Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

A discussion about critics of Dawkins

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#361  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 06, 2015 10:01 pm

DavidMcC wrote:The main thing is that Spearthrower should admit what he insisted on a couple of years ago: that he thought Ichthyosaurs must be mammals. So far, he has only denied everything, presumably in the hope that it's all been forgotten.

I'm suggesting you quote that post, or drop this line.

No shit, DavidMcC.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#362  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 06, 2015 10:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thommo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:The joke's entirely on you, spearthrower! You just cited one of the world's foremost creationists, Harun Yahya! :lol:
Or have you just converted?! :lol:
Try finding a more reliable source of evolution data!


:rofl:

Wow, talk about not following someone's meaning.

(Spearthrower didn't cite anyone, Oldskeptic jokingly suggested that YOU mistook Harun Yaya for Spearthrower. Both of them are laughing at the possibility that anyone could make the mistake of thinking Spearthrower supported his views, which are famous for their inanity)


Utter nonsense! If you can read plain English, it is clear that Oldskeptic was pointing out Spearthrower's error to him.


Nope.

It had nothing to do with me. It is you that is fast becoming famous for your inanity.
BTW, I am better accepted than here for my eye biology on more rational science sites than this.


Name a few. In fact name even one science sight where your fucked up narrative isn't laughed at.

______
As for the issue of eye evolution, I now think we both may have been wrong, in a sense:
The "eyes" of the ancient seasquirt are subcellular, so any claim that they were tbe forerunners of the vertebrate eye (with or without a lens) is higly dubious, to say the least.


Once again it wouldn't be a sea squirt, even an ancient one. It would be the common ancestor shared by vertebrates and sea squirts.

However, they do imply that the genes for a visual opsin and a transparent material were present in that group,...


Why are you repeating what I wrote as if you just came up with it? From this post:

DavidMcC wrote:

What makes you think a sea-squirt eye is "similar" to the vertebrate eye?

Oldskeptic wrote:

The betagamma-crystallin gene found in sea squirts; the family of which is responsible for transparent lenses in vertebebrates. The similarities between the sea squirt ocellus and the vertebrate retina. Ciliary photoreceptors in sea squirts and vertebrate eyes.


Using just these three characteristics and the genes that produce them it would be it would be fair to say that, with both sea squirts and humans having these genes, the common ancestor of both also had them. And since sea squirts have only one betagamma-crystallin gene it is safe to say that the common ancestor had only one. Whereas lampreys and hagfish have four and we have six, through gene duplication and mutation.

so the hagfish may have been able to use the opsin for non-imaging vision,...


Actually hagfish don't even have non-imaging vision or direction detecting vision.

...like the seasquirt. (Jury's out on whether hagfish have any transaparent material in their eyes.)


Hagfish eyes are buried under muscle and are all but useless. In laboratories hagfish have reacted to light after their eyes were completely removed as when they had eyes.

Thus, there is no contradiction between the the seasquirt having its little lenses before the hagfish (with its lack of lenses) and vertebrates evolving muticellular lensed eyes that we vertebrates then inherit.


There is no before concerning hagfish and sea squirts, they are both extant creatures. The before would be between common ancestors of hagfish and sea squirts with all other vertebrates.

I hope you are learning better biology.


Says the man that can't get it through his skull that we are not descended from hagfish and or lampreys. The man that can't or won't accept that hagfish are a rare anomaly of regression, descended from common ancestor that was most likely more lamprey like than hagfish like.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#363  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 06, 2015 10:42 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thommo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:The joke's entirely on you, spearthrower! You just cited one of the world's foremost creationists, Harun Yahya! :lol:
Or have you just converted?! :lol:
Try finding a more reliable source of evolution data!


:rofl:

Wow, talk about not following someone's meaning.
[size=85]
(Spearthrower didn't cite anyone, ...

Spearthrower cited a Harun Yahya web page on Ichthyosaurs, so you are lying.


Point out where or retract and apologize. I've done every kind of search I can think of and nowhere other than this thread has Spearthrower used the words "ichthyosaur, ichthyosaurs, or ichthyosaurus" and that was in response to your lying. Besides those three words I've search the whole forums for "birth, births, live birth, live births, mammal, mammals, shark, sharks" and every combination I could think of, and I can find no posts by Spearthrower containing any of them.

Do you really think you can make up shit like this and get away with it? If you don't want your tactics to be compared to creationists then stop using them. It's rather common for creationists and fundies to make up quotes by opponents and publish them.

Maybe it's you who is mistaking Spearthrower with Harun Yahya. With your demonstrated deficient reading comprehension skills it wouldn't surprise me at all.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#364  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 06, 2015 10:45 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:...
The betagamma-crystallin gene found in sea squirts; the family of which is responsible for transparent lenses in vertebebrates. The similarities between the sea squirt ocellus and the vertebrate retina. Ciliary photoreceptors in sea squirts and vertebrate eyes.

If you do, you need to study eye biology to a better level than "some sea-squirt eyes have a lens, so do vertebrate eyes, therefore we have the eyes of a seasquirt".


...


Oldskeptic, my post, above, was not intended as a reply to the post that appears above it. Rather, one that said that because both seasquirt and veretebrate eyes eyes have lenses yet hagfish eyes do not, it is improbable that both seasquirts and hagfish are ancestral to vertebrates. I pointed out that lensed eyes are NOT universal throughout the seasquirts in any case, so the logic is not reliable. Also, I do not remember that being a reply to you.
Ideally, I should keep my own record of threads, but that needs too much computer memory and effort on my part.


Well, getting confused about what you've said is to be expected when telling lies.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#365  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 06, 2015 10:48 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:

OK, it now looks as if the link to Harun Yahya's page on Ichthyosaurs was Oldskeptics reply to spearthrower.
(The "you" in Oldskeptics post unambiguously refers to Spearthrower", so, although Spearthrower himself didn't link to Yahya, he was making the same mistake as if he had.)



Oldskeptic is being ironic, Dave. He's noting that the accusation you made against me is actually something said by Harun Yahya. In no way shape or form can it be read that OS' post is actually claiming I made that error. He's making fun of your claim.


Yep.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#366  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 07, 2015 1:37 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:

OK, it now looks as if the link to Harun Yahya's page on Ichthyosaurs was Oldskeptics reply to spearthrower.
(The "you" in Oldskeptics post unambiguously refers to Spearthrower", so, although Spearthrower himself didn't link to Yahya, he was making the same mistake as if he had.)



Oldskeptic is being ironic, Dave. He's noting that the accusation you made against me is actually something said by Harun Yahya. In no way shape or form can it be read that OS' post is actually claiming I made that error. He's making fun of your claim.


Yep.

Whether you were joking or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you pointed to Yahya's web page, and it shows that it is Spearthrower who agrees with Yahya, not me! :lol
Is this another wind-up, in the hope of finally getting rid of an inconvenient scientist?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#367  Postby Thommo » Jul 07, 2015 1:42 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Whether you were joking or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you pointed to Yahya's web page, and it shows that it is Spearthrower who agrees with Yahya, not me! :lol


It would show that

IF

Spearthrower had said what you claim.

BUT

He didn't.

How can you not see this? These connections only exist inside your head. You can't simply recite them as fact and then get carry on as though people who expressly tell you no such connection exists agree with you. It's delusional.

Honestly, you are very, very confused and it's quite sad. What's even sadder is you don't seem willing or able to follow a few simple sentences that would clear up your confusion. I am amazed that you can get away with lying about a forum member for so long.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#368  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 07, 2015 1:46 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:...
The betagamma-crystallin gene found in sea squirts; the family of which is responsible for transparent lenses in vertebebrates. The similarities between the sea squirt ocellus and the vertebrate retina. Ciliary photoreceptors in sea squirts and vertebrate eyes.

If you do, you need to study eye biology to a better level than "some sea-squirt eyes have a lens, so do vertebrate eyes, therefore we have the eyes of a seasquirt".


...


Oldskeptic, my post, above, was not intended as a reply to the post that appears above it. Rather, one that said that because both seasquirt and veretebrate eyes eyes have lenses yet hagfish eyes do not, it is improbable that both seasquirts and hagfish are ancestral to vertebrates. I pointed out that lensed eyes are NOT universal throughout the seasquirts in any case, so the logic is not reliable. Also, I do not remember that being a reply to you.
Ideally, I should keep my own record of threads, but that needs too much computer memory and effort on my part.


Well, getting confused about what you've said is to be expected when telling lies.

I was not lying. Simple as that.
BTW, your piece on the "crystalline" eyes in seasquirts is all very interesting but has one slight flaw:
cephalopod eyes are also crystalline:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9929473
Abstract
The soluble S-crystallin constitutes the major lens protein in cephalopods. ...

It is clearly very ancient and widespread in the animal kingdom, so proves nothing concerning evoplutionary relationships within the animals.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#369  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 07, 2015 1:48 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Whether you were joking or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you pointed to Yahya's web page, and it shows that it is Spearthrower who agrees with Yahya, not me! :lol


You are lying again.

I would have thought the fact that everyone has shown you to be a liar a good reason for you to slink off and hope this page disappears, but no, you're going to keep on trolling me over some delusion you've contrived.


DavidMcC wrote:Is this another wind-up, in the hope of finally getting rid of an inconvenient scientist?


Scientist, my arse. 100% preening, 0% legitimacy.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#370  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 07, 2015 1:50 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
I was not lying. Simple as that.


Yes, you were. Simple as that.

It's against the FUA, so you're going to need to find that purported thread to justify your actions here, so get cracking. Not sure why you're wasting time repeating accusations if you cannot support them.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#371  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 07, 2015 1:51 pm

Thommo wrote: I am amazed that you can get away with lying about a forum member for so long.



I am expecting Dave to have his wrists slapped here. He could, of course, just publicly retract his inane and manufactured accusation and that would be that: but can he actually back down.... ever? Not sure as it's possible. Guess he'll just have to learn the hard way.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#372  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 07, 2015 1:59 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Thommo wrote: I am amazed that you can get away with lying about a forum member for so long.



I am expecting Dave to have his wrists slapped here. He could, of course, just publicly retract his inane and manufactured accusation and that would be that: but can he actually back down.... ever? Not sure as it's possible. Guess he'll just have to learn the hard way.

:roll: :lol:
It was neither inane nor manufactured. What is inane and manufactured is your futile attempt to get me banned through provocations like this.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#373  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 07, 2015 2:01 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Thommo wrote: I am amazed that you can get away with lying about a forum member for so long.



I am expecting Dave to have his wrists slapped here. He could, of course, just publicly retract his inane and manufactured accusation and that would be that: but can he actually back down.... ever? Not sure as it's possible. Guess he'll just have to learn the hard way.


:roll: :lol:
It was neither inane nor manufactured. What is inane and manufactured is your futile attempt to get me banned through provocations like this.



What a load of fucking twaddle. You made a false accusation out of thin air. It had nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. It was done just to smear me as you do repeatedly to people.

But as I've told you, you're not getting away with it this time. This is your public record of lying. If you expect to ever be taken seriously again, I'd suggest you start polishing up your apology speech, because what you've accused me of never happened.

What's totally outrageous is that you frame this as if I am provoking you, when you're the one making up bullshit about me. This is some seriously fucked up behavior, Dave.

Further, who said anything about getting you banned? As I've told you elsewhere, Dave - it's not all about you. I couldn't give a rat's chuff whether you stay or go - the gnat and the bull. What I do care about is you lying about me publicly and lying about what I said to make me look stupid when it's entirely manufactured bullshit on your part.

You've had your chance to show yourself honest, and you've shown how unimportant that is to you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#374  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 07, 2015 2:15 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:

OK, it now looks as if the link to Harun Yahya's page on Ichthyosaurs was Oldskeptics reply to spearthrower.
(The "you" in Oldskeptics post unambiguously refers to Spearthrower", so, although Spearthrower himself didn't link to Yahya, he was making the same mistake as if he had.)



Oldskeptic is being ironic, Dave. He's noting that the accusation you made against me is actually something said by Harun Yahya. In no way shape or form can it be read that OS' post is actually claiming I made that error. He's making fun of your claim.


Yep.



In response to Thommo explaining this to Dave before:

DavidMcC wrote:Utter nonsense! If you can read plain English, it is clear that Oldskeptic was pointing out Spearthrower's error to him. It had nothing to do with me. It is you that is fast becoming famous for your inanity.


So, Dave effectively acknowledges that he can't read plain English, even though everyone else understood OS' point, Dave entirely misconstrued it.

And it's THOMMO who is known for HIS inanity? :nono:


But anyway, of course it doesn't matter that even the author OS meant the opposite of what Dave claimed he meant because...

DavidMcC wrote:Whether you were joking or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you pointed to Yahya's web page, and it shows that it is Spearthrower who agrees with Yahya, not me! :lol


So you might have thought you meant one thing OS, but you're wrong and Dave is going to tell you what you meant when you posted it. And what you meant is that it's me who agrees with Harun Yahya because Dave claimed I'd said something similar to Harun Yahya, yet only Dave has ever written that sentence on these boards.

I don't think he even knows what he means anymore, let alone what anyone else means.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jul 07, 2015 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#375  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 07, 2015 2:16 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Thommo wrote: I am amazed that you can get away with lying about a forum member for so long.



I am expecting Dave to have his wrists slapped here. He could, of course, just publicly retract his inane and manufactured accusation and that would be that: but can he actually back down.... ever? Not sure as it's possible. Guess he'll just have to learn the hard way.


:roll: :lol:
It was neither inane nor manufactured. What is inane and manufactured is your futile attempt to get me banned through provocations like this.



What a load of fucking twaddle. You made a false accusation out of thin air. It had nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. It was done just to smear me as you do repeatedly to people.

But as I've told you, you're not getting away with it this time. This is your public record of lying. If you expect to ever be taken seriously again, I'd suggest you start polishing up your apology speech, because what you've accused me of never happened.

What's totally outrageous is that you frame this as if I am provoking you, when you're the one making up bullshit about me. This is some seriously fucked up behavior, Dave.

Further, who said anything about getting you banned? As I've told you elsewhere, Dave - it's not all about you. I couldn't give a rat's chuff whether you stay or go - the gnat and the bull. What I do care about is you lying about me publicly and lying about what I said to make me look stupid when it's entirely manufactured bullshit on your part.

You've had your chance to show yourself honest, and you've shown how unimportant that is to you.

Wow, this gets sillier and sillier. You started by denying that you ever posted that ichthyosaurs were mammals, now you blame me for it. :roll: :rofl:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#376  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jul 07, 2015 2:18 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Thread locked for review and cool down. Don't take this elsewhere on the site.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#377  Postby Blip » Jul 15, 2015 10:06 am


!
MODNOTE
DavidMcC, this is a warning about your recent series of posts, including this, this, this, this and this, in which you repeatedly make a pejorative assertion about another member that he has repeatedly denied and for which you have failed to provide any substantiation.

This contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2e, which concerns inflammatory posting and section 1.2m, which concerns misrepresentation.

As this is your fourth active warning, you will now be suspended from the forum for one month. Please desist from posting comments like the one above when you return.

Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic.
Evolving wrote:Blip, intrepid pilot of light aircraft and wrangler with alligators.
User avatar
Blip
Moderator
 
Posts: 20949
Female

Country: This septic isle...
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post


Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#379  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 23, 2015 6:05 pm

Back to the (surface-)vertebrate eye: it recently occurred to me that the "inverted" retina has an additional advantage for a fish that was forced up from the deep, dark ocean by shallowing seas (in turn caused by severe ice ages). Such a fish would have to cope with increasingly bright light falling on its retinae, so the inversion-induced covering of the photoreceptors by the nerve fibre layer would be just the ticket to avoid the problem. Until now, I had assumed that the nerve fibre covering was the price we paid for self-maintaining eyes, but it turns out that this is not the case after all. This is additional evidence that the vertebrates did, indeed evolve from a deep-water fish with non-imaging eyes, that was forced towards the surface as a result of geological/climatic changes.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#380  Postby tolman » Oct 24, 2015 2:05 am

What gets 'forced up from the deep dark ocean by shallowing seas'?

Surely, in even an extreme terrestrial ice age, what actually happens is that the amount and position of shallow seas varies, but the deep ocean stays pretty damn deep, and pretty much where it is, even if in a postulated Snowball Earth, the deeps may end up covered with ice?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest