Peer review or censorship?

[Mr.Samsa]

Truth is s/times far from inoffensive – eg., the notion that we are descended from apes.

Sometimes the truth just gets worse and worse. I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, OldgitTom, but not only are we descended from apes, we are apes ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Why is it so offensive to think we are related to apes? Is that 'degrading', and if so why? (I think it'd be cooler if we were related to big cats myself, but apes are nice. And chimps are adorable.)
I wonder if apes are offended by the idea that they are related to us.

I'd rather be 'related to apes' than creationists... At least there is some evidence of intelligence in ape creatures.

[OldgitTom]

Hotshoe,

‘Umm, that's not how it works. You (and dear old Uncle Miltie) are the ones making the accusations.’

It works this way –

1/ Milton was commissioned by the THES to write an opinion piece criticising Darwinism.
2/ Milton et al allege that Dawkins phoned the THES & applied pressure to have the article dropped.
3/ Factual part-support for Milton’s version: the piece was dropped.
4/ I suggest Dawkins et al can put this matter to rest by making a clear statement that all or part of point 2
is wrong.

Dawkins has no legal obligation; he has the right to silence. But natural justice, & to preserve the claim of Darwinism’s integrity as science, not ideology, suggest strongly that Dawkins should have fronted up. Either that, or I & others have every right to suspect foul play. We justifiably wonder what, exactly, he is trying to hide, behind his silence.

If he has nothing to hide, why can’t he just say so? OGT

[aspire1670]

It works this way –

1/ Milton was commissioned by the THES to write an opinion piece criticising Darwinism.
2/ Milton et al allege that Dawkins phoned the THES & applied pressure to have the article dropped.
3/ Factual part-support for Milton’s version: the piece was dropped.
4/ I suggest Dawkins et al can put this matter to rest by making a clear statement that all or part of point 2
is wrong.

We have already made many clear statements that all or part of 2 is wrong, don't you read the replies to your posts?

Dawkins has no legal obligation; he has the right to silence. But natural justice, & to preserve the claim of Darwinism’s integrity as science, not ideology, suggest strongly that Dawkins should have fronted up. Either that, or I & others have every right to suspect foul play. We justifiably wonder what, exactly, he is trying to hide, behind his silence.

So the whole theory of evolution by natural selection will fall to the ground if Dawkins doesn't reply. Bollocks on stilts. You're not very good at this, are you.

I suggest you can put this matter to rest by contacting the THES editorial board and asking (a) Did they commission Milton to write an opinion piece; (b) If they did, why was it not published? Here is the contact for you. If you have nothing to hide get in touch with them and please let us know how you got on.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/c ... navCode=94

I

[OldgitTom]

Hotshoe,
nice picture of cats, but not an adequate answer to Shrunk’s question –

‘So, in your view, when bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, they are not actually undergoing mutation themselves. Instead, they are somehow changing the physical properties of the world's supply of the antibiotic, without actually changing its molecular structure. That's quite a feat for a unicellular organism. Maybe the psychic dogs are helping them.’

The best I could do was refer him to Howard Bloom’s website, which has a description of the self-organizing abilities of ‘primitive’ bacteria colonies. Quite remarkable, but you are excused it if it messes with your fundamental dogmas. OGT

[OldgitTom]

Grace Margaret, thanks for -

‘You do understand that a lot of scientists are focused on the material world because, well, that's all we know. Yes, there is the realm of imagination, emotion, dreams, etc., but they all can be explained by chemistry and purely physical phenomena. There are many, many books on metaphysics out here, they aren't being censored. They are actually quite popular these days.’

Please u/stand that Darwinian biology is commited to an outmoded, 19c view of the ‘material world’. This outlook is not supported by modern physics, nor has been since Einstein, & the particle physics revolution that overthrew ‘classic’, Newtonian mechanics. Dawkinsians will try to convince you that we still live in a universe that is entirely explicable in terms of contact causality, or chemical action. This is manure, but they think it is quite acceptable to mislead the public & themselves in this (again, try the Howard Bloom site for the contemporary outlook).

‘When physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about’.

Simon Conway Morris , Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/f ... ris-darwin

OGT

[aspire1670]

Grace Margaret, thanks for -

‘You do understand that a lot of scientists are focused on the material world because, well, that's all we know. Yes, there is the realm of imagination, emotion, dreams, etc., but they all can be explained by chemistry and purely physical phenomena. There are many, many books on metaphysics out here, they aren't being censored. They are actually quite popular these days.’

Please u/stand that Darwinian biology is commited to an outmoded, 19c view of the ‘material world’. This outlook is not supported by modern physics, nor has been since Einstein, & the particle physics revolution that overthrew ‘classic’, Newtonian mechanics. Dawkinsians will try to convince you that we still live in a universe that is entirely explicable in terms of contact causality, or chemical action. This is manure, but they think it is quite acceptable to mislead the public & themselves in this (again, try the Howard Bloom site for the contemporary outlook).

‘When physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about’.

Simon Conway Morris , Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/f ... ris-darwin

OGT

More bollocks on stilts. Darwinism doesn't explain everything therefore atheism is dead. You really are not very good at this, Tom. Have you contacted the THES yet?

[OldgitTom]

Pbrane,

‘Sometimes the truth just gets worse and worse. I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, OldgitTom, but not only are we descended from apes, we are apes ourselves.’

Sorry to break this to you, Pbrane, but your view is just one in evolutionary biology. For alternatives, you could listen to the current BBC Radio 4 discussion, ‘Aping Evolution’, episode one. It deals with your belief. You’ll probably be comforted to know it is hosted by staunch Darwinian, prof. Steve Jones. OGT

[hotshoe]

Hotshoe,

‘Umm, that's not how it works. You (and dear old Uncle Miltie) are the ones making the accusations.’

It works this way –

1/ Milton was commissioned by the THES to write an opinion piece criticising Darwinism.

Was he ? You don't happen to have a copy of the letter from THES to Milton detailing the terms, do you ? Much as I'd like to believe dear old Miltie, I'm afraid it would be terribly unscientific to take his unsupported word for anything.

2/ Milton et al allege that Dawkins phoned the THES & applied pressure to have the article dropped.

Umm, yes, allege. And I allege that dear Uncle Miltie had sex with a twelve-year-old prostitute in Thailand.

See the difference ? No, there isn't any difference. Not unless one of us has some actual evidence - evidence, you know, like letters, emails, transcripts of phone conversations.

3/ Factual part-support for Milton’s version: the piece was dropped.

Sorry, that's circular reasoning. It's not a fact that the piece was "dropped". Whiny Milton alleges that it was commissioned and further alleges that it was "dropped". What you are trying to prove to begin with is that "the piece was dropped" (for some nefarious reason). You can't use the piece being "dropped" as support for your argument that it was "dropped". You're assuming your conclusion.

4/ I suggest Dawkins et al can put this matter to rest by making a clear statement that all or part of point 2
is wrong.

Dawkins has no legal obligation; he has the right to silence.

I suggest that Dawkins has a moral obligationto continue to do his real work and to ignore incredible twits like Uncle Milton and his supporters. For him to spend a moment of his life granting you satisfaction would be a criminal waste of energy and intellect.

Me, not so much. I'm not currently doing anything more valuable, so no harm if I waste my time on your illogic.

[aspire1670]

Pbrane,

‘Sometimes the truth just gets worse and worse. I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, OldgitTom, but not only are we descended from apes, we are apes ourselves.’

Sorry to break this to you, Pbrane, but your view is just one in evolutionary biology. For alternatives, you could listen to the current BBC Radio 4 discussion, ‘Aping Evolution’, episode one. It deals with your belief. You’ll probably be comforted to know it is hosted by staunch Darwinian, prof. Steve Jones. OGT

You'll be comforted to know that Professor Jones does indeed believe we are apes and if you had actually listened to his programme you would also have discovered that it challenges aspects of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY. Do keep up because you are really not very good at this. Have you contacted the THES yet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nk0wl
"Professor of Genetics Steve Jones challenges evolutionary psychology, the controversial new science of how our brains and minds developed.

Girls like pink better because in Stone Age times they needed to be good at picking berries and women have better sex with rich men - or so some evolutionary psychologists would have us believe. Critics say this isn't science, but conjecture.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to explain human behaviour from the hunter-gatherers or our nearest relatives, the chimpanzee, and has some seductively simple theories. One argument is that we have Stone Age brains in 21st-century skulls, from which we can account for everything from the violence that men show to their stepchildren to why racism exists. Is evolutionary psychology a truly useful addition to the canon of ideas to come out of Darwinian evolution or a just-so science that can be adjusted to suit the researchers' prejudices?

Steve Jones examines the history of the new science, the methods used and asks if it can explain the human drive to language, religion and culture."

[hotshoe]

Pbrane,

‘Sometimes the truth just gets worse and worse. I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, OldgitTom, but not only are we descended from apes, we are apes ourselves.’

Sorry to break this to you, Pbrane, but your view is just one in evolutionary biology. For alternatives, you could listen to the current BBC Radio 4 discussion, ‘Aping Evolution’, episode one. It deals with your belief. You’ll probably be comforted to know it is hosted by staunch Darwinian, prof. Steve Jones. OGT

You'll be comforted to know that Professor Jones does indeed believe we are apes and if you had actually listened to his programme you would also have discovered that it challenges aspects of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY. Do keep up because you are really not very good at this. Have you contacted the THES yet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nk0wl
"Professor of Genetics Steve Jones challenges evolutionary psychology, the controversial new science of how our brains and minds developed.

Girls like pink better because in Stone Age times they needed to be good at picking berries and women have better sex with rich men - or so some evolutionary psychologists would have us believe. Critics say this isn't science, but conjecture.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to explain human behaviour from the hunter-gatherers or our nearest relatives, the chimpanzee, and has some seductively simple theories. One argument is that we have Stone Age brains in 21st-century skulls, from which we can account for everything from the violence that men show to their stepchildren to why racism exists. Is evolutionary psychology a truly useful addition to the canon of ideas to come out of Darwinian evolution or a just-so science that can be adjusted to suit the researchers' prejudices?

Steve Jones examines the history of the new science, the methods used and asks if it can explain the human drive to language, religion and culture."

Ha. I was about to post the same thing.

Great minds ...

[OldgitTom]

aspire1670,

‘We have already made many clear statements that all or part of 2 is wrong, don't you read the replies to your posts?’

Indeed I do, & conclude these ‘clear statements’ are worthless. They are from Dawkins’ bulldogs, not the man who is accused, Big D himself. He elsewhere has plenty to say in non-science media. Why the silence here? Er, this is the Richard Dawkins website, is it not?

‘So the whole theory of evolution by natural selection will fall to the ground if Dawkins doesn't reply. Bollocks on stilts. You're not very good at this, are you.’

Have you even bothered to read the posts? The issue is freedom of expression versus censorship. If you like, ‘Is Darwinism science or ideology’?

‘More bollocks on stilts. Darwinism doesn't explain everything therefore atheism is dead. You really are not very good at this, Tom. Have you contacted the THES yet?’

I cannot follow your wandering, obsessed mind. Who is talking about atheism? You probably conflate atheism & materialism. They are not the same, altho often connected. You are obviously a stranger in this land. You really do need more than one strong idea/belief to guide you.

Keep on-topic, & please don’t swear. It’s not big, & it’s not clever. I can cut as many f- - - s as you, but it’s rarely a sign of reasoned argument, is it? OGT

[OldgitTom]

Aspire1670,
as seems to be a pattern, you find it hard to follow an argument & keep on-topic -

‘You'll be comforted to know that Professor Jones does indeed believe we are apes and if you had actually listened to his programme you would also have discovered that it challenges aspects of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY. Do keep up because you are really not very good at this. Have you contacted the THES yet?’

The issue is not what Darwinian prof. Steve Jones believes. It is that there are varying views in evolutionary biology on the claim that ‘we are apes’. Since Jones is smart & not a monothematic bore, he can u/stand & present differing positions. I look forward to prog. 2.

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution.

OGT

[MotherLodeBeth]

Doesn't the word peer mean someone who is ones equal? Think of the phrase a jury of his peers. Do all scientist think alike? If someone with a PhD writes something that goes against the norm, does it mean he/she should be censored? Or does it mean he/she should be challenged?

~Beth~

[hotshoe]

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution.

OGT

Total logic fail.

Of course they are compatible.

We are descended from primate ancestors, and we are (still) primates.

We are descended from mammal ancestors, and we are (still) mammals.

We are descended from vertebrate ancestors, and we are (still) vertebrates.

Tell me, OldgitTom, is it possible that you do not believe in common ancestry ?

Is that what this whole screed of yours is about ?



Edit: condensed

[hotshoe]

More bollocks on stilts.

Keep on-topic, & please don’t swear.

The last recourse of a person without a valid argument is to complain about the swearing he encounters.

[Shrunk]

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution.

OGT

1. OldgitTom was descended from humans.

2. OldgitTom is a human.

Are these two statements compatible?

[hotshoe]

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution.

OGT

1. OldgitTom was descended from humans.

2. OldgitTom is a human.

Are these two statements compatible?

Oh, now you're really making me laugh.

Thanks

[OldgitTom]

Hotshoe,

facts: THES commisioned a piece from Milton. THES did not publish the piece. Ergo, the piece was ‘dropped’, or ‘spiked’: facts.

Milton alleges an intervention by a certain R Dawkins was responsible.

R Dawkins has not to my knowledge ever formally rebutted Milton’s allegation. So, what you believe is not relevant, any more than a defence by Faust of Mephistopheles.

Another interesting but tangental fact: the notion of evolution by natural selection did not originate from Charles Darwin. Scotsman Patrick Matthew published first, in 1832. But in this celebration year, I doubt you’ll hear anything about him, least of all from R Dawkins. He is apparently too modest, self-effacing, & intellectually scrupulous for public disputation. OGT

[OldgitTom]

Hotshoe, re -

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution. OGT

1. OldgitTom was descended from humans.

2. OldgitTom is a human.

Are these two statements compatible?

They are not, if by ‘descended’ you mean so genetically modified as to merit a new category, such as homo oldgitiensis. If you only mean ‘born of’, then the two are compatible. OGT

[Darkchilde]

MOD NOTE

OldgitTom, regarding this post of yours: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16717&start=100#p2431654 and especially this phrase:

I cannot follow your wandering, obsessed mind.

This is a personal insult directed at another member. I have given you some leeway, but you continue to disregard any advice from moderators. This earns you a formal warning. Please read the forum rules again.

END MOD NOTE

[OldgitTom]

Hotshoe,

‘The last recourse of a person without a valid argument is to complain about the swearing he encounters.’

Really? Never heard that one before. Sure you didn’t just make that up? Swearing is usually regarded as the last resort of the intellectually challenged in a desperate struggle for expression. Too muckin’, buckin’, duckin’ right. OGT

[hotshoe]

< snipped "facts" >

Fact: Uncle Milton had sex with a twelve-year-old prostitute in Thailand.

Milton has not to my knowledge ever rebutted that statement.

So, what you believe is not relevant.

[OldgitTom]

Darkchilde, re -

'OldgitTom, regarding this post of yours: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16717&start=100#p2431654 and especially this phrase:

I cannot follow your wandering, obsessed mind.

This is a personal insult directed at another member. I have given you some leeway, but you continue to disregard any advice from moderators. This earns you a formal warning. Please read the forum rules again.'

You’re the mod, but it looks like relevant comment to me. The targeted poster (like so many here) keeps returning to the issue of religion versus Darwinism. This is repeated, irritating wandering OT, ergo obsessive.

Ah well, keep on assiduously logging the black marks, while claiming you are allowing me freedom of expression. Soon you will be able to ban me with a clear conscience, as with Milton & Sheldrake.

Won’t you get bored, just agreeing with one-another? OGT

[hotshoe]

Doesn't the word peer mean someone who is ones equal? Think of the phrase a jury of his peers. Do all scientist think alike? If someone with a PhD writes something that goes against the norm, does it mean he/she should be censored? Or does it mean he/she should be challenged?

~Beth~

I'm sorry, are you referring to peer-reviewed scientific journals here ? I'm pretty sure no one has ever advocated censorship.

[UnderConstruction]

Hotshoe, re -

Consider –
1/ We are descended from apes.
2/ We (sapiens) are apes.

These two statements are incompatible. If we ‘are’ apes, there has been no ‘descent’, ie., no evolution. OGT

Erm, we are still mammals. Does this mean we have not evolved in relation to other mammals?

Let me guess, you mean there has been no macroevolution away from ape "kind"?