pangloss

I have stumbled across yet another reason that "mturner" should be regarded as just another know-nothing pseudo-know-it-all.

He has been hyping his 'version' of ID, which he calls EAM. One of the main tenets of EAM (if I remember corrctly, Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis) is 'directed' (or non-random) mutations. That is, mturner believes - insists - that cells somehow have the innate ability to cause themselves to mutate in order to respond to changing environments.

He profusely provides links - mostly to news stories - that he believes supports his ideas.

Here:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000301" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000301</a>

brauer posted a list of scientific papers that cast doubt on the 'non-random mutation' notions of mturner.

What does that paragon of intellect write?

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

Of course I'd love to see these papers, but I would need a translator to get me through the technical jargon; so they probably wouldn't aid and assist me to a better understanding.

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


Hmmmm.... Sounds like a clear admission that mturner's 'scientific' position is premised on ignorance.


But personally, I think that was pretty obvious from day 1...

pangloss

Yet in another thread, mturner writes:

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

"You'll never get it, will you Peez? Every bit of "evidence" you have for "random but beneficial genetic mutation" is more logically interpreted as Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis, an heuristic, teleonomic process; as opposed to your totally illogical, "random entropy = adaptive creation", stochastic nonsense.

The problem lies not with empirical evidence, but a deeply flawed Darwinist interpretation of that evidence. ID, in that sense, at least in the EAM sense, has all of your Darwinist "evidence", and more to boot.

And while I'm at it, oh esteemed academic and most learned seer of of Darwinic Truth, why are you guys totally incapable of clearly and concisely defining your basic terms and principles? "
******************************************

LOL!

So, turner needs someone to 'translate' those big scientific words found in - get this - scientific publications (that is, he can't understand what is in them!) yet he is somehow able to better see the evidence than those that actually work in the relevant fields...


Amazing bit of megalomania in the anti-evolution crowd...

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>

Peez

For some reason I do not miss him.


Peez

Dr.GH

I am somewhat dizzy this morning from reading ARN posts on II, and the II posts here. For a while I opened three or four windows just to watch the posts tic over.

Imagine a joint admin' as a way to cut down overhead.

This is one consequence of multiple handels, but fun in a silly way.

pz

Just to confuse us all, I should mention that he was addressing me in that comment. Several of the wackier personalities over there seem to be struggling with the concept of the same people posting with similar names at ARN & IIDB, the same people posting with different names at the two, and now we've got different people posting with similar names.

Those guys are a bit slow anyway. Their poor brains are already overheating trying to grasp basic ideas in elementary science, and I fear this will be the last cruel bit of bafflement that could lead to a meltdown.

Principia

LOL. How true, pz. In fact, it's always the usual suspects when it comes to spreading the flames at ARN: nobody, Quicksilver, mturner, etc.

My policy: let them whine about what they read here. If they had any conviction of their beliefs, they'd come here and set us straight. Otherwise, I'd say ignore them at ARN. No one else there seems to care about the whiners anyway.

EDIT: pz would you check your PM please?

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

pangloss

HI VIVID!


You so clever!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />


Are you hoping "Self-Important Mike" will pat you on the head?

pangloss

They also seem to be quick to whine about it...

Notice how the biggest offenders there complain the most to the moderators...

Principia

Good observation. And completely understandable, because after all, there is a natural inverse relationship for IDi[s]ts between the quantity of whining and the amount of scientific knowledge. All one has to do, is to review the last dozen or so posts by say nobody, Vivid, and Quicksilver, and check them for any substance that contributes to ID.

The reality is quickly settling in for the IDi[s]ts at ARN -- as the fundie retards leave, the list of true ID proponents grows thinner and thinner. This can only be disconcerting for the remaining die-hards who have always hidden under the protection of numbers to do exactly what they are complaining about now.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Peez

LOL! I did not remember the quote, but I had got so many condescending posts from that git that I just assumed that it was one that I did not remember. I guess that you must be just as ignorant as I am! You can say "hi" from me, if you like. It's that old less knowledge = more confidence pattern, and mturner is very confident.

Peez