Posted by: graemebird | February 21, 2011

DEMARCATION DISPUTE: The Moron PZ Myers Attempts To Compare Himself To A Scientist.

Myers didn’t have any serious criticism of Kaku below. We have to conclude one of three things therefore:

1.  Myers knows as much or more about evolution than the scientist Kaku. But Myers is Butthurt that the media asked Kaku to comment and not him. This is then a demarcation dispute within the priesthood.

2. Myers knows shit all about evolution. His ideas on evolution anre baseless and wrong, beyond the memorisation of a lot of datum, as befits his specialty.  And he’s just trying to compare himself to someone he is jealous of.

There are more options but not many more. Because Kaku’s rendering of evolutionary theory is fine and better than anything that Myers could do without notes. That it might not conform to what the biology bigshot in-crowd considers the norm is neither here nor there.  Listen to Kaku and see what you think. I’ll make a friendly amendment to one or two things Kaku is saying. But bear in mind this is unlikely to be anything he would not himself correct given a longer segment.   The last person you want an opinion from, for evolution, is PZ Myers. Truly he is just fucking useless.

Oops. Turns out that I cannot imbed he youtube. So I’ll leave a link At this point I advise that you listen to Michio Kaku, and then you’ll understand what I’m saying next.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647

(((((time out))))

Really rather good isn’t it.  So either way it was just Myers acting butthurt.  In fact Myers would be utterly useless in a debate on evolution unless he had been fired from the public tit for all time, was now on minimum wage, and you were simply using his fat ass as a quick source of data. In other words he may have some passing usefulness as a research assistant but only if he had already been laid low and faced potential starvation.

My friendly amendment to what Kaku is saying is simply to point out that isolation doesn’t ipso facto speed up evolution in the sense that having Australia might mean that the aborigines evolved faster. I do get what he was driving at. You need multiple near-isolation to enable success from a minority to wind up becoming a majority trait. This tends to imply failure and mass-culling on the part of the majority by the way.

Essentially the butthurt PZ Myers just went about putting words in Kaku’s mouth. But he had no actual valid criticisms. The real deal is thatt bad “scientists” (ie science workers) try to stake out territory for themselves.

This incident has convinced my that Myers has virtually no understanding of evolution. Essentially Myers is a transplanted High School Physiology teacher. His capacities do not exceed this level.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Graeme Bird vs PZ Myers. Lets have a look at a head to head comparison.

    Qualifications:

    Myers: PhD in biology from the University of Oregon.

    Bird: Diploma or similar qualification in economics from Otago university.

    Current job:

    Myers: Associate Professor of biology at the University of Minnesota’s Morris.

    Bird: Technician or laborer at some sort of factory (I don’t know this for certain, but I am pretty sure this is about all he is capable of doing paid work for).

    Literary activities:

    Myers: Author of the journal Pharyngula, which Nature journal listed describes as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist. The topics Myers covers are broad ranging, with many articles discussing breaking science news and research. the blog has become particularly well-known for criticism of religion, intelligent design, creationism, quacks and crackpots. Pharyngula also won the 2005 Koufax Award for Best Expert Blog. Attracts a large amount of traffic and support from qualified scientists and critical thinkers who post on his blog.

    Bird: Author of and main contributer to “A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office” Blog consists of mainly antiscience and conspiracy theory rants along with diatribes against economic theory. Promoter of all sorts of crackpottery and quackery, with 80% of comments being written by himself. Visited only by him and his demented sycophant and various other people who find it amusing to see a grown man make a perpetual fool of himself.

    Summary:

    Bird: How many times can a loser fucking lose? I know you’ll find a way.

    PZ Myers: The winner, but it’s hardly a fair contest pitting a science heavyweight against a feeble minded, know nothing, intellectually lightweight, blowhard.

    • Right. So whats your argument? Are you merely rehashing the argument from authority and the ad hom duo again?

      You do realize these are logical fallacies don’t you?

      Once upon a time the argument from authority wasn’t ALWAYS a logical fallacy. Most of the time yes. But not always. Now it always is. Since you can always find credentialed people to dis-agree.

      I do go on authority, but only where I share the same paradigm as the person I’m citing. When one disagrees on paradigms with the expert obviously his authority is useless unless it is directed specifically to the competing paradigms.

      You have undergone a conceptual audit.

      You have been given an F-For-Fail.

      That everyone cited authority rather than substantial arguments implies that this was a public servant demarcation dispute. It also implies that Kaku has a rather better understanding of issues in evolution than fatty Myers. Who betrays no understanding in his critique.

      Imagine being bewildered at the phrase “Gross Evolution.” ?????????????

      You would really have to be a dummy to be stumped by that.

  2. Still fretting about Graeme Bird, clearly your intellectual and creative superior in all ways, Bird Flaps?

    Heavens, you’ve even named yourself after one of his extraordinary capabilities.

    You by contrast have no skills or insights, you have achieved nothing and have no blog that people read and love and learn from.

    Don’t be so spiteful and jealous of Graeme, Bird Flaps. It’s unseemly. We know his brilliance and following rankles with non-entities like you. But that’s the way of the world. People don’t like bitter losers either. Grow a spine dear chap. Get a life.

  3. Sinclair has a thread that would be embarrassing but for the stupidity of his fellow neoclassicals. As incredible as it is he’s been the dean of the RMIT economics department without understanding monetary economics.

    Now he asks RATHER THAN LECTURES “Are reserves money.” What that really means is “Are bank reserves money”. The answer is OF COURSE BLOODY NOT.

    Bank reserves are banks money. Money supply is the publics money. Bank reserves predict what the banks will do. Money Supply predicts what the public will do. Mark thought that reserves were money. Some of these dummies like Mark or Jason get all excited about the monetary base sometime in their early undergraduate years. But that part of monetary base not at your house has no impact on your spending under current conditions. What really counts are your on-call money at the bank, plus your cash at home, minus your regular debt repayment committments, as well as the general availability and conditions attached with acquiring new debt.

    It is the above that counts, when we want to sort out how money supply changes will alter spending in the economy.

  4. “James Earl Ray who assassinated MLK was clearly on the right.”

    Cambria. The official jury trial into MLK’s death established unanimously that MLK was murdered by the government. And that James Earl Ray had nothing to do with it. Don’t be accusing him when he’s been officially cleared.

  5. Fundamental error: he confuses evolution with natural selection,

    BULLSHIT HE DOES. THIS IS FATTY-MYERS PUTTING WORDS IN KAKU’S MOUTH.

    and thinks that if we aren’t being hunted down by sabre-toothed cats, evolution has stopped. This is wrong. We currently have reduced mortality compared to our ancestors, which suggests that we are less strongly selected in specific ways, but we are still experiencing selection — some of us have been selected for lactose tolerance in the last 10-15,000 years, for instance, and sexual selection is ongoing, and in case you hadn’t noticed, there are still diseases around that kill people.

    ALL GOOD. BUT IT DOESN’T CONTRADICT ANYTHING KAKU ACTUALLY SAID. AND IN FACT NO-ONE IS BEING SELECTED FOR LACTOSE TOLERANCE TODAY. IN FACT LACTOSE INTOLERANT TYPES, EXLCUDING CHINA, HAVE A GREATER BIRTHRATE THAN LACTOSE TOLERANT FOLKS.

    But most importantly, reducing mortality and selection allows variants to survive, increasing the diversity of forms present in the population. You could even argue that reducing selection increases the rate of evolution. Selection is a conservative force that retains only a subset of the population for propagation into the next generation, you know.

    GOOD POINT. BUT IT DOESN’T CONTRADICT ANYTHING KAKU ACTUALLY SAID. AND WILL MYERS LET ON THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS A CONSERVATIVE FORCE IN ANOTHER CONTEXT?

    And the rest: “gross” evolution? What the hell is that?

    GET A GRIP MYERS. IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU OUGHT TO GIVE IT AWAY.

  6. For me the beetles are bigger than the beach boys. But for me Brian Wilson taken as an individual is bigger than either Paul or John.

  7. Update: 1 cousin dead, 1 brother close call.

  8. Jason Soons unending generosity of spirit for bad bastards:

    “I have mixed feelings about the House of Saud.
    On the one hand these fuckers are bankrolling all the mad mullahs around the world. On the other hand, they are only doing it as part of a power sharing arrangement with their home grown mad mullahs and most of these princes don’t believe in any of the shit themselves, and given half the chance would rather be oil wrestling with a hottie while snorting cocaine.

    If they fall they may be replaced by people who will continue to bankroll the maddies and also believe in the stuff.”

    By contrast I want to drag them, and all their dirty laundry, right out onto the street, and watch them die like pigs. Watch them squealing like pigs in front of the people they have oppressed.

    • Graeme, the Saudi and the Libyan dictatorships are US allies, armed and trained by the US. Why would Soon who has always supported imperial overlords, including the British in Malaysia, not support, even identify with and admire them.

      People like Jason Soon and Joe Cambria are just bum-boys for the US military-industrial complex, the bipartisan Dem-Rep Party, the big banks and all the accoutrements of crony capitalism 21 century style.

      • Sure seems that way.

  9. http://www.heritage.org/Events/2011/02/Donald-Rumsfeld

  10. One thing is for sure. Neither Jason Soon, nor Sinclair Davidson, nor JC, nor Mark Dill, has an ASIO file.

    Can you imagine the ignominy, the humiliation, the utterly horrifying confirmation that your life has been meaningless, that you have not rattled the cages of the powers-that-be, done or said the slightest subversive or challenging thing in your whole life, that you DON’T HAVE AN ASIO FILE? By the time you’re 30!

    I would die of social embarrassment if that were the case.

    • Good Germans.

      • “A citizen of Nazi Germany who participated in or overlooked atrocities while denying personal moral responsibility by appeal to his submission to supposedly legitimate authority.”

        Quite.

  11. Graeme, what do you think of this piece by Cory Bernandi. He’s Abbott’s parliamentary secretary and a SA MP. Bit of a worry me thinks his lack of understanding of economics.

    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/02/the-government-cant-see-the-wood-for-the-trees-.html?cid=6a012876778d82970c0147e2c2a51b970b#comment-6a012876778d82970c0147e2c2a51b970b

  12. Actually he looks okay to me Philomena. I’ve only read the threadstarter and not the comments. But he makes a valuable point in my view.

    • But Graeme. He says nothing about the role of the banks. He puts the entire blame on “public policy” as if government were more powerful than the banks and capital.

      And then this.

      “There are some clear lessons from history that we should all heed as they have proven themselves to be correct time and time again. You cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity.”

      That’s so wrong isn’t it?

      • Right. But you know. Its only a small piece. So I cannot really talk about whats left out.

  13. Is it just me but doesn’t everything about Joe Cambria of Catallexy remind you of and make you think he looks just like this.

  14. Here’s JC/BirdLab/BirdFlaps relaxing. On the way to you know what.

  15. Ah, the inner and outtie theory of the human organism.

    Deep.

  16. “After New Year’s Day 2009, Western media reported that Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, had paid Mariah Carey $1 million to sing just four songs at a bash on the Caribbean island of St. Barts. ”

    Isn’t this the nouveau riche trash hole that wannabe dictator JC boasted about going to for a couple of weeks last year?

  17. I think Myers and Kaku about both wrong because their ideas presuppose some teleology. We can only talk about selection for a specific environment, not towards some greater being. One could even argue that by allowing greater diversity in the gene pool there is an increase in the likelihood of surviving future environmental changes. That is one reason why the emphasis on the individual is misleading, it is the totality of the genomic variations that is more important over the long term rather than some idealised idea of the perfect human being. Immunology is a prime example of this. It is a physical and mathematical impossibility for any organism to contain sufficient immunological responses to address all possible pathogenic contingencies. Massive die offs from pathogens are common and the best, and ultimately only defense, is the genomic spread in relation to immunological function.

    • I don’t see anything Kaku saying that implies this teleology. I could infer it from what Myers says. But he just doesn’t say enough to show any real understanding of evolution. So I don’t know.

  18. Since I fancy myself the main authority on monetary economics in this country I must put a plug in for this astoundingly good book on the subject written by an Australian.

    The book is “The Eviil Princes Of Martin Place” by Chris Leithner.

    Whats knocking me out is the realisation of how necessary a book this is. Because its a condensation of all the best work on monetary economics from Rothbard onward. And particularly its highlighting vital insights just off the press. To get the knowledge that is contained in this book by other means you would have to download all these journal articles by Rothbard, Hullsman, Salerno and others. And you’d have to have mastered the Mystery of Banking and have waded through De Soto’s gigantic book.

    Now I’ve done all these things of course. But I cannot expect others too. So for this reason I must recommend that everyone buy Chris Leithner’s book.

    When you read this book just humor me and accept that everything he says here is right. Its too hard to explain ones case and prove it to the nth degree AT THE SAME TIME. Then when you fully understand his thinking feel free to verify/falsify AT THIS LATER STAGE. We have too much epistemological stupidity going down these days where faux-Popperians think they can dismiss a way of thinking prior to understanding it in broad brush.

    Though Chris is a young bloke, this is such a good thing he’s done, that he ought never have to buy his own beer again. We ought treat him like an old soldier on ANZAC day.

  19. The mainstream view of the way stars are formed is incoherent and the facts do not bear it out:

    “Although getting the chance to see this happen is a noteworthy in itself, the fact that it was a brown dwarf that acted as the lens is extremely rare; so rare in fact, that Gould believes something is awry.

    “In this light, we note that two other sets of investigators have concluded that they must have been ‘lucky’ unless old-population brown-dwarfs are more common than generally assumed,” Gould said.

    Either serendipity had a huge role to play, or there are far more brown dwarfs out there than we thought. If there are more brown dwarfs, something isn’t right with our understanding of stellar evolution. Brown dwarfs may be a more common feature in our galaxy than we previously calculated…”

    I would suspect that the galaxy is awash in brown dwarves. Since a brown dwarf is really just a step above a gas giant and a step below a star.

    Now since I would say that the only difference between a planet and a comet, is that that the comet has NOT been captured into the plane that all other planets travel around a star ….. it then would follow that there are brown dwarves that are effectively comets that could cause havoc. There ought to be moon-sized, planet-sized and brown dwarf-sized comets that could cause havoc.

    Since it is only via catastrophic interaction that leads to the planets sorting themselves out in a neat plane. Note how all our planets revolve along the one plane? How does that get set up except by massive and catastrophic interaction between those planets until such time as that plane is effected?

  20. Attempts to explain how plate tectonics cannot work. Its a hard thing to convey in words. Here is one attempt:

    “Supposing you are superman and you are attempting to push a small hill around. It just cannot work . Even if there are a hundred of you pushing against big shields or something. The effects will be localised. Try visualizing what you are claiming with tectonics. It cannot be done. Potholer made an animation. But the dumb bastard didn’t realise he was reducing the concept to absurdity.”

    • So Graeme, what is your explanation of the NZ earthquakes?

      • I think earthquakes are probably usually underground volcanic reactions. And I think volcanic reactions are powered by space weather. I see them as fundamentally electrical discharges and possibly reactions to a disturbance and momentary weakening of gravity.

      • Check this out:

  21. You turn a turbine through a magnetic field and you can wind up with an electric current. A more complex process, somewhat in reverse to the other, winds up turning electrical energy into into macro movement in a motor.

    We see in a generator chemical potential energy in coal, turned into heat energy by combustion, then going to turn this turbine using steam (ie converted to kinetic energy) and then the kinetic energy getting converted to electrical energy.

    The point is the process by which one type of energy is converted to another is no mystery. It may be a mystery to me if put on the spot, but its something that can readily be revised or swotted up on. And so figuring out what causes extreme weather events amounts to applying this understanding to the atmosphere, sea and earth. How could it be otherwise?

    So you have a cyclone whose kinetic energy is such that it is akin to a nuclear weapon going off every few minutes. Where is this energy coming from and how is it being converted? I’ve found someone who has done this exercise and put it into a book. So I’ll have to get the book rather than scraping away trying to figure it out for myself. But think of what poor shape the mainstream science is in that the exercise hasn’t been done?

    We have electrical energy in the form of charged particles coming in from the sun and the rest of the galaxy. We have electrical energy coming in via Birkeland currents. The earth has a magnetic field of its own. So we have everything we need to cause this energy transfer. We have all the components to turn electrical energy into kinetic energy. The kinetic energy in volcanic reactions, earthquakes or cyclones.

    And this basic science is important. It can give us early warnings and save lives. It can tell us that we need to make more sturdy buildings and sock away freeze-dried food.

    Well what about the warm water itself? Ought that not be enough to create these cyclones? Thats fine if you can show the process by which warm water gets converted to kinetic energy leaving cold water. And when you are done with that how about designing a tepid water generating facility.

    This is all fine so long as you can show that the water has cooled much more than it would normally during the night or on an overcast day AND you have to show the conversion process.

    But what is the transfer process of tepid water to energy on a scale that is equivalent to a nuclear bomb every few minutes. Matters of plausibility come into this. But any good electrical engineer ought to be able to show conversion from electrical to kinetic energy given a magnetic field, electrical currents and corialis forces as an engine starter.

    You see the winds ought to only be feeble and mild without the input of electrical energy. But when you have solar winds, cosmic rays, magnetic fields …. and light of uv strength and above …… you have the opportunity to convert from one energy type to another and so cause these volcanic eruptions, cyclones, high winds and so forth.

    Its just a straight application of space weather to atmosphere and the earth. And that it isn’t being done after billions of dollars of research in tangential fields has to tell us that public sector science is no good and is not going to be any good.

  22. So the Christchurch earthquake was the result of an underground volcanic reaction?

    WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I THINK MOST EARTHQUAKES ARE THE RESULT OF THIS. NOTE ALSO THAT THIS WAS TECHNICALLY AN AFTERSHOCK ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS

    The epicenter was 2 km west of Lyttleton, which is inland from the bay. So where is this mysterious volcano situated?

    1. TELL ME HOW FAR UNDERGROUND THE EPICENTER OF THE FIRST EARTHQUAKE WAS?

    2. TELL ME HOW FAR UNDERGROUND THE EPICENTER OF THE SECOND EARTHQUAKE WAS?

    WE HAVE TREMORS AROUND MINES AND THINGS WHERE THE EARTH IS FALLING INTO PREVIOUSLY CREATED GAPS. I WOULD INDEED BE SURPRISED IF YOU COULD SHOW THAT THE FIRST EARTHQUAKE WASN’T WHERE THE MAGMA IS.

    CAN YOU SHOW THAT OR ARE YOU SHOOTING BLANKS?

  23. Quake epicentre
    Date 4 September 2010 04:35 NZST
    (16:35 UTC 3 September)
    Magnitude 7.1 Mw[1][2]
    Depth 10 km (6.2 mi)[2]
    Epicenter location 43.55°S 172.18°ECoordinates: 43.55°S 172.18°E, near Darfield, Canterbury, New Zealand

    Okay so the depth of the epicentre of the first quake was ten kilometres. What do you know about ten kilometres below Darfield that the rest of us don’t? How can you rule out a volcanic reaction at that depth?

    While its true that magma might usually be more deep where land is this is not necessarily the case at earthquake prone areas of New Zealand.

  24. “The quake was a “strike-slip event with oblique motion” – mostly horizontal movement with some vertical movement.[11]”

    Right. Blasting and collapsing sideways underground as I would see it.

    Now lets go to google maps and see where Darfield is located in relation to the shallower quake in Lyttleton.

  25. Okay so Darfield is less than 50 kilometres away from Lyttleton. And its due West almost. But a little bit north. The estimate for the Darfield earthquake is 10 kilometres deep and for the Lyttleton earthquake is 5 deep, with a mostly horizontal movement, but somewhat down. Horizontal and down. Or at least vertical.

    Under may theory then it looks like a simple matter of the second blast leading to a collapse sideways and down into the gaps created by the first blast. Or something of this nature.

    But anyhow we would want to see the direction the experts say the movement was. Whether it was directed roughly in the direction of Darfield or not. i

  26. “Early investigations have suggested that the shallow earthquake was an aftershock of the September quake in Darfield, but did not come from the same fault-line. GNS Science natural hazards platform manager Kelvin Barryman said tests indicated it occurred on a “blind” or unknown fault, which runs east to west 1km north of Lyttelton.
    ……………………………………………………….. Institute associate director Eylon Shalev said the vertical acceleration of the earth, at 1.9 times the acceleration of gravity, was far greater than the sideways movement. –NZ Herald”

    Hardly terribly inconsistent with the volcano theory. A electrical discharge would be in all directions but mostly upward. Yet if gaps were present from the earlier blast, then you have a lot of potential for sideways action as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: