Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Bostwick
    I particularly liked the humble suggestion that Schlafly already had a fairly easily accessible and relatively plentiful supply of E.coli at his disposal, that
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 30, 2008
      I particularly liked the humble suggestion that Schlafly already had a
      fairly easily accessible and relatively plentiful supply of E.coli at
      his disposal, that he was welcome to use to isolate just about any
      suitable strain to use for his own verification of the experimental
      results. And the not so subtle hints whose gist, more or less, was,
      "This principle is called reproducibility .. it's one of the
      fundamental principles of the scientific method itself."

      I haven't laughed like that in a long time. It was a truly beautiful
      and glorious moment. :)

      On Jun 30, 2008, at 7:55 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

      > As a result, Lenski was apparently very annoyed, and his second
      > letter is far more assertive.

      "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
      butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
      accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
      give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
      problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
      efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." --
      attributed to Lazarus Long by Robert A. Heinlein


      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Charlie Bell
      ... It s well worth reading Lenski s full replies. Utterly brilliant. Charlie. _______________________________________________
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 1 1:03 AM
        On 01/07/2008, at 11:27 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

        >
        > On 1 Jul 2008, at 01:55, William T Goodall wrote:
        >
        >> "By John Timmer | Published: June 29, 2008 - 11:35PM CT
        >> Noises off
        >
        > http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles.ars

        It's well worth reading Lenski's full replies. Utterly brilliant.

        Charlie.
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Alberto Monteiro
        I love the Conservapedia. It s an endless source of humor. Maybe I should sign in and create an account. Some articles, like...
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 1 4:30 AM
          I love the Conservapedia. It's an endless source of humor. Maybe
          I should sign in and create an account. Some articles, like...

          http://www.conservapedia.com/Axiom_of_Choice

          ... lack enough "conservatism"; there's no line claiming that
          the Axiom of Choice is atheistic mathematics and the work of Satan.

          Alberto Monteiro

          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • David Hobby
          ... Alberto-- Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia. I d say it s a good thing, since I don t really want the authors trying to edit
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 1 6:28 AM
            Alberto Monteiro wrote:
            > I love the Conservapedia. It's an endless source of humor. Maybe
            > I should sign in and create an account. Some articles, like...
            >
            > http://www.conservapedia.com/Axiom_of_Choice
            >
            > ... lack enough "conservatism"; there's no line claiming that
            > the Axiom of Choice is atheistic mathematics and the work of Satan.

            Alberto--

            Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia.
            I'd say it's a good thing, since I don't really want the
            authors trying to edit Wikipedia!

            There is an interesting question: Could Conservapedia just
            copy articles on non-controversial subjects from Wikipedia?
            Maybe if they included an attribution in 6-point type?
            (I'm shaky on exactly what the public license for Wikipedia
            content says.)

            There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
            even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
            have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
            about infinite objects whatsoever. One does, however, lose
            lots of mathematics by doing so! You can argue that the
            Infinite is the domain of the Deity, and hence unknowable.
            Or decide that Infinite sets should be "neat and clean",
            since the Great Spaghetti Monster would not tolerate
            "messiness".

            If you go the latter route, I'd recommend assuming the
            Axiom of Constructibility, which states that "the only
            sets that exist are the ones required by the other axioms
            of set theory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on
            Conservapedia, yet:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_constructibility

            (Maybe they'll get around to copying material for it
            eventually.) But this axiom implies the Axiom of Choice.

            ---David

            Large Cardinal Heresy, Maru
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Dan M
            ... Being religiously minded, I tend to take a totally different tact with literalists. I agree that scripture is the inspired word of God. But, I then to go
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 1 7:00 AM
              > (Maybe they'll get around to copying material for it
              > eventually.) But this axiom implies the Axiom of Choice.

              Being religiously minded, I tend to take a totally different tact with
              literalists. I agree that scripture is the inspired word of God. But, I
              then to go whether it was intended to be taken literally.

              Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But, he's
              Catholic and suspect. Then the question comes to whether the four gospels
              agree on the day Jesus died. They don't. John has him dying on the day
              before Passover, the synoptic gospels have him die on the day of Passover.

              Now, you think that this would have been noticed early: well it was. The
              first apologist we have on record for including the gospel of John in the
              Bible stated that John was not literally true, but spiritually true. So,
              the guy who at least started the push to put John in the Bible said it
              wasn't literally true. So far, that argument has been met with silence.

              Dan M.




              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Alberto Monteiro
              ... As if there were enough trolls in the Wikipedia... ... I am not a lawier, but I guess Wikipedia s GPL license allows the copy of Wikipedia stuff to any
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 1 7:32 AM
                David Hobby wrote:
                >
                > Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia.
                > I'd say it's a good thing, since I don't really want the
                > authors trying to edit Wikipedia!
                >
                As if there were enough trolls in the Wikipedia...

                > There is an interesting question: Could Conservapedia just
                > copy articles on non-controversial subjects from Wikipedia?
                > Maybe if they included an attribution in 6-point type?
                > (I'm shaky on exactly what the public license for Wikipedia
                > content says.)
                >
                I am not a lawier, but I guess Wikipedia's GPL license allows
                the copy of Wikipedia stuff to any other site that has
                similar licenses.

                > There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
                > even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
                > have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
                > about infinite objects whatsoever.
                >
                Maybe a conservative math should ban all things that come
                from Satan, like those evil imaginary numbers or even the
                blasphemous sqrt(2). If the Creator can make sqrt(2) rational,
                who is Man to deny it?

                > If you go the latter route, I'd recommend assuming the
                > Axiom of Constructibility, which states that "the only
                > sets that exist are the ones required by the other axioms
                > of set theory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on
                > Conservapedia, yet:
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_constructibility
                >
                Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.

                > Large Cardinal Heresy, Maru
                >
                OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
                absolute universal set...

                Alberto Monteiro

                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Dan M
                ... For a while the Catholic church would only accept Cardinal numbers up to 72. ... Dan M. _______________________________________________
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 1 7:37 AM
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                  > Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro
                  > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:32 AM
                  > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
                  > Subject: Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
                  >
                  > OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
                  > absolute universal set...
                  >
                  > Alberto Monteiro

                  For a while the Catholic church would only accept Cardinal numbers up to 72.
                  :-)

                  Dan M.

                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • David Hobby
                  Alberto Monteiro wrote: ... Alberto-- A lot of people don t like imaginary numbers, so that would be popular. I don t think it says in the Bible that sqrt(2)
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 1 7:44 AM
                    Alberto Monteiro wrote:
                    ...
                    >> There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
                    >> even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
                    >> have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
                    >> about infinite objects whatsoever.
                    >>
                    > Maybe a conservative math should ban all things that come
                    > from Satan, like those evil imaginary numbers or even the
                    > blasphemous sqrt(2). If the Creator can make sqrt(2) rational,
                    > who is Man to deny it?

                    Alberto--

                    A lot of people don't like imaginary numbers, so that would
                    be popular. I don't think it says in the Bible that sqrt(2)
                    is rational, so they'd probably let it stay irrational. : )

                    > Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.

                    Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
                    they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
                    site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
                    coverage.

                    > OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
                    > absolute universal set...

                    Good plan, but this would be "God's Set", where our rules
                    did not apply. You wouldn't want Russell's Paradox, where
                    you have to decide whether or not the "set of all sets
                    which are not members of themselves" is a member of itself.

                    Or would they care? I've never even heard a good answer to
                    "Can God make a rock he cannot lift?"

                    ---David

                    Omnipotent, and Omniscient, and Caring, and... Maru
                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  • Nick Arnett
                    ... It would have been rather difficult for him to have been a Protestant. Are there conservative Christians who seriously say they distrust Aquinas on the
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 1 8:08 AM
                      On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Dan M <dsummersminet@...> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But, he's
                      > Catholic and suspect.


                      It would have been rather difficult for him to have been a Protestant.

                      Are there conservative Christians who seriously say they distrust Aquinas on
                      the basis that he was Catholic? Or was that just to emphasize their
                      nuttiness?

                      Or, I'm guessing, you meant that his views were very much in line with
                      Catholic teaching?

                      Nick
                      _______________________________________________
                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                    • Dan M
                      ... Well, he could have been Eastern Orthodox, but he was Western. :-) ... At the time of the reformation, Luther and Calvin, two of the leading figures of the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 1 8:25 AM
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                        > Behalf Of Nick Arnett
                        > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:08 AM
                        > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
                        > Subject: Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
                        >
                        > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Dan M <dsummersminet@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But,
                        > he's
                        > > Catholic and suspect.
                        >
                        >
                        > It would have been rather difficult for him to have been a Protestant.
                        >

                        Well, he could have been Eastern Orthodox, but he was Western. :-)

                        > Or, I'm guessing, you meant that his views were very much in line with
                        > Catholic teaching?

                        At the time of the reformation, Luther and Calvin, two of the leading
                        figures of the reformation tended to distance themselves from the teachings
                        of Aquinas and favor the teachings of Augustine. Even now, Reformed
                        Seminaries teach Augustine but not Aquinas. I think it has to do with the
                        dependence of the Catholic Church on the arguments of Aquinas and Luther and
                        Calvin wanting to go away from that route.

                        Dan M.

                        _______________________________________________
                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                      • Alberto Monteiro
                        ... No, if you take God s promise to Abraham, modified by the New Testament interpretation, that the seed of Abraham cannot be counted, then you must accept
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 1 10:19 AM
                          Dan M wrote:
                          >
                          >> OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
                          >> absolute universal set...
                          >
                          > For a while the Catholic church would only accept Cardinal numbers
                          > up to 72. :-)
                          >
                          No, if you take God's promise to Abraham, modified by the New
                          Testament interpretation, that the seed of Abraham cannot be
                          counted, then you must accept uncountable cardinals _and_
                          the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics!

                          Alberto Monteiro

                          _______________________________________________
                          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                        • Alberto Monteiro
                          ... I guess the only vaguely math related topic in the Bible is the approximation pi ~ 3. ... If you consider that Wikipedia s math content was stolen from
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 1 10:24 AM
                            David Hobby wrote:
                            >
                            > A lot of people don't like imaginary numbers, so that would
                            > be popular. I don't think it says in the Bible that sqrt(2)
                            > is rational, so they'd probably let it stay irrational. : )
                            >
                            I guess the only vaguely math related topic in the Bible
                            is the approximation pi ~ 3.

                            >> Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
                            >
                            > Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
                            > they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
                            > site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
                            > coverage.
                            >
                            If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
                            from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
                            stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.

                            Alberto Monteiro

                            _______________________________________________
                            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                          • David Hobby
                            Alberto Monteiro wrote: ... But how can we do mathematics without divine guidance!? ... In my experience, the two differ a fair amount. To be fair, there are
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 1 10:33 AM
                              Alberto Monteiro wrote:
                              ...
                              > I guess the only vaguely math related topic in the Bible
                              > is the approximation pi ~ 3.

                              But how can we do mathematics without divine guidance!?

                              >>> Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
                              >> Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
                              >> they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
                              >> site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
                              >> coverage.
                              >>
                              > If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
                              > from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
                              > stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.

                              In my experience, the two differ a fair amount. To be fair,
                              there are only so many ways to write entries on mathematical
                              entities.

                              ---David

                              What about large cardinals, isn't gluttony a sin?
                              _______________________________________________
                              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                            • Alberto Monteiro
                              BTW, it s frustating that the only reference to David Brin in the Conservapedia is in article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Survivalist_retreat Alberto
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 1 10:41 AM
                                BTW, it's frustating that the only reference to David Brin in
                                the Conservapedia is in article:

                                http://www.conservapedia.com/Survivalist_retreat

                                Alberto Monteiro

                                _______________________________________________
                                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                              • Alberto Monteiro
                                ... Ok, but it s easier to copy and paste than to research (copy from many) ... Is temperance an arcsin? Alberto Monteiro
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 1 10:44 AM
                                  David Hobby wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
                                  >> from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
                                  >> stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.
                                  >
                                  > In my experience, the two differ a fair amount. To be fair,
                                  > there are only so many ways to write entries on mathematical
                                  > entities.
                                  >
                                  Ok, but it's easier to copy and paste than to "research"
                                  (copy from many)

                                  > What about large cardinals, isn't gluttony a sin?
                                  >
                                  Is temperance an arcsin?

                                  Alberto Monteiro

                                  _______________________________________________
                                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                • David Brin
                                  It s not even comprehensive. I could have written a better survivalist entry... bleah. ... _______________________________________________
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 1 11:13 AM
                                    It's not even comprehensive. I could have written a
                                    better survivalist entry... bleah.



                                    --- Alberto Monteiro <albmont@...> wrote:

                                    > BTW, it's frustating that the only reference to
                                    > David Brin in
                                    > the Conservapedia is in article:
                                    >
                                    > http://www.conservapedia.com/Survivalist_retreat
                                    >
                                    > Alberto Monteiro
                                    >
                                    > _______________________________________________
                                    > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                    >

                                    _______________________________________________
                                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                  • Medievalbk@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 7/1/2008 11:14:03 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, dbrin@sbcglobal.net writes: It s not even comprehensive. I could have written a better
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 1 7:14 PM
                                      In a message dated 7/1/2008 11:14:03 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
                                      dbrin@... writes:

                                      It's not even comprehensive. I could have written a
                                      better survivalist entry... bleah.





                                      Would a pro-luddite website be an oxymoron?

                                      Vilyehm



                                      **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
                                      fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
                                      _______________________________________________
                                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.