« Another brilliant idea from the same people that brought you John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, and Ted Kennedy... | Main | A Conversation with an Evolutionary Zealot »

Zealot Watch

If there is one certainty on the internet, it is that the simple mention of the word "evolution" will bring out the wing nuts. Even when you warn then as I clearly did, they don't listen.

Andy starts with this: "Evolution Collapses -- So sayeth Wizbang!" When any rational person knows I never said anything close to that. But then he just lets the warm glow of zealotry take him over. He quotes me:

If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory [of evolution as I defined in the comments] -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable- is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable. There is something other than DNA that apparently carries some sort of genome and we don't even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!

He DOES NOT quote the Article in question which says:

In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents,...

Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material.

The discovery also raises interesting biological questions - including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system.

Yet he tells his readers:

Now that you've read the above, go read article in question and marvel at how it looks remarkably like nothing Paul said above. Lazy, unable to read, or dishonest? You be the judge

They actually look quite similar. OK... I've been the Judge.. Andy you are dishonest AND unable to read.... Tough to read being blinded by the zealotry and all.

And that is what annoys me the most about the "evolution zealots." They are so smug and condescending, like they have all then answers, when in reality they don't have any clue either. Andy has no more clue where we came from then Jerry Falwell.

But Andy doesn't realize how dumb he looks. Falwell admits you need to have faith to believe him. Andy pretends he has answers. At least Falwell is intellectually honest.


Update: You know Andy is losing the argument when he starts outright lying. He said, "I apologize if Paul's confusion over abiogenesis and evolution,..."

When I specially said in the first post:

* The nomenclature will always bite you. I don't use "evolution" in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. That version of "evolution" is seriously, seriously flawed.... And no amount of your typing in the comments section will make unflawed.

Abiogenesis is sometimes separated by the zealot crowd from the "everything came from primordial ooze" theory. I don't care what you call it, I made it abundantly clear I was talking about the "oozers." (as I call them) Clearly I was not confused and Andy was lying to make himself look knowledgeable.

Instead, he made himself look increasingly silly and frankly desperate.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Zealot Watch:

» Deinonychus antirrhopus linked with Wizbang's Big Bad Biology

Comments (18)

Paul -"Getting in ... (Below threshold)
andy:

Paul -

"Getting in the way of evolution" does not mean "makes evolution more improbable," or even magnitudes! more! improbable!

This becomes even more clear when one reads the entire article disussing that NINETY PERCENT OR MORE of the offspring still carry the defective gene and that the mystery material we "don't even have a name for" is, most likely, what some people have already named "RNA."

The only commonality between what you assessed the article as saying and what it actually says are they both use words from the English language.

As for the origins of life, as has been pointed out, that has naught to do with evolution. I don't claim to know precisely how life originated, nor have I claimed such, but I do know that evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life.

If you want to redefine evolution to suit your own argument, go for it, but ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty don't exactly make for a good debate.

"And that is what annoys me... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"And that is what annoys me the most about the "evolution zealots." They are so smug and condescending, like they have all then answers, when in reality they don't have any clue either. "

I absolutely agree with this.

There is far more about our world that we still don't know or understand, science isn't all knowing.

Andy... Andy... ANDY... AND... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Andy... Andy... ANDY... ANDY

You just wrote:

"Getting in the way of evolution" does not mean "makes evolution more improbable,"

Come on Andy... What part of paraphrasing do you not understand?

You are making a fool of yourself.

Sigh:"but I do ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sigh:

"but I do know that evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life."

So Does Jerry Falwell Andy, So does Jerry Falwell.

Totally OT, but I just had ... (Below threshold)

Totally OT, but I just had to say that I attend Purdue. We occasionally do cool things.

I want to know WHY life ori... (Below threshold)
Master of None:

I want to know WHY life originated.

You are making a fool of... (Below threshold)
andy:

You are making a fool of yourself.

Well, that's settled then. *whew!*

Sorry, Paul, but I think you're projecting. It's ok though - it's one of those self-defence mechanisms we have. Probably has some benefit against selection pressures. ;)

Allow me to paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

"I do not think that article means what you think it means."

The sad thing is that there... (Below threshold)

The sad thing is that there are actually good arguments to be had against evolution, but gene repair mechanisms are not one of them.

Any, look up homochirality or the law of mass action or genetic drift or methods of dating rocks... all of those topics have irregularities that you could harp on and no one could prove you wrong because of gaps in our knowledge... but seriously, genetic repair mechanisms?

"I do not think that art... (Below threshold)
Paul:

"I do not think that article means what you think it means."

hmmmm I said it shows how we don't know jack about how all this stuff works.

Now if you DO know the origin of the species and can prove it then I will, of course, be wrong.

Feel free to post your proof here in the comments.

Paul -I'll do so a... (Below threshold)
andy:

Paul -

I'll do so as soon as you stop trying to confuse the argument by mixing ideas such as "we don't know jack," "we found something interesting," and "explain the origin of the species."

No one, to my knowledge, has claimed that we understand everything about how evolution proceeds - but we do know it proceeds. Your questions are like someone asking apples to not fall from trees while we figure out the mechanisms of gravitation.

In short, you are either ignorantly or intentionally propping up happy little strawmen that you can bravely topple, and I refuse to play such games.

Have a nice day.

P.S. Me, a wingnut? That's rich, considering the source.

Paul - Sadly, thou... (Below threshold)
andy:

Paul -

Sadly, though, you aren't free to redefine evolution to mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument - at least not if you want a meaningful debate on the topic. Of course, you didn't want that at all, or you would have used the accepted definitions and not the "Paul's Made-Up Definitions."

Further, given that the article in question does not use evolution to mean what you seem to think it means, your entire response to the article - based on a definition that no one but you seem to be using - is pretty pointless.

Color me unimpressed.

Andy

Congratulations. Wizbang!'s... (Below threshold)

Congratulations. Wizbang!'s evolution confusion is now a topic over on my own blog.

P.S. People who know more a... (Below threshold)
andy:

P.S. People who know more about the subject than either you or I are making you look pretty silly over at my site. You might want to make up your own definitions for some more key terms to find a way out of it.

Andy is quite correct Paul.... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Andy is quite correct Paul. I can't blame you for following up with a topic that is generating high traffic and getting linked. But I feel bad in that those links and numbers are elicited at the expense of your credibility and expense.

Ah, ~DS~ has appeared to sh... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ah, ~DS~ has appeared to share his throw up with this thread, too.

Evolution zealots?... (Below threshold)
Uber:

Evolution zealots?

how funny and how weak. The proof you seek has been available for some time in the various print media.

'So Does Jerry Falwell Andy, So does Jerry Falwell'

That is so sad as to make one feel for the author.

Andy, you were spot on when... (Below threshold)
Duke:

Andy, you were spot on when you said:

"Sadly, though, you aren't free to redefine evolution to mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument - at least not if you want a meaningful debate on the topic. Of course, you didn't want that at all, or you would have used the accepted definitions and not the "Paul's Made-Up Definitions."

Further, given that the article in question does not use evolution to mean what you seem to think it means, your entire response to the article - based on a definition that no one but you seem to be using - is pretty pointless."

Next week, he's going to change the definition of dissent to "eating babies" in order to criticize it.

Will someone get Paul a dictionary? PLEASE?

Look it's simple. Paul is c... (Below threshold)
~DS~:

Look it's simple. Paul is completely, objectively, open to anyone who would like to present evidence for common descent or evolutionary theory, except zealots, and by zealots he means anyone who is willing to present evidence for evolutionary biology ...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy