examine – I’m surprised the ‘well-read’ Gene made this sophomoric blunder – here’s a hint: ‘similarities’ ain’t it.

Nelson:
LOL relax Scott, I was actually correct, you brought up a red herring, here was Mike's statement:

quote:[snip Gene quote that appears above]

And you asked for a reference for this, the statement that similarities may be due to mechanisms such as LGT is supported in the literature, that is what Mike said, Mike's statement didn't have anything to do with other ways to do molecular phylogenies, in fact, I referenced other ways to do it not using similarities. So you went way off tangent on this one. Nice try though Scott.
You never give up, do you? Are there references for LGT producing ‘similarities’ during ‘origin events’ in mammalian evolution? Here is the entire context of the Gene quote – I will put in bold the important claims that you conveniently ignored/omitted. I will first paste the Gene quote only with highlights, then I will post my original response to Jack’s posting of this Gene quote. Here is where Nelson’s snipping style makes his responses way off base:

“As for this argument you cite, I do think it is a very strong argument for evolution, although it may only be evolvoid. Nevertheless, most of these examples argue for common descent merely among classes. That is, this type of analysis fails if mammals are compared to non-mammals*. The common explanation for this is that it has been too long since mammals and non-mammals shared a common ancestor, thus those non-functioning sequences decay completely. But that's kind of ad hoc. We really need lots of genomic data and that will be some time a coming. It may also be possible that many of these similarities are a function of rampant lateral transfer that may be associated with origin events. It's also possible that mutations may not always be truly random.”

Now here is my original response, modified for readability:
Gene:
As for this argument you cite, I do think it is a very strong argument for evolution, although it may only be evolvoid. Nevertheless, most of these examples argue for common descent merely among classes. That is, this type of analysis fails if mammals are compared to non-mammals.

Scott:
And yet Gene has not shown this to be so, has he? I know he has stated this in several different forms, and that ARN denizens take him at face value, but I searched the ARN archives and have not seen him produce one shred of documentation for this claim.

Gene:
We really need lots of genomic data and that will be some time a coming. It may also be possible that many of these similarities are a function of rampant lateral transfer that may be associated with origin events.

Scott:
References? None. But Gene said it, so it MUST be so... Of course, what we see is that ever-popular creationist misconception as to what molecular studies actually examine – I’m surprised the ‘well-read’ Gene made this sophomoric blunder – here’s a hint: ‘similarities’ ain’t it.


I think a couple of things should have been clear:
1. Gene referred to a type of analysis – molecular phylogenetics. Though this was not explicitly stated in his quote, it should have been clear considering his later statements about genomic data and such.
2. He claimed that these analyses break down when comparing (his example) mammals to non-mammals. For this he provided no documentation; for this I later wrote : “References?”
3. Gene (and Nelson) do not grasp the ‘meat’ of the methodologies involved, or he would not argue about ‘similarities.’
4. Gene feels that the ‘problems’ in molecular phylogenetic studies involving mammals and non-mammals may be due to lateral gene transfer during ‘origin events’ (speciation).

So, even if we accept Nelson’s interpretation of my ‘question’, neither Gene nor Nelson have provided documentation that LGT occurs in higher organisms – indeed, Nelson has gone to great pains to show only that it occurs – something which I did not and do not doubt anyway – and that it occurs in prokaryotes. Thanks pal!
Quote:



The next few lines contain points of agreement which is quite odd to me. Scott and I agree on a point!

Scott:
So you just destroyed one of your hero Mike Gene's postualtes! How dare you! Here again it is time for a little review:

Gene wrote:
“It may also be possible that many of these similarities are a function of rampant lateral transfer that may be associated with origin events."

I wrote:
References? None. But Gene said it, so it MUST be so... Of course, what we see is that ever-popular creationist misconception as to what molecular studies actually examine – I’m surprised the ‘well-read’ Gene made this sophomoric blunder – here’s a hint: ‘similarities’ ain’t it.

I can see where Nelson made his hero-protecting oversight - my reference to a lack of support for Gene's statement on latertal transfer (which Gene didn't seem to know occurs in prokaryotes)is - GASP - in the same paragraph as my pointing out the 'similarity' argument - poor Nelson didn't have a chance!

Nelson:
Wrong. The Gupta paper above simply doesn't use LGT as an assumption unlike other papers do. Depending on what you use to do molecular phylogenies. You cannot "destroy" an assumption per se if you use it. You can use a different one. This all shows that similarities may simply not be all that important.
ROTFLMAO! 1. More of that incoherent sentence structure that we’ve all come to recognize – now, everybody makes typos and uses the wrong word here or ther, or when in a hurray make some oddly-worded phrases, but your above statement looks like a three-year old wrote it!
2. The ‘Gene postulate’ that I referred to was that LGT may have confused mammal/non-mammal molecular studies – your refs clearly only apply to prokaryotes.
3. Again with the ‘similarities’! You can believe that molecular phylogeneitcs rests on ‘similarities’ if you must – but all that will do is continue to confuse your understanding of it .
Quote:

Mike Gene is actually correct here, his statement is supported by the Doolittle paper, the Gupta paper simply uses a different technique. But Mike's statement is well-known in the literature. And you asked for a reference?
Yes – for the fabled mammal/non-mammal molecular studies and for LGT occurring in mammals. Here – lets look at the title of the Doolittle paper:
“Lateral Gene Transfer, Genome Surveys, and the Phylogeny of Prokaryotes
Unless you have some references for this occurring in higher eukaryotes during origin events, I’m afraid that you are just way off base again.
Quote:



Scott:
But I liked your statements above about problems for usign genomic data in recponstructing phylogenies - it shows how little the average IDCist really knows about it. Maybe you should go back and cehck out a few of the papers I provided abstracts for. Maybe you won't be so quick to pat yourself on the back...

Nelson:
Maybe you should start looking into reading scientific papers instead of reading anti-IDist nonsense. Maybe you shouldn't be so fast to call those who disagree with you not "well-read". And maybe you will learn something.
Well, I already have learned a lot – I’ve learned that neither you nor your hero Gene know much about molecular phylogenetics. I’ve learned that it is more important for you to prop up your heroes and your ideology than it is to know what you are arguing about. I’ve learned that you don’t know the true thoughts of the ID movement’s leaders. I’ve learned that the most common anti-Darwinian debate tactic is to misrepresent your opponent and try to ‘win’ by volume.

Did I miss anything?



******************************************

A thread not involving me:

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/Forum15/HTML/000012.html
pangloss is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 10:34 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default Re: Who is Nelson Alonso?

Quote:
Originally posted by Principia
I'm just trying to keep up with the ID personalities.
Why?
theyeti is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 10:51 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Post Why not?

Quote:
theyeti: Why?
Seems like everybody else is doing it... Actually, I was wondering if Alonso was just another one of those publishing IDiots who isn't as prominent as Dembski et al. (e.g. someone like Cornelius G. Hunter at ISCID).

pangloss, thanks for the heads up. It looks like MG is building his own groupie: Jack, Nelson, nobody... the list is growing.
Principia is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 11:29 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default

Hmm, I get a "no topics posted" from that link. I guess everyone else isn't doing it.

I guess I just get turned off with obsessing about other people's personalities, that's all. IDists are not interesting enough to make it worth knowing anything about them other than the arguments they espouse. And I don't really think it's fair to take pot-shots at people who are not here to defend themselves. If you really want to know more about Nelson Alonzo, my suggestion is simply to ask him. Or if you're really a glutton for punishment, try debating him.

theyeti
theyeti is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 11:40 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Default

Quote:
Hmm, I get a "no topics posted" from that link. I guess everyone else isn't doing it.
Ok, so that section of the board is a little dead (actually, so is much of the rest of AE at the moment, eh?). You have to view "from the beginning" in the pull-down to see the posts.
Quote:
I guess I just get turned off with obsessing about other people's personalities, that's all. IDists are not interesting enough to make it worth knowing anything about them other than the arguments they espouse.
Right. And I don't see how one can know much about anyone else through the Internet medium. I guess I meant the arguments when I said "personalities." So MG has a "front-loading" personality; Douglas has a "YEC" personality; Jazz has a "panspermia" personality, etc. ad nauseam. One reason I keep track is because there is just such a diversity of ID arguments that it's easier for me to sort them out according to the particular tack each IDiot takes.
Quote:
And I don't really think it's fair to take pot-shots at people who are not here to defend themselves.
Oh come on. You called Dembski a dipshit here the other day. What's the diff? In any case, you're jumping the gun here. I have (yet) to take pot shots at Nelson.
Quote:
If you really want to know more about Nelson Alonzo, my suggestion is simply to ask him. Or if you're really a glutton for punishment, try debating him.
My interest in an IDiot is proportional to how popular and vocal he is. Nelson is just a blip on my radar at the moment... nothing more. And I've learned my lesson about not debating IDiots whose arguments I don't know.
Principia is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 01:06 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Principia
Ok, so that section of the board is a little dead (actually, so is much of the rest of AE at the moment, eh?). You have to view "from the beginning" in the pull-down to see the posts.
Yes, but those are nothing more than links to those people's articles. And moreover, these are nationally recognized IDists, not just some guy who posts on the internet. I don't see the comparison.

Quote:

Right. And I don't see how one can know much about anyone else through the Internet medium. I guess I meant the arguments when I said "personalities." So MG has a "front-loading" personality; Douglas has a "YEC" personality; Jazz has a "panspermia" personality, etc. ad nauseam. One reason I keep track is because there is just such a diversity of ID arguments that it's easier for me to sort them out according to the particular tack each IDiot takes.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't call these "personalities". If all you wanted to know is what kind of ID Nelson espouses, it seems to me that it would have been easier just to look through his posts.

Quote:

Oh come on. You called Dembski a dipshit here the other day. What's the diff?
I think the diff is pretty obvious. Dembski is a nationally recognized figure who has written numerous books and articles, and is at the center of a prominent political movement. Nelson is just some kid who posts on the internet. Public figures, by virtue of their status, have to expect harsher criticism than the average joe. And for what it's worth, my "dipshit" comment was inappropriate; I get worked up sometimes.

Quote:

In any case, you're jumping the gun here. I have (yet) to take pot shots at Nelson.
But pangloss did. Anytime you post a thread about a specific person and refer to them as "IDiots", you're kind of declaring open season. This may not have been intentional, but it's what happens when you focus on people over arguments. I'm just trying to keep things civil, that's all.

theyeti
theyeti is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 01:29 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Default

Quote:
Fair enough, but I wouldn't call these "personalities". If all you wanted to know is what kind of ID Nelson espouses, it seems to me that it would have been easier just to look through his posts.
Yeah, so this was the info that I was requesting. I read a post at ISCID where Nelson said he was "back." It suggested to me that he was a long time Internet ID debater, and I was just wondering what his take is on it. What pangloss provided, imo, was within reason.
Quote:
Nelson is just some kid who posts on the internet. Public figures, by virtue of their status, have to expect harsher criticism than the average joe. And for what it's worth, my "dipshit" comment was inappropriate; I get worked up sometimes.
Point taken. To be practical and realistic, there is no way a webforum is immune to personal criticisms and uncivil behavior... short of extremely heavy-handed moderation. But then who wants that? As for Nelson being just the "average joe," I have to say that we should be a little more critical than that. Mike Gene promised in some article, for instance, that he's got a book on the go, once the conditions for him to out himself is right. Anyone of these people seems to me to have aspirations to be the next ID public proponent. In any case, I was under the impression that Nelson was already in the limelight, and that I just haven't heard of him.
Quote:
Anytime you post a thread about a specific person and refer to them as "IDiots", you're kind of declaring open season. This may not have been intentional, but it's what happens when you focus on people over arguments. I'm just trying to keep things civil, that's all.
In ID, it's hard not to focus on the particular person, when it comes to discussions, just because of the diversity of the views. What works on Douglas, may not work on MG, for instance. In any case, the "ad hominem" argument has been overplayed, imo. People have become so sensitized that the original meaning of the term is lost.

But, fine. In view of civility, I ask the mods to go ahead and close down this thread. I got what I asked for.
Principia is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 02:02 PM   #9
pz
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Morris, MN
Posts: 3,341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Principia

But, fine. In view of civility, I ask the mods to go ahead and close down this thread. I got what I asked for.
It sounds like you're winding down, so I can't quite see why the thread should be closed, unless someone is planning to work themselves up into a froth over this. I'd rather not exercise my vast powers unless it's really necessary.
pz is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 05:50 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,302
Default

I provided the archived exchange and my "commentary" to demonstrate what type of argumentation Nelson employs.

I think it pretty obvious from his argumentation style that my assessment is rather spot-on.
pangloss is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.