Jonathan M vs. PZ Myers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- My thanks to Glasgow Skeptics for recording this exchange and permitting me to use it here!
glasgowskeptics...
The full, original video is here:
• PZ Myers Questions and...
These Glasgow blokes have some great content... you might consider adding them to your "subscribed" list.
Jonathan M doesn't communicate very clearly, so I've had to caption his rambling questions. PZ also didn't follow what specifically Jonathan was asking. He responded a little more clearly to the question once he was able to suss out the real meaning in the question:
scienceblogs.co...
Note the Gish Gallop, the "I'm jus' asking" tactic, and the pants-ruining terror on his face. It's the most nonsensical question about embryology he could have asked, and here's why: a mouse HOX gene can be transplanted to a fly, and still be functional to produce the homologous structure. Lack of correlation? Holy frijoles, you have to be kidding me.
Was PZ too mean to Jonathan? I'd probably argue that he wasn't mean enough. It might help a lot to understand what Jonathan wrote on his blog prior to PZ's appearance:
scienceblogs.co...
Jonathan M: You missed a rare opportunity to engage with someone on a topic on which they are an expert. What a shame that your political and religious views allowed you to miss out on the genuine scientific discussion, instead trying to score cheap points for your cause. You'll never be a proper scientist if you put ideology before open inquiry.
I can't imagine a more perfect respoonse to that question. He effectively took a Gish gallop and boiled it down to an actual assertion that can be argued as having an assumption built into it, rip out the assumption and show the assertion to be wrong and therefore the whole question.
This is eloquent debating, and I love it
Wow, my new favourite video only got 19k views in 11 years. Hilarious.
Thanks professor Dave
Quoting a man born in 1899 - now that is cutting edge technology!
I mean, these idiots quote a man born 2023 years ago, soooo, what's your point?
the eyes of Jonathan "I got you!" while he is not able to articulate a clear question.
Thank you for sharing this clip. And thanks for the link to the entire recording.
@Confuseddave
I've added a little annotation to the description. PZ couldn't make sense of the question at the time. He's since responded with more detail.
I think you have to read the "10+1 questions for PZ" that JM wrote prior to PZ's appearance to understand why the level of animosity was high. The answer was presented in the presentation that preceded the question... Jonathan M was one of those people that thinks they can crush a speaker by asking tough questions, but he flubbed it.
That was so beautiful to watch. The look on his stupid face at the end was priceless.
His "examples" are just him reading something he doesn't understand. That's why no one can understand what he's saying. He doesn't understand it himself.
I don't know why I bother to read the comments. The learned post valid arguments, logical reasons, and relevant science explaining how Jonathan (the Grad student) is full of it; conversely, the remainder-and religious sympathizers-whine about what meanie heads the scientists and skeptics are. Good grief.
I noticed you didn't answer Jonathan's questions either though. :) Supposedly homologous structures show Common Descent yet how can the structures really be related if there are very different in the early developing stage? If they are the products of Common Ancestry the earliest developing stages are the stages that evolution is supposed to conserve. But the embryonic pathways are very different. Mutations in these early stages are usually very detrimental so it would be extremely unlikely for the structures to have mutated different pathways. So why is this problem ignored and this is a very valid & legitimate question. As a learned one, what is the answer? ;)
Kristen Mayeaux
Kristen, how much do you know about comparative embryology? For example, could you tell me about the conservation of neural crest development across chordates? What makes chordate mesodermal development unique vs protochordates? Do you know what exaptation is?
Honestly, I'm prepared to explain to you why it was a stupid question, but you need to be knowledgeable enough to understand it, and these subjects aren't easily understood in isolation from their foundations.
C0nc0rdance Sorry I missed this answer and your offer to explain aspects of evolution to me. And yes I do know what extant means. Well, what I really find problematic is that if evolution is to stand, it needs to have a firm foundation. In a sense it is resting upon naturalistic abiogenesis which is not a good foundation and secondly, the source of all evolution is within the DNA genetic code. Whether the evolution was caused by mutations or some other Darwinian mechanism, the instructions for the changes spring from the DNA genetic code. I feel that evolutionary theory should have a good solid understanding of the evolution of the genetic code, if evolution is true. Otherwise, a Higher Power could have intelligently programmed the genetic code into one or numerous ancestor creatures. There is no coherent theory for the origin or evolution of the genetic code - it is described in the scientific literature as the "universal enigma". Besides this major problem for evolution, macroevolution is not observable and is disputable in my opinion. This problem of embryology is another contradiction to the predictions, isn't it?
@@KrisMayeaux way to avoid the question and change the subject
@fistpounder Briefly, the neural tube is a structure that forms in all vertebrate embryos, and eventually gives rise to the whole central nervous system (the brain and spine). Its formation is mediated by several genes that shape it and guide its growth and development, and these genes are known to be homologous between ALL vertebrates. This means that each of these genes from humans evolutionarily "matches" a gene in the mouse, and both have "matches" in fish (the most "primitive" vertebrates).
Here from Prof Dave! Can't believe PZ would commit public murder like this. Bro broke his neck.
Much of Jonathan's "questions" were assertions made under the pretense of "asking questions." No wonder P.Zed. said Jonathan should be ashamed.
Awesome. I'm going to be seeing PZ this weekend at Skepticon!!
When someone can't look you in the eyes while speaking to you, chances are they are being dishonest.
...their research.
Lastly, the ENCODE team did not "find functions" for junk DNA; they labeled any biochemical activity that could be detected by their assays as "functional". This is highly controversial and they've been properly raked over the coals for this, because it is known that spurious binding and pervasive transcription are features of the biochemistry of the cell. It does not translate into organism-level function.
All these are major misrepresentations of the state of the science.
i admire PZ Myers so much, and after seeing this video i admire him even more.
"The neural tube is homologous throughout the chordates yet in some it's permeation? is dependent on induction in the underlying notochorst. In others, it doesnt."-- Jonathan M 3:26
uhmm.. wtf are you talking about?
I can't dispute that the tone was a bit petty, but PZ is clearly right... citing a paper by Sir Gavin de Beers in a discussion of evolution of development is a bit like citing a paper by Charles Babbage for modern information theory. Sir Gavin died in 1972, prior to the foundational work in evo-devo.
I will concede that making a young man, no matter how misguided, feel socially shamed in a hostile group is a pretty aggressive act and not one I would used myself.
" feel" BUZZ!! Creaturds like Latchkey FEEL NO SHAME. They HAVE NO FEELINGS!
I don't understand what Jonathan M. was up to there. Either he must've known that he'd be ridiculed and came there just so he could say that "he stood up to PZ myers" or something, or he genuinely believes what he's saying and expected his arguments to be taken seriously. If that's the case, I kinda feel bad for the guy for the public shaming, by an entire room full of people, that he was exposed to there. :(
Nope… soldier of Christ.. he wearing those battle scars with pride sadly .. they all do… it’s take a certain level of self awareness aka individuality AND integrity to really be ashamed enough to reevaluate oneself and STOP the foolishness.. as we all know this guy did not has any of the above thus why he’s still at it… conclusion.. low levels of individuality.. it’s sad xb
@GetMeThere1
I think you nailed it there. I'd recommend watching the full presentation and Q&A session. He's just spent over an hour addressing the failure of recapitulation theory to explain the actual evolutionary histories, differentiating the strawman of evolution of development that creationists like Jon Wells have created from the actual science. What annoyed PZ about Jonathan's question, I think, is that it had already been addressed in the preceding hour-long talk.
@mordinvan I think it was more the face of someone thinking that he have a zinger, and is about to deliver it, and then it turned into a face of that person not understanding he was just schooled.
my hometown :D
"What a shame that your political and religious views allowed you to miss out on the genuine scientific discussion, instead trying to score cheap points for your cause. You'll never be a proper scientist if you put ideology before open inquiry."
- - C0nc0rdance - -
awesome quote!
If you can defend your position rationally, why resort to argument from personal intimidation?
@volound My condolences.
@lepthymo To the crowed gathered, the "why?" behind PZ's statements was self evident, just as obvious as if I were to ask a Mathematician "Can you explain to me why you say 2+2=4 when I have a dozen papers which show me that 2+2=5?" No explanation is necessary, if us laypeople on UA-cam don't get it, that's our problem, the talk was not for us, it was for people who are knowledgeable on the topic, and the crowd obviously understood.
BINGO!
@SenariXarn : No, that's not quite right. There are puzzling, seemingly MAJOR differences in EARLY development between species that are otherwise quite alike. That is NOT what is expected in the "typical" understanding of evolution and development (in which there (wrongly) remain remnants of the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" perspective). There are some quirky differences in early development that cause some puzzlement from (at least) a "simple-minded" view of evolution.
It upsets me that someone who is being educated can remain so ignorant. He has access to the information that could allow him to break free from the shackles of ignorance, yet he sits there proud of his inability to Google. Why would he study a subject and choose to remain totally ignorant of the facts?
@GetMeThere1
Very valid point. Make sure you read the "10+1 questions for PZ" that JM wrote. I think PZ is responding to what he thinks is #3, which really was a bullshit question because it is predicated on old research that has since been overturned. The "Gavin deBeers" reference was probably what threw him.
"Creationism" as in belief in supernatural entities magically creating anything.
I am trying to find the comment john made on PZ Meyers' blog, can you tell me the # of the post?
What I demand of a mechanism is that it generate specific and testable hypotheses that are *distinguishable* from the mechanisms currently on offer. To the extent mechanisms are necessary for articulable theories, the absence of same means that they aren't.
Now, what does ID give us? A designer about whose characters they are scrupulously silent. We don't know why this designer designs, what this designer's abilities are, nor what means this designer uses to instantiate its designs into...
"well I have got dozens of papers"
A lecture in a Glasgow pub…..why didn’t we ever think of that Andersonian Chemical Society??? Why!?!
@fistpounder Edinburgh, interesting, That might explain it. Personally I think he was putting on his best "telephone voice" hoping it would make him sound smarter.
He lost the argument because he went full creatonist. Never go full creatonist.
He is a creationist; he tried the same thing with Eugenie Scott at the same venue.
Thank you for including SubTitles. Hardly copuld I understand anything. This man studied Science, in order to extract the loopholes. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, like the BeechGroveJoe, he is making a philosophy out of his project! What a Putz.
Ouch, painful moment there
Intelligent Design, which is the theory that McClatchie affirms, can be agnostic on any creator, it can operate merely as a negative position critiquing evolution by demanding an serviceable explanation for what appears to be design, it can highlight "faith leaps" in evolutionary models, it can even be validated by atheists (Bradley Monton). It's true there are old earth creationists who affirm ID but as long as you treat it as theology or creationism you fortify your own worldview blindspot.
@SenariXarn : For some information actually from PZ Meyers himself, I suggest you look at his review of Jonathan Wells book on the issue (title: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design) where he addresses Wells' points about evo-devo. The review is at the TalkDesigndotorg site.
Wow, PZ is mean, but awesome mean. I wouldn't want to have him as a professor, but damn is he amazing.
I have nothing against Scots, but it's nice once in awhile to see an American as the guy with some sense.
What accent is that? I can't place it anywhere! It sounds Scottish sometimes, American other times... where is he from?!
I am Scottish, and I have never heard an accent quite like McLatchie's. Bizarre.
I needed to read the fucking subtitles.
I just love it when you have an experience with someone well-known that is bad and then other people accuse you of doing something wrong. Believe me I've noticed the very same thing
Cult of personality perhaps?
I hear him say "I've got dozens of papers" the same way I hear Eric Idle say "Look at the plumage".
I said "Skewering my ass..." And then realized how funny that sounded.
Errr... I can't really tell, is he asking about the inversion of the dorso-ventral axis in the ancestry of chordates?
Fine, make your case.
Does anyone know where is the blog reply is that PZ said he would post?
I am familiar with the demarcation problem, which is why I didn't attempt a philosophical distinction between science and nonscience that would stand forevermore, amen. Instead, GIVEN the demarcation problem, I think the best approach is to use a more sociological and historical approach, emphasizing the differences between the practices of scientists and nonscientists and evaluating the practical utility of the various hypotheses on offer. If you want to call ID bad science that's fine too.
I think PZ displayed the correct amount of meanness (imho).
@jonman122 it wont change his mind, but hes so far gone that its barely worth trying.
it will change the minds of the audience though. thats far more important.
I don't understand what he's asking. It seems like he's saying that evolution requires certain structures found in a wide diversity of animals need to be homologous... and they are homologous...so... ??? I'm quite confused.
1) I was referring to the IDists constantly proclaiming a "theory in crisis" (Denton's book is adopted as an ID standard) when in fact evolutionary theory has never been more fruitful.
2) In MOST cases. There is no similar pattern of systematic misrepresentation of others in science itself.
3) Irrelevant. I was talking about their failure to address the *reasoning* behind the lines of evidence, not whether IDists had heard them before.
4). But I thought you could anticipate their critiques?
@lepthymo It should've been fairly obvious to most of the people there just from the the question itself. He gave the audience credit.
This development has to develop after earlier development of developed organisms. That's the only way.
Did I get that about right?
This is a bit unfair (note: I'm a RADICAL atheist, I have a PhD in molecular and cell biology, and my specific PhD interest was early development). The questioner IS raising a somewhat reasonable point of contention: There ARE some puzzling "discordances" in early development which aren't exceptionally EASY to explain superficially. They don't AT ALL "disprove" evolutionary theory, but they do cry out for a fuller understanding so they wouldn't provide (nominal) fodder for creationists.
Please show that David Berlinski is a creationist. Please show that Bradley Monton is a creationist. There is a robust and impressive "properly articulated theory" that is chronically misunderstood, misrepresented, and frankly a conundrum to many natural evolutionists whose reducive materialism have led them to think that the biological equivalent of "language" is material lines and squiggles, entirely explainable by the mechanical relations of of ink on paper.
This is *exactly* how creationists should be dealt with.
It's a great mistake to avoid debating them for fear of gifting them the illusion of legitimacy; rather, one should confront them publicly and -this is crucial as a pragmatic matter of applied rhetoric- ridicule them mercilessly and in the frankest terms.
There need be no fear of looking like an elitist know-it-all; indeed mockery is not only appropriate but indispensable to rhetorical efficacy and even basic intellectual honesty.
It is a great mistake to platform creaturds by giving formalized debates with them.
But, yes, if creaturds INITIATE their bullshit in public, unsolicited, then THIS IS the way, the PZMyers ways, one SHOULD deal with them.
OWNED!
WOW. That was fucking awesome. PZ Myers sure knows how to handle his bullshit.
Excuse me sir, but I believe this is your can of whoop-ass.
@iamraynbow Justified ridicule is justified. There is a valid reason backing up the ridicule. Nothing wrong with justified ridicule.
go Jonathan!
@lepthymo They clearly let him say what he wanted to say - and so what if he said he should be ashamed of himself first? The order doesn't matter.
Dear Mr. P.Z Myers,I think what Jonathan M. was trying to explain is that some species try to talk out of their ass.All humans have assholes.When that part of a human's anatomy becomes the dominant feature of their personality,it's time to make some changes.Have a great day. (Hi Mr.C,I hope your health is good).
Jonathan M. was clearly out of his depth here and arguing from ignorance. Citing obsolete scientific papers to make an invalid point is not going to fool any professor nor advance the understanding of a field. If creationist dogma is influencing his judgement, he should be honest about it and cite scripture as a scientific paper; see how far that gets him.
That guy was PZwned.
What the hell is wrong with this guy? Was his sister and mother the same person?
The use of induction ("minds always come from minds") is one that has always puzzled me.
The two models (IDC v modern theory) differ in that one posits the intervention of a supernatural or paranormal being. If that being is a god, then we are talking about miracles, the suspension of the laws of nature, to introduce something new. That's an extraordinary claim because it requires magic... which is not the realm of science at all.
nor in the realm of reality.
I think "believes that God separately created human beings while believing in the literal truth of the Genesis accounts" (there are duplications for both the creation and the flood) qualifies as a commonly accepted definition of "creationist".
And IDists don't have scientific commitments of any kind. They have cultural, political, and religious commitments.
how embarrassing. and i like his approach to just call him out and belittle him and call it bullshit and not sugar coat it. people are too nice sometimes, there is no reason not to act that way. what he is trying to do is sound like he knows what he's talking about but just blabbing bullshit science that doesnt mean shit.
@HealingBlight I think it's a case of using and or appreciating science, logic and reason when it's convenient.
he has a lot of papers and documentation but no arguments
If you don't know what it means, then look it up.
"If PZ... was entirely unsupported by any particular university group... then you might have a point."
In that case, it seems I do have a point, because the Glasgow Skeptics are not affiliated with any university and they were meeting at The Admiral Bar on 72a Waterloo Street.
"Academics should act like academics."
The unstated assumption is that academics are milquetoasts. This isn't true, nor is it required by their institutions, fortunately.
@farnium Square sausage and Irn Bru!
@GetMeThere1 And what differences exist? I don't know of any (doesn't mean they don't exist, obviously), but I'm sure that a careful look at them can reveal the reasons why they are different. So please, pick one of those differences and share with the class.
@h6hfelie Can't say I heard any American in there, it's Scottish. I'm not sure which part maybe the Borders?
@GetMeThere1 I misunderstood your perspective (and reacted accordingly). After reading some on the subject, I think the current debate among the scientific community is irrelevant. The fact that this guy used that disagreement - armed with some randomly assembled papers that seemed to support him - to sideline PZ at this event is abhorrent.
I honestly don't think developmental differences are a problem, but you're right that they do present a source for creationists to display their ignorance.
And suddenly I'm ashamed for not following pz myers more closely.
@iamraynbow Calling bullshit what it is, is not bullying, Jonathan M was not there to learn, he was there to try and make PZ Myers look bad.
...necessary distinctions between lines of thought (e.g. the DI's constant refrain that "Darwinists" promoted junk DNA, when in fact the selectionists have always been opposed).
7) Use of antiquated terminology like "Darwinism" that misleads people about the current state of the field.
8) Failure to define--or even attempt to define--a coherent, testable mechanism for design.
9) Use of non-experts to critique fields they have no background in (e.g. Jonathan Wells on junk DNA, Casey Luskin,...
I may agree with pz, but this was a clear attempt of refutation thru denigration... Thankfully he dud then address the substance a little bit....
What on Earth was the point of Jonathan's question?
General concensus says that there is a god and an afterlife. As a skeptic I do not put faith in general concensus. I hope that I was just unlucky. All I tried to do was say that I'm a fan of your blog, you're the reason I came here, and I'd like to thank you for standing up to creationists. The jerk reacted like I had just kicked his dog. I think he would have been a teddy bear if there were people or a camera there. I still like his work but I never want to see him again.
just for the fun of it...
Now, "imminently" doesn't mean what you think it means (unless you're suggesting that PZ should be patient soon, but not yet) and your 'point' is specious nonsense. It is not "dogmatic closure" to be annoyed by people who don't listen, nor is every word that dribbles from people who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the relevant science the font of absolute truth. If someone thinks the Earth is flat, it is not "dogmatic closure" to the possibility to insist that they are wrong.
Agree
Ways ID isn't science, a possibly not exhaustive list. It fails to abide by the social practices of science by:
1) Misrepresenting the state of mainstream evolutionary research.
2) Misrepresenting the words of researchers themselves (quote-mining).
3) Being evidently ignorant of or concealing the reasoning behind conclusions in mainstream evolutionary biology.
4) Failure to engage their critics.
5) Failure to correct any errors and distortions pointed out by their critics.
6) Failure to make...
@buu-78 I don't know PZ Myers credentials, but your probably right. He gets his notoriety from being an outspoken atheist, and differentiates himself from most others by being more willing to mock and ridicule. That being said, I don't think I've ever seen him mock those not deserving of it. After all, the response the ridiculous deserves, is by definition, ridicule. So while Myers can be rude, I don't think his targets are undeserving. I have no desire to be polite to apologists for blood gods.
Yes, you employed a sense of "creationist" that is not industry wide and so is ambiguous. The young earthers are a different tribe altogether and they try to use the term exclusively for themselves. ID'ers are fine with that since their SCIENTIFIC commitment is not to creationism--a point that you have not observed, nor seem to take seriously, nor care to correct within your own view. If you are committed to Marvel comics over any other rivals that does not commit you to be a Marvel Scientist.
Edward Current poe'd PZ Myers? :-)
Nothing to be thankfull so far, he is taking forever to make his point. And I have a pretty strong hunch he is attacking some kind of ridiculous strawman.
Your dismissal of McClatchie's question shows you don't realize how his question penetrates Myers' explanation demanding more than a mere explanation but a probabilifying demonstration. The demonstrations for much of evolutionary theory is lacking, filled in by faith.
There are smart people dissenting from Darwinian dictates. Attacking their intelligence can shows that you yourself don't appreciate how it's understanding, not misunderstanding, that fuels objections to standard evolution.
@inademv : I agree that the guy should have come ready with a very SPECIFIC point that he could provide some detail on. He looked rather silly clutching a handful of papers--as though he needn't actually have READ them, or be prepared to argue them. But I think PZ would have better served the cause if he HIMSELF cited an example on this issue (I'm SURE he knows what the issue is), and gave a counter-perspective. The question, fundamentally is NOT really pure bullshit.
no it is bullshit. you only think it isn't because you do not understand nor have ever read about the issues involved.
@uriituw This is the key problem, they are only interested in a few confirmatory anomalous facts that they got misunderstand or misrepresent to support their position and ignore the enormous body of work in support of evolution.
@lepthymo He did, and they did. Did you even watch the video?
@piprod01 They live among us.