Home » Evolution, Media, News, Science » Moderator for science mag article on how DNA studies shake tree of life bans discussion of “whether evolution is true.”

Moderator for science mag article on how DNA studies shake tree of life bans discussion of “whether evolution is true.”

Further to “Science mag admits, DNA studies shake tree of animal life, ”noting a Nautilus story, the moderator appeared briefly among the so far 171 approved comments to announce,

Hey all. Nautilus Moderator here. This is a science magazine, and our comments section isn’t the place to debate whether evolution is true. Consider this thread closed.

Wow. Stephen Hawking can cast doubt on black holes in Nature, but following an article that makes nonsense of standard evolution claims in Nautilus, readers are not permitted to discuss “whether evolution is true.”

Oh please. Like we said earlier to others, lose the loudhailer and the pom poms.

The big problem now isn’t whether “evolution” is true or untrue but whether current findings are making it nonsense.

I’m curious. Are there other subjects that might reasonably follow from the content of an article that one is not allowed to debate at Nautilus or in other science media? Experience, anyone? Could we compile a list?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

38 Responses to Moderator for science mag article on how DNA studies shake tree of life bans discussion of “whether evolution is true.”

  1. Good, the faster the masks come off the better.

  2. If this doesn’t prove that evolution is the religion of the scientific ruling class then nothing does.

  3. Well, being atheists, leaving the comments open or closing them off, they really lose either way they choose, (more than they think)
    http://27.media.tumblr.com/tum.....o4_400.jpg

  4. does anyone know why this site doesn’t allow comments on its posts/articles?

    http://www.discovery.org/

    I think that ay least one of the ‘news’ authors contributes posts to this site perhaps they might chime in to address why readers aren’t permitted to discuss the various topics being raised.

  5. Hmmm Franklin, I don’t know, let’s see,,, could it have something to do with this?

    How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (internet) – 2013
    Excerpt: When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren’t always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone “I am an atheist” without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, “Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?” Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I’m put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I’m a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes.

    These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins’ diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) ,,,
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....he-planet/

    Dane Cook – Sneezing Atheist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtVzj9y-bo

    The Atheist’s whole schtick is insane:

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism (atheism) is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist’s) position actually is.

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

  6. Moreover, deep down, in their heart of hearts, it seems atheists really do know there is a God, and they are simply in ‘denial’ of that fact (properly basic belief, Plantinga):

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Atheists get sweaty when daring God – November 2015
    http://epiphenom.fieldofscienc.....d.html?m=1

    Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA

    Belief in God is a Properly Basic Belief (Alvin Plantinga) – video
    http://www.closertotruth.com/v.....inga-/1261

    Verse and Music:

    James 2:19
    Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.

    Stairway to Heaven on Harp – full version
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdaZfYIJTU

  7. I don’t know BA77 is their overall censorship at the website I posted driven by their fear of atheist’s being able to comment on their website?

    Seems to me that if anyone suggests that closing comments or restricting comments is a wrong-headed policy on one site why isn’t it wrong on all sites? Or are there situations where you feel censorship is justified?

  8. Well Franklin, I may be wrong, but I do not think the site(s) you listed have ever, as a general rule, allowed comments by anyone (whether trollish comments or well thought out comments). I think you are merely setting up a straw man since the thread in question was shut down for merely the questioning of if evolution is true or not and was not shut down for any exceedingly boorish behavior as is characteristic of typical internet ‘new’ atheists. Even UD, in a policy a clearly agree with, limits the trollish behavior of new atheists on its threads. Elsewise UD would be overrun by such behavior. So yes, I do agree with common sense censorship to prevent lewd, dishonest, and disruptive behavior, but the censorship exhibited by atheists is of a totally different nature in that it seeks to prevent any questioning of evolution itself. There is no other theory in science that has such immunity from criticism. Quantum Mechanics and General relativity are constantly questioned and pushed to extremes of verification. Only Darwinian evolution is above questioning and verification. Which is good since it has no rigid falsification criteria in the first place ! :)

  9. got it,BA77, you hold that there are two standards for censorship given your perception of someone being an atheist or not.

    The one thing that I am a bit confused about is if ID is not religious, or as claimed has absolutely no religious connotations, why would it matter if one is a fundamentalist christian, agnostic, deist, or atheist for their comments to be considered? Should not all comments be welcome for consideration?

  10. Is Barry still banning people from UD because they dont agree with him ?

  11. So Graham,

    “Is Barry still banning people from UD because they dont agree with him ?”

    let’s find out, Graham do you think the Law Of Non-Contradiction is negotiable? A simple yes or no answer please.

    Why is Barry Arrington Stifling Dissent at UD?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-at-ud/

  12. franklin, as far as I know all comments on UD are considered. If they add to a discussion they are allowed. If they are trollish they are refused. ,,, Myself, several years back, even though I am an outspoken Christian, I ran afoul of moderation policy of UD and was banned for several months until I learned how to treat the atheists on UD with more respect and less anger. So in my experience the comment moderation policy is fairly even handed at UD.,,, Speaking of adding to a discussion perhaps you would like to be the first atheist on UD to ever offer actual empirical support for Darwinism?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-490548

  13. 13

    Franklin, you appear to be confused about the definition of “censorship”. Some sites choose simply to publish their news, opinions, etc., and have no interest in hosting discussions. The issue being discussed here is that Nautilus, while being generally open to discussion, has chosen to stifle one particular viewpoint. Do you understand the difference?

  14. BA77:franklin, as far as I know all comments on UD are considered

    I thought we were discussing why we should all fell a sense of umbrage when comments are either suspended or not allowed at all……preventing any interested party from engaging in a discussion of the issues…..as evidenced by the OP and the website link I posted.

  15. Sagebrushgardner::

    Franklin, you appear to be confused about the definition of “censorship”. Some sites choose simply to publish their news, opinions, etc., and have no interest in hosting discussions. The issue being discussed here is that Nautilus, while being generally open to discussion, has chosen to stifle one particular viewpoint. Do you understand the difference?

    I thank you for your concern over my possible confusion but I can assure you that I understand what censorship entails. Why are you holding that this particular site should be beholding to anyone as a forum to present their opinion? Do you not extend the same courtesy to the nautitlus website in thier discretion of when they wish to engage in discussion and when they don’t?

    If you wish to condemn one at least have the integrity to condemn all offenders…it is the decent thing to do.

  16. So franklin, it seems you agree wholeheartedly that ID should be allowed a place in Academia and not be censored at all? Glad you agree, welcome aboard the ID ship.

    It’s Darwin Day, and the “Censor of the Year” Poster Has Landed – February 12, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....82121.html

    Though the evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution is overwhelming, anyone who dares question the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain all life on earth in the public school classroom, or in academia, is persecuted, as this following clearly points out:

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

    Ty6pical Darwinian behavior was witnessed in all its full glory at Amazon upon release of ‘Darwin’s Doubt’

    Darwinists protesting too much (Over “Darwin’s Doubt) – Telling signs of a worldview in trouble – By Subby Szterszky – July 23, 2013
    Excerpt: “Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard.”
    http://www.focusinsights.org/a.....g-too-much

    Top Ten cited chemist in the world adds his personal experience with the irrational hostility and censorship of atheists:

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ck

    Here Dr. Behe relates how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:

    TEDxLehighU – Michael Behe – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo

    Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:

    Anti-ID Philosopher: “Ad hominem” Arguments “Justified” When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents – Casey Luskin – June 4, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60381.html

  17. Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists:

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....07692.html

    There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for why all life on earth exists.

    Darwinian Philosophy: “Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose” – Casey Luskin – August, 2012
    Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63311.html

    The Altenberg 16, a book, is another example where merely questioning evolution, by fellow atheists even, is dealt with harshly:

    The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry – book
    Excerpt: This book takes a look at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution. In one camp are the faithful followers of the long-standing theory of natural selection promulgated by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. This “survival of the fittest” theory, according to author Suzan Mazur, is no longer the scientific cornerstone of biology and has been challenged for decades. In the other camp are those challengers who want to steer evolutionary science in a more honest, scientifically accurate direction. However, the Darwinian theory has become a political powerhouse brand that is hard to unseat because of the money and power associated with it.
    The Altenberg 16 is about a group of evolution scientists who met in 2008 in Austria to discuss and attempt to tell the truth about this “brand.”,,,
    http://books.google.com/books/.....2FfQQ_DmsC

    Also of interest is that neo-Darwinists have a history of trying to suppress free speech in the courts of America:

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt:
    *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

    Here is some advise for helping students cope with such irrational hostility coming from their atheistic Darwinian teachers:

    Preparing Students to Intelligently Question Darwin This Fall – 2009
    http://www.discovery.org/a/12791

    Now franklin, back to adding to the primary question at hand, would you like to be the first atheist on UD to ever offer actual empirical support for Darwinism? I guarantee you any empirical evidence for Darwinism and against ID will not be censored!

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-490548

    And since you franklin, and no other Darwinists, can offer any empirical support for Darwinism, why in blue blazes do you support the over the top censorship of any criticism of Darwinism?

    Verse and Music:

    Matthew 7:5
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    Kutless – Shut Me Out
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6flXRCLPS0

  18. BA77, you’re desperation to he subject is duly noted! Now would you care to address the subject of the OP?

    Again, I don’t understand your obsession with atheism. After all. ID has nothing to do with religion so why should an individuals religious proclivities be considered in any of these discussions?

  19. edit: you’re desperation to change the subject is duly noted!

    should be applied to the first sentence of post 18.

  20. If you ever are in doubt as to the general behaviour of online atheists please follow the link later.
    Almost all of my friends and colleagues are atheists, but they are perfectly reasonable normal people… internet atheists on the other hand, no idea what their issues are but they have them in abundance.

    See
    http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism
    Compare it with
    http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity

    Spot a difference in tone/content?

  21. Franklin @ 4

    does anyone know why this site doesn’t allow comments on its posts/articles?

    http://www.discovery.org/

    I think that ay least one of the ‘news’ authors contributes posts to this site perhaps they might chime in to address why readers aren’t permitted to discuss the various topics being raised.

    Not having a comments section is not the same as blocking debate. And if the Discovery Institute website did have a readers comment feature, I doubt they would suppress debate about ID & evolution – much less Darwinian evolution.

  22. Looks like a typical case of banning “off topic” discussions — a concept alien to ot-spammer ba77.

  23. G2:

    Still pushing the false accusation and insinuation of a UD general policy of banning for mere disagreement?

    The simple existence of exchanges and guest posts suffices to rebut that, though it is true that from time to time moderation has gone a bit overboard.

    The truth you have long refused to acknowledge is that something like UD is subject to orchestrated and individual attacks by people who for instance have no compunction about false accusations, demonisation, derailing, even thuggish tactics such as trying to expose residential addresses. Fever swamp tactics that come straight out of Alinsky’s nihilist neo-marxist playbook of rules for radicals.

    Such uncivil behaviour, if unchecked, would frustrate reasonable discussion and for cause is subject to moderation up to and including banning. For the same reason an unruly, bullying student in a school is subject to discipline.

    I suggest the insistence on such insistent distortions on your part is a willfully continued misrepresentation, and that it should stop forthwith. Especially in a thread such as this where it functions as a turnabout materially false accusation, that is intended to derail the thread.

    KF

  24. franklin:

    I thank you for your concern over my possible confusion but I can assure you that I understand what censorship entails.

    All evidence to the contrary, of course.

  25. Franklin, your grasp of the English language seems curiously defective; yet it’s not that of an educated foreigner, which is merely a matter of the small Anglo-Saxon type conjunctions and prepositions ingrained in us by everyday vernacular usage, but the very sense of the text.

    As Joe noted, with your misconstruction of JGuy’s 21′s very clear elucidation of the difference between a journal aiming solely to disseminate information, with a medium aiming at generating discussions of its articles, albeit, as it transpires, guided discussions, you don’t appear to be ‘quite the ticket’, with your peevish responses.

    Admittedly, from the atheists’ viewpoint, it would be most galling that, whatever professional politics dictates to the contrary, most scientists – certainly, historically of great stature – believe/believed in intelligent design, merely in a folk way, as something so obvious as not to brook argument.

    So, you and your fellow fundamentalist, secular zealots need to resign yourself to your own favoured, scientistic blogs having a status among people with a tertiary education, of tabloid newspapers, in comparison with the ‘broad-sheet’ status enjoyed by theistic blogs and journals; a fact which has survived a long period of ostensible, but specious, marginalization among the brightest, and becomes less and less likely to be superseded via the desperately ambagious contortions of atheists as they dismiss an ever-growing list of facts totally inimical to their credo (except where their careers depend on genuine scientific compliance, e.g. in relation to the practical application of QM). Sorry. But that’s the way it is. And it won’t change. I regret to have to inform you that are destined to remain a marginalized malcontent, permanently.

  26. Not only are your opinions and your confreres’ not sought by the Discovery Institute, franklin, but neither are those of its own like-minded readers.

  27. … an eminently sensible variant of the customary blog, particularly with regard to fundamentally errant atheists.

  28. F/N: Web sites are not blogs or forums, and don’t act like blogs etc. Especially, on subjects where vandalism by malcontents with behavioural problems would be a material concern. And, there are blogs and fora enough — especially, those that underscore the problem. Also, there is a legitimate place for a reference site with curated content controlled by a web master; just as a book on a serious matter is not a forum for debate. And — sigh — as Encyclopedias etc used to be. KF

  29. BA: Last I saw, the blog owner seems to regard the LNC issue as a poster child for irrationality, to be announced rather than occasion for banning . . . and it’s like Buffet’s observation, if you are in a Poker game and cannot spot the patsy, look in the mirror. Though, some months ago he put a CONTRIBUTOR, SC, briefly in mod until he answered the question. Those looking for why LNC is regarded as a legitimate litmus test of rationality, would be advised to look at the Weak Argument Correctives under the Resources tab. (Ours is a truly sad day, where people often don’t understand what a bright red ball sitting on a table is trying to tell them about LOI, LNC and LEM, which are joint first principles of right reason. In too many cases, it is because someone dressed up irrationality in a lab coat.) KF

  30. The issue is simple:

    Darwinism was originally based on selective breeding by the forces of nature—survival of the fittest—which was extrapolated to explain the diversity of species, and ultimately of all life.

    Homologies between branches of “the tree of life” was exclusively morphological because there were no alternatives. Originally, the source of genetic variation was unknown, but assumed. Later, mutagenesis was ascribed to chemical and ionizing radiation (mustard gas and x-rays), and more recently, other types of genetic sources of variation, such as DNA replication, recombination, and repair, and virus involvement, were used to bolster a demonstrably inadequate mechanism.

    Now, with dramatic advances in genetic research, a new basis for homology has become available. Early on, it was assumed that genetic evidence would solve some long-standing taxonomic disputes. But it did more than that. Genetic evidence seemed to falsify some well-accepted taxonomic relationships, and complicate others, depending on what researchers investigated.

    As a result, the morphology-based tree of life is slowly toppling. However, the more ideologically contaminated proponents of Darwinian evolution are still being strangled by Darwin’s cold, dead hands. That’s why they are so dogmatic, illogical, and vituperative.

    From a scientific perspective, a revolution is way past due. A new tree of life—or orchard of life—based on genetic homologies will be more productive, assuming that people even want their questions answered and are willing to let go of obsolete ideas.

    -Q

  31. Science has a long history of censorship. Just ask Velikovsky.

  32. Maybe it was subject specific only.
    Not saying EVOLUTION IS TRUE and thats the end of i human beings!!
    There was a great debate recently and evolution lost.
    Its up to evolutionists to prove their case before its settles its true.
    its all anti christian anyways but lets down and dirty and cage match about this.
    wHAT ARE THE TOP THREE BIOLOGICAL SCIENTOFOC EVIDENCE FOR EVOLIONS GREAT CLAIMS??

  33. I’d say the best evidence in favor of evolution includes:

    - The location of fossils within strata

    - Homologies between organisms

    - Small variations within a species

    Of course there’s also contrary evidence, and the evidence has more than one interpretation.

    -Q

  34. Dennis,

    I think you’re bringing up a good point regarding independent thinkers (an admittedly generous term) such as Velikovsky.

    The problem is that there are a lot of wacky theories outside the orthodox mainstream, within which are a few that have considerable merit. Peer review tends to filter ALL of these out, while “fringe” orthodoxy is tolerated.

    In particular, Velikovsy resurrected interest in catastrophism, which was strongly opposed by the orthodox scientific mainstream primarily for idealogical reasons in my opinion. After all, the difference between catastrophism and uniformitarianism is primarily one of scale: a single volcano is a catastrophe for the local ecosystem, but is an unremarkable event on a millions-of-years scale. Geologists’ glacially slow and stubbornly reluctant acceptance of the possibility of an obvious-to-all-except-geologists catastrophic Lake Missoula flood, highlights the issue.

    On the other side of the orthodoxy fence are papers such as a variety of recent ones speculating on the evolutionary justification of beards in men. Note that mature female chimpanzees are said to have beards, so a more legitimate question from a Darwinist perspective might be why most human females lost the ability to grow beards. Nevertheless, laughable papers like these are published and publicized with mind-numbing regularity in the name of “science.”

    Finally, even alternative evolutionary theories are suffocated by peer review. A great example is the clay origin of life.

    Back in 1982, A. Cairns-Smith proposed this theory, which was quickly hooted down by the orthodox mainstream in a hysterical response to the threat of a perceived similarity with the formation of Adam from clay in Genesis.

    But, over 30 years later, we read the following:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132027.htm

    Naturally, there’s no mention of Cairns-Smith.

    -Q

  35. Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People – Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic. -By Chris Mooney – Feb. 14 2014
    Excerpt: The research,, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
    It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....pathy.html

  36. bornagain77,

    Thanks for pointing out the study. The results are astonishing.

    I’d always assumed that people who trolled were simply frustrated, however there seems to be a far more sinister side to it!

    -Q

  37. Querius @33:

    I’d say that is a pretty good list.

    —–

    Querius @30:

    I agree that the old tree of life is toppling. But I’m not sure a new tree of life, or even bush, is needed. We could certainly investigate such a thing, but what if it — in actual physical reality — it doesn’t exist? On what basis can we assume that living organisms fall into some kind of historical, developmental, parent-child relationship?

    To be sure, we can categorize and nest and create hierarchies, but we can do that with anything. The question is whether an actual parent-child reproductive relationship exists. If certain organisms were designed independently, then we would be barking up the wrong tree.

    Also, I’m not too confident that genetic trees are going to be much better at showing a real (as opposed to imaginary) descent line relationship. Both because similarity does not necessarily imply descent, and also because there is so much more going on with organisms than just their DNA sequence. We haven’t even scratched the surface yet of epigenetics and the overall cellular/organismal structures.

    Comparative genetics is an interesting field of study and will, I am confident, yield fascinating and useful insights. I’m just not convinced it will give us much insight into the particular question of where disparate organisms come from or their actual historical relationship to each other.

    Anyway, just throwing a couple of thoughts out there . . .

  38. Eric,

    Good points all, and I agree. Certainly, I would look to God for having used naturalistic means, but you’re right, similarity doesn’t prove descent.

    Let’s speculate a little. Ok, really wildly!

    - What if the original “kinds” of animals each had a large genetic variability—a continuous spectrum of genotypes. These kinds could adapt to a wide range of environments without any genetic novelties. This would result in gaps becoming large enough to be considered separate species.

    - If the Flood wiped out most genetic diversity, then fossils would not be ancestors but contemporaries of modern animals.

    - What if God created the world in the same sense that Alexander the Great conquered the known world, in other words, not alone. Maybe the angels had lab classes, after which they were judged by God, who typically gave them a “Good” rating. All except for the angel who created the expanse in the heavens on day 2, which was a disaster. After receiving only an “Incomplete,” that angel, the prince of the power of the air, got angry and decided to mess up the Adam project of grad-angel Michael. Bad move.

    - Or, how could we tell whether we were some extra-terrestrial university’s genetic lab, with projects ranging from mediocrity to brilliance, and some plagiarism thrown in for luck?

    - What if evolution was driven by a symbiotic relationship between animals and their “gut bacteria”? The bacteria mutated much faster than its slower reproducing host, and at one time, was capable of transferring genetic novelties to its slower reproducing but protective host.

    Anyway, genomic data, when considered without prejudice should prove to be extremely interesting!

    -Q

Leave a Reply