tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post1571682160259999822..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: You thought descent from apes was badmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-241772699059344782014-06-07T13:50:28.629-04:002014-06-07T13:50:28.629-04:00Dr. McCarthy's ideas ARE radical, but everythi...Dr. McCarthy's ideas ARE radical, but everything you guys all call 'mainstream science' these days was once 'RADICAL' !!! What you are demonstrating is just more of the same - how do you think it feels to have come up with a radical new way to see human origins and find compelling evidence that the idea COULD be true, and just be treated as an outcast because your ideas did not fit in - hey my ideas don't always fit in either and I don't care - I am ME and the rest of you can behave like a bunch of ignorant 'followers' afraid of your own shadows if you want to - <br />big ideas ALWAYS start the same way - the 'experts' always react the same way - you are upsetting their applecart and must be SQUASHED !!! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51080508987285322542013-12-06T22:52:25.569-05:002013-12-06T22:52:25.569-05:00Google finds 7 hits for McCarthy at the site of UG...Google finds 7 hits for McCarthy at the site of UGA's Department of Genetics. None of them indicates McCarthy's presence in the department. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.genetics.uga.edu/alumni/recordlist.php?-skip=74&-max=25" rel="nofollow">This page</a> shows that McCarthy got his Ph.D. in 2003. It lists his current affiliation as "Independent Scientist, Athens, GA." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58098516022434182872013-12-06T22:39:21.922-05:002013-12-06T22:39:21.922-05:00I was trying to present an alternative evolutionar...I was trying to present an alternative evolutionary theory that, if correct, would imply that Darwinian theory is mistaken at an axiomatic level.<br /><br />On the other hand, there were reviews that raised objections, all of the same ilk — that my claims were inconsistent with one tenet or another of accepted theory... Obviously, a new theory that contradicts an existing theory will be inconsistent with the tenets of that theory!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.macroevolution.net/about-me.html" rel="nofollow">Gene McCarthy</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48059824294991731832013-12-06T22:35:29.331-05:002013-12-06T22:35:29.331-05:00Gene McCarthy: "During my years at the geneti...<a href="http://www.macroevolution.net/about-me.html" rel="nofollow">Gene McCarthy</a>: "During my years at the genetics department, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the standard explanation of evolution. The more I read about fossils, the more convinced I became that Darwin's account of the evolutionary process was fundamentally flawed."<br /><br />A mainstream biologist? I think not.<br /><br />Michael Egnor's consciousnessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79001712444795208742013-12-06T22:29:49.556-05:002013-12-06T22:29:49.556-05:00No mainstream biologist in his sound mind thinks i...No mainstream biologist in his sound mind thinks it is possible to have a viable hybrid between a monkey and a pig. It's insane. It's against genetics. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8737436756439829002013-12-06T22:06:55.498-05:002013-12-06T22:06:55.498-05:00Is Gene McCarthy affiliated with the University of...Is Gene McCarthy affiliated with the University of Georgia? No. <br /><br />Is he a mainstream evolutionary biologist? No. <br /><br />Michael Egnor, shameless liarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35346791228129571062013-12-06T21:51:00.779-05:002013-12-06T21:51:00.779-05:00@Anon:
[I insist that Gene McCathy is a mainstrea...@Anon:<br /><br />[I insist that Gene McCathy is a mainstream University of Georgia geneticist and evolutionary biologist. Michael Egnor, dishonest hack]<br /><br />The belief that man is wholly the product of copulation by animals is consensus mainstream evolutionary biology.<br /><br />This is just a quibble about species. <br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13732965113754190722013-12-06T21:46:32.959-05:002013-12-06T21:46:32.959-05:00I insist that Gene McCathy is a mainstream Univers...I insist that Gene McCathy is a mainstream University of Georgia geneticist and evolutionary biologist. <br /><br />Michael Egnor, dishonest hackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14640501376978241362013-12-06T08:32:30.280-05:002013-12-06T08:32:30.280-05:00Bach,
I am aware of these ideas. The concept of ...Bach, <br /><br />I am aware of these ideas. The concept of hybridization and/or extinction is not what I take central issue with. It is the incredible amount of fantastic reconstructions surrounding a tiny, paltry amount of very hard won evidence. <br />A hip bone is found, and an entire mythos is rewritten. How about NOT writing the book, until there are enough facts to form a sentence? Or, alternately, if the book must be written to 'sell' the next expedition and keep the public interest up, sell the book as the speculative fiction it is and use the funds from the book to pay for the next jaunt. <br />Instead what we see are these ideas being sold as facts. <br />They are 'best guesses', often grossly limited by a restrictive (almost autistic) world view. <br />When I read this fluffy stuff about the sex life of dinosaurs and the kitchen habits of Neanderthals, I feel like I went into the library looking for Chaucer or Marlowe and was handed a copy of 'Twilight'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55688914025990639102013-12-06T08:17:04.058-05:002013-12-06T08:17:04.058-05:00Bach,
Not my time to waste.
Anyway, the guy'...Bach, <br /><br />Not my time to waste. <br />Anyway, the guy's relative sanity has little or nothing to do with it. If sanity was the index, most of the human race would be disqualified. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80746724975529319882013-12-06T07:53:37.268-05:002013-12-06T07:53:37.268-05:00"I was listening to lecture the other day in ..."<i>I was listening to lecture the other day in which a fellow was talking about ESP and the like. He made an excellent point that is somewhat similar. He stated that he found it remarkable that his studies (as strange as they are) are based on experimentation and data, but are scoffed at and ridiculed by legions of professional sceptics. But, that the astronomer Royal in the UK is an open adherent of some form of Multiverse theory and rants on about it all the time, with no one even challenging the fact that his ideas have not a single shred of evidence to back them up.</i>"<br /><br />And -- definitionally -- there never will be any evidence of, nor observations of, "other universes" nor of a "multiverse". For, by definition, any observations claimed to be of "other universes" are really just observations of previously unknown parts of *this* universe, in the same way that the so-called New World was really just a previously unknown part of the known Old World.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60961426346112855832013-12-06T07:02:11.855-05:002013-12-06T07:02:11.855-05:00No takers?
HooNo takers?<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72211528653576490042013-12-06T05:26:57.204-05:002013-12-06T05:26:57.204-05:00Crusader Rex,
Rupert Sheldrake? In comparison, h...Crusader Rex,<br /><br />Rupert Sheldrake? In comparison, he makes Eugene McCarthy seem almost sane. You've wasted your time.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40542461587025603832013-12-05T21:55:57.508-05:002013-12-05T21:55:57.508-05:00PS
Please forgive the typos. I must try to get so...PS <br />Please forgive the typos. I must try to get some sleep. I have been at it ALL the live long day. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85649785620320096852013-12-05T21:52:38.101-05:002013-12-05T21:52:38.101-05:00Bach,
Re the ESP research: The lecture was somet...Bach, <br /><br />Re the ESP research: The lecture was something available publicly. I suspect it may be on youtube or vimeo. <br />It was a lecture given by a certain Dr Sheldrake in California and had to do with a series of tests and correlative data he has been collecting. In it he touches on a broader theory of his about mind. I don't really know what to think about all that. It's interesting, but I would need to actually read up on it; and I currently don't have the free time to do so. <br />Apparently he has written some fairly popular books. <br />Anyway.... My reasons for watching this fellow's lecture were professional. So I am not really at liberty to discuss WHY I was watching it, or why the people I work with and for find the data included in this fellows research interesting. You can draw your own inferences. <br /><br />Re dark matter and the universal constants: I am not convinced either way. But, I would say this fellow has made some very pointed observations about the 'need' for dark matter and it's rather convenient placement. <br />But, as I note: There is not enough hours in the day. Maybe if my superiors want to follow that line, I would have an excuse to read up on his theories and examine them properly. Maybe I would bounce them off the interested parties? <br />As it stands, I am currently reading a book on Napoleonic conflicts for my own enjoyment. That and the Word, of course. <br /><br />" ...I still doubt your capacity to judge science. Your son might have studied science, but you haven't, not in depth."<br />You're quite correct. I am an outside party. My own academic studies are of a different path entirely. I am interested in the sciences, surely. But, the study of any specific field of science does not drive my being. <br />They are not my passion or purpose.<br />Rather, I am an impartial party, when it comes to science. It is a tool. Sometimes a weapon. I use science when it works to use science. I come to understand it as required, or as it suites me. <br />In other words, I often assist others in making sure it is used correctly for the purposes required in my current capacity. <br />It is a far cry from how I started down this path, but that is the nature of my eclectic and often chaotic 'business'. <br />It is real, living breathing scientists (and engineers) I have made a fairly decent study of. <br />Again, I have to be irritatingly vague. But, let's put it this way: We have objectives, and we require certain types of minds to reach those objectives. There is a filter and protect process involved, and I am part of that. So, I have an opinion on these things that is more or less external, and driven by motives from without. <br />Does that make me a fit judge? I am not so sure it does. <br />More like a juror or even a guard, perhaps. <br />I am not so sure anyone can judge the basic method, without apply some sort of objective external standard. <br />As for my son, his ideas are his own. We share basic values, core beliefs, a culture, and many interests. That leads to some fascinating conversations. My deepest desire is foe him to find happiness. <br />I dare say, I learn things from him all the time. <br />I hope he still learns from me. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29803306695673008772013-12-05T21:11:12.838-05:002013-12-05T21:11:12.838-05:00Crusader Rex,
Care to give further details about ...Crusader Rex,<br /><br />Care to give further details about the ESP research? Generally, when there's a positive (statistically significant) result in ESP research it's very small, easily explained by flaws in the study protocol.<br /><br />At least one of the Multiverse theories is correct, by definition. The Visible Universe is at least 1/1000 the size of the actual Universe resulting from the Big Bang, and the Universe may actually be spatially infinite. There's no reason to assume that physical laws and constants are the same throughout the Universe.<br /><br />We don't have stories about ancient worlds. We have evidence, including fossils. Whenever a new piece of evidence, including a new fossil, the current theories are tested, and could be disproved.<br /><br />Dark matter exists. We just don't know what is. It's necessary to explain such things as galaxies rotating faster than predicted according to the amount of observed ordinary matter.<br /><br />Not knowing everything is a feature of science. Science is pursued in order to find answers (and also questions we weren't aware of).<br /><br />New evidence can always be found in science. Unlike religion, in which there are no new 'facts', just new interpretations.<br /><br />I still doubt your capacity to judge science. Your son might have studied science, but you haven't, not in depth.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-24525217881310568782013-12-05T20:44:00.214-05:002013-12-05T20:44:00.214-05:00Adm.
'[...]they [the gospels] are a far more ...Adm.<br /><br />'[...]they [the gospels] are a far more reliable source than speculations about what might or might not have happened 500 million years ago.'<br />I could not agree more. <br />I was listening to lecture the other day in which a fellow was talking about ESP and the like. He made an excellent point that is somewhat similar. He stated that he found it remarkable that his studies (as strange as they are) are based on experimentation and data, but are scoffed at and ridiculed by legions of professional sceptics. But, that the astronomer Royal in the UK is an open adherent of some form of Multiverse theory and rants on about it all the time, with no one even challenging the fact that his ideas have not a single shred of evidence to back them up. He went on to make some very interesting points about the 'necessity' of dark matter and the measured (and averaged) inconsistency of some of the universal constants. <br />Anyway, he pointed out that the imbalance was always in favour of a materialist paradigm. <br />I am not so sure I buy his theories on telepathy, but I think that his general observation of an imbalance in the way science is judged is quite true. It is quite obvious that is the case when we look at these wild stories about the extremely ancient world all invented to support that paradigm. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62894753072251386672013-12-05T20:19:27.446-05:002013-12-05T20:19:27.446-05:00Bach,
"So what sort of school does your son ...Bach, <br />"So what sort of school does your son attend?"<br />Currently he in university part time and working. <br />He did attend a high school before that, and that is what I am referencing in the above comment.<br /><br />"Evolution is a theory, not a law. In science, a theory isn't a guess, as it is in everyday life, it's a hypothesis explaining observations of reality that is so well supported by the evidence that it becomes a theory, which is about as certain as anything can be in science."<br />Sure. Theories are open to interpretation and are often improved upon or replaced with better theories. <br /><br />"There's an enormous consilience of evidence indicating that evolution is true, which would be impossible to adequately cover in one unit in high school. Including comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, palaeontology, the geographic distribution of species, etc."<br />Three years of advanced level biology is enough to hit on most of these topics, at least superficially. If a student is still very interested, they can pursue these sciences at the post secondary level. High school is meant to introduce these concepts to those who want to further their education along those lines. Not to indoctrinate them into one specific interpretation of a single or family of theory. <br /><br />"I wonder why your son's school has a unit on the mysteries of the mind? Does it deal with psychology, neurophysiology and neuroanatomy (including microscopic anatomy), which are all complicated subjects on their own?"<br />The course which my son took this unit in was a university preparatory course on biology in medicine. At the time he had wanted to study along those lines and the course gave him an opportunity to enter that stream. Psychology and neuroscience were touched upon, obviously. <br />I do not recall all the rather dry specifics, but I do recall that unit (as it also interested me) and the all consuming nature of the homework involved. Especially the dreaded 'independent study unit' that counted for a large portion of his grades. It was a tough course, but he did quite well in it. <br />He has since abandoned that track entirely and is moving along other lines. He seems much happier for it, too. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26078757885366793222013-12-05T19:44:03.607-05:002013-12-05T19:44:03.607-05:00Grandpa, you were paid to sweep the floors in the ...Grandpa, you were paid to sweep the floors in the department. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4185706876733323342013-12-05T19:42:31.434-05:002013-12-05T19:42:31.434-05:00To recap, the opening post is a complete a deliber...To recap, the opening post is a complete a deliberate misrepresentation: <br /><br /><i>Now a mainstream University of Georgia geneticist and evolutionary biologist-- Dr. Eugene McCarthy, Director of Macroevolution.net-- claims that humans are likely descended from mating of an ape and a pig.</i> <br /><br />McCarthy is not associated with the University of Georgia. <br /><br />He is not a "mainstream evolutionary biologist." He is a crackpot who <a href="http://www.macroevolution.net/about-me.html#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=20&at_ab=-&at_pos=4" rel="nofollow">disavows mainstream evolutionary theory</a>. <br /><br />Mainstream evolutionary biologists have rejected McCarthy's "hypothesis." He couldn't publish his bullshit with any respectable publisher. <br /><br />No taxpayer funds have gone to pay for McCarthy's silliness. <br /><br />Egnor should have figured all this out before writing a post. It's mind boggling that he would rely on a British tabloid and not check the facts. He should have retracted this silliness as soon as he learned about it. He hasn't because this is the only way he can criticize mainstream evolutionary theory: by fighting straw men. <br /><br />Egnor is a dishonest hack. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18161235839305100492013-12-05T18:00:19.609-05:002013-12-05T18:00:19.609-05:00Grandpa,
In your view... Sheesh.Grandpa,<br /><br />In your view... Sheesh.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66198396457727808502013-12-05T17:57:05.563-05:002013-12-05T17:57:05.563-05:00Trish,
Actually, a science teacher in an American...Trish,<br /><br />Actually, a science teacher in an American public school who flaunts the law by teaching special creation in a science class wouldn't be thrown into jail. He (or she) would be transferred by the school administration to teach other parts of the science course. Or would be fired with continuing defiance.<br /><br />As happened with John Freshwater.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55917462003782288942013-12-05T17:51:25.973-05:002013-12-05T17:51:25.973-05:00Trish,
I'm a little less not credentialed tha...Trish,<br /><br />I'm a little less not credentialed than you to judge.<br /><br />Anyway. Consensus is the best method we have of judging whether something is plausible or not. Occasionally, someone bucks the consensus, and is later proven right. More often, a person bucking consensus is later proven to be absolutely wrong.<br /><br />Often correct hypotheses are just ignored and are realised to be significant much later. And often the reverse also happens too, with incorrect hypotheses being accepted (and even awarded Nobel Prizes).<br /><br />Einstein's theories of Relativity are as true as anything we know. They were considered so controversial when published that Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922 for his 1905 paper on the photovoltaic effect. Ignoring Special Relativity of 1905 and General Relativity of 1915.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10624228395498354152013-12-05T17:40:59.435-05:002013-12-05T17:40:59.435-05:00Grandpa,
So what is your concept of the definitio...Grandpa,<br /><br />So what is your concept of the definition of evolution?<br /><br />Anyway. Skepticism is an inherent part of science. Whenever a paleontologist studies a new fossil, and it's not a matter of a matter of gazing at it -the study often takes years from the time the fossil has been discovered, his or her interpretation when published immediately becomes open to criticism. Which often happens.<br /><br />You keep on ignoring the consilience of evidence. Fossils are important, but they're not the only evidence.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54289946466039346642013-12-05T17:34:07.705-05:002013-12-05T17:34:07.705-05:00backfield, whatever the academic disagreements abo...backfield, whatever the academic disagreements about the Gospels (and your comments are a biased sample of the current state of affairs in Biblical scholarship) in my view they are a far more reliable source than speculations about what might or might not have happened 500 million years ago.Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.com