Larry Moran wants Royal Society evo meeting cancelled!

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 4, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At his blog Sandwalk, one of our favourite commenters, Larry Moran, who has wracked up a ton of loyalty points in terms of free ID literature, points out that various people have made a mistake in writing to Suzan Mazur, author of Paradigm Shifters, complaining about the Royal Society’s go-slow on the new reno (Darwin replacement).

It looks to me like the organizers of this meeting didn’t think very carefully about the can of worms they were opening. When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble. When you try to lecture Suzan Mazur about paradigm shifting you are bound to regret it.

I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting. More.

I (O’Leary for News ) am beginning to think that this meeting will happen with or without the Royal Society but that it will be better for the Royal Society to host it.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Institutions get old and die. Is the Royal Society one of them?

See also: Royal Society says quit talking paradigm change Because they are in the midst of one. Hey, I just write the news around here, but all I ever say in these cases is, if nothing happened, why are all the Emergency Services here? Keep talking. Just keep talking. Distract yourself.

Larry Moran gets Suzan Mazur wrong (” When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.””)

and

What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

velikovskys @92 Does seeing some people treat others disrespectfully implies that we may do the same?Dionisio_{July 8, 2016
July
07
Jul
8
08
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @91 What are your real motives to comment here in this thread and generally in this blog?Dionisio_{July 8, 2016
July
07
Jul
8
08
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @90 It looks as though you're having difficulties in understanding my questions @87? Still have not answered them correctly. Please, keep trying. Read the text @87 carefully. Take your time. No rush. Maybe we should ask other commenters here to give you a hand with this? Bottom line: johnnyb proposed a title saying the professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have the controversial meeting. You stated that johnnyb's suggested title was true. I asked you if it was really true. Also asked you to show where professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting. Still waiting for a comprehensive coherent answer from you.Dionisio_{July 8, 2016
July
07
Jul
8
08
2016
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks? On this blog that seems tame, I guess it depends on why he called them or their ideas kooky. Does the word ‘respect’ mean anything to you? A little pushy, aren't you? One shouldn't be unnecessarily rude why should a professor be held to some different standard than everyone else in an informal situation? Does the expression “human dignity” mean something to you? Sure, are you claiming being called kook on a blog infringes on your " human dignity"? If so how?velikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Dionsio: Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive. No difficulty at all, but thanks for the insight. It is just a conversation ,right? The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind. High praise,indeedvelikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: velikovskys @46 “A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.” True? Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway? Can you show it? Perhaps the Royal Society monitors Uncommon Descent for the latest from News. Or as I said So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise." We don't want to set too high a bar for truth in headlines, do we? A little mystery and exclamation points get views. That is the nature of art ,taking liberties with the truth to reveal a deeper truth. But if this is a problem I will amend my statement to "It is a bit wordy but at least it has the advantage of being partially true. Larry Moran does not want to cancel the meeting, we can only speculate whether Larry Moran wishes should be considered urges or just hopes. Better? Anything else?velikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

velikovskys @85 Read the last paragraph @86Dionisio_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @84 Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks? Does the word 'respect' mean anything to you? Does the expression "human dignity" mean something to you?Dionisio_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

velikovskys @83
As I said, the headline was a bit wordy, but it falls within the scope of truth for New’s headlines.
No, that's not what you wrote before, but it still doesn't seem correctly accurate anyway. Let's review this whole thing again: johnnyb @45 asked if News' OP headline should have been written differently:
“Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?
Then you wrote: velikovskys @46
"A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true."
True? Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway? Can you show it? After reading your comments I get the perception that you either don't read carefully or you lack accuracy in your statements. Maybe both? Do you care about the contextual meaning of words? Actually, do you know what that is? @53 I asked you:
true? Are you serious? Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments? You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there’s no rush. :)
But apparently you didn't heed the advice. :) Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive. The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind.Dionisio_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: are you still missing the point? Note that I’m also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily. Which point is that?velikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as ‘kooks’? He thinks they are kooks Is it because he doesn’t like or agree with their opinions? Ask him. Can’t a university professor do better than that? You want it in Latin?velikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: You stated that johnnyb’s suggested title was true but it contained the word “urges”. Where in the discussed professor L.M.’s comments did he “urge” the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting These comments are from the professor himself: "Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights." Urge: to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something As I said, the headline was a bit wordy, but it falls within the scope of truth for New's headlines. You still have not actually made an argumentvelikovskys_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt @80 (follow-up addendum to post @81) Here's a hint: The answer to my question @29 is very simple, hence no need for anyone to pay any hourly rate to learn about anything, as you incorrectly suggest. The fact that you did not realize how easy it is to answer the question @29 might imply something about either your real motives for commenting here or your knowledge level in the referred subject (or both). Here's an easy question that requires a simple yes/no answer: Do you know exactly the answer to the question @29? Just answer yes or no. Keep in mind that professor L.M. failed to answer a similar question and then quit our discussion. And just for your information: the information required to learn biology is available out there online for free. No need to pay any fee to anyone. Just took a free 2014 video 15 lessons course on Systems Biology by Professor Uri Alon from the Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovot, Israel, and another 2014 free video 24 lessons course on Systems Biology by MIT professor Jeff Gore. Before took other courses also free online. For more basic biology courses there are many free online resources available. BTW, regarding your impressive credentials I can tell you that my IQ score is about the same as my age but it changes in the opposite direction. My communication skills are almost nonexistent, my reading comprehension is very poor (to say it nicely) and my mind operates very slow - when I hear a joke at a weekend social gathering, I usually get it by Tuesday, only after my wife explains it to me. Now you know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say on the radio when I was commuting to work. Are you more clear now? :)Dionisio_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt @80 You answered my question @27. Thank you. Regarding what I wrote @29, did you read it carefully? Didn't you notice this statement? "Just point to the literature that explains this in details." That means you don't have to squander your priceless time on explaining anything to me. Just point to the specific literature where a hypothetical solution to the problem has been formulated in details, in a comprehensive and logically coherent way. That's all. Did you get it now? Let's hope so. Try again. Thank you.Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Dionisio@27: I decided to take a break a few years ago, partly because I was ever more tempted to talk about unpublished results from my lab. I suppose that, if the ID vanguard ever came up with something new, I could be talked into occasionally posting. Dionisio@29: What you are asking for is a course on molecular, biochemical, and genetic mechanisms of development and evolution. My going rate is $75 per hour, and I rather suspect that the course would tie me up for at least 20 hrs per week for most of an academic year. If you are interested, let me know.Arthur Hunt_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

PaV @ 43: Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I’m completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I’m rather sure, something along this line: “Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just “junk DNA” like we’ve said all along.” You are completely mistaken here. No one (except you) anywhere has ever suggested that bases that do not crosslink using approaches such as are being discussed are "junk". That is completely, entirely your own delusion. The study under discussion used in vivo cross linking to "connect" non-coding RNAs with putative target RNAs, something that would lend credence to the idea that the non-coding RNA had some sort of function (probably regulatory). Noncoding RNAs so identified would, in their entirety, be considered functional. The problem for ID proponents is, as Larry has stated over (and over, and over, and over, and over ....) and over again, that even if each and every identified noncoding RNA is functional, it doesn't make even the tiniest dent in the quantity of known so-called junk DNA.Arthur Hunt_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

velikovskys Did you miss reading the question @72?Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Yes, Dionisio, my interlocutor rvb8, has more than once offered no reply. However, his/her persisting Christ bashing; continued degrading of UD and constant smashing of the scientific integrity of BA, and others who, like yourself, painstakingly contribute scientific information against classical Darwinism, makes a reply unlikely, or perhaps one of more abuse. In my opinion, there appears little true scientific honesty in Darwinism, in order to toe the party line. All must dance blindfolded around Darwin's degrading ditch bound philosophy, while singing evolutionary hallelujahs to Darwin. Blindfolded, because Darwinists do not see a type of faith underpins their consensus science. Added to that, in this case, the apparently narrow minded blind angry biased comments by rvb8. However, no offence intended. Still, varifyable experimental proof is still outstanding that theoretically, life comes from non life, and theoretically, a non human will produce a human. Until that impossible time, less arrogance and more humility rvb8, may apply to us all. In the mean time, the argument that Darwinism is sound, is beginning to sound more like a bell that has lost its clapper.mw_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It’s your opinion vs. hers. Try another argument. That one failed miserably. It is Professor Moran knowledge of himself vs News assumption of what he believes. You try another argument.velikovskys_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

velikovskys The list of post numbers keep growing: @45-47; 53; 61; 62; 70-74; are you still missing the point? Note that I'm also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily. :)Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

velikovskys Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as 'kooks'? Is it because he doesn't like or agree with their opinions? Can't a university professor do better than that?Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

velikovskys Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word ‘urges’ and you affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true. See question posted @72. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how you seem unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad.Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

velikovskys You stated that johnnyb's suggested title was true but it contained the word "urges". Where in the discussed professor L.M.'s comments did he "urge" the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting?Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

velikovskys The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It's your opinion vs. hers. Try another argument. That one failed miserably. Next please? :)Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Dionisio Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it. The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP. It was ,per News , based on an assumption, ( "if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled.) The assumption was incorrect,therefore the headline was untrue. What News chooses to do is up to her. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb’s interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad. You assume your conclusion , you have yet to present an argument . Please do. I answered your questionvelikovskys_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Also Arthur Hunt hasn't answered the questions posted @27 and @29, but maybe hasn't had time?Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

mw @64 Please, also note that your interlocutor apparently hasn't answered the question @26 (related to his post @25). https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/larry-moran-wants-royal-society-evo-meeting-cancelled/#comment-612271 He doesn't have to answer it. However, ignoring it may speak volumes about his real motives in this discussion?Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

#65 addendum The given link points to posts @1673-1679.Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word 'urges' and someone affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb's interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad.Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

mw @64 Point clearly stated. However, don't hold your breath expecting that your interlocutor will understand what you just explained so well, if they simply don't want to understand it. Also keep in mind that some folks may haven't gotten the memo yet. :) BTW, starting @1673 in the thread pointed by the below link* you may see a few recent paper references that clearly show specific issues being currently investigated. Well, sometime ago professor L.M. strongly affirmed here in this site that he knows exactly how that works. Can anyone explain that situation? Someone affirms to know exactly how something --that is currently under serious investigation-- works. Is that the kind of biology they teach at the universities? Has anybody apologized for such a misleading affirmation? No! What professor L.M. did was to write that my questions are not honest. Go figure what he really meant! Well, here in this thread News has kindly offered a possible translation of (part of) what professor L.M. wrote back then. (*) Here's the link to the mentioned paper references: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612277Dionisio_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply