Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

There are 479 comments on the The Panda's Thumb story from Apr 4, 2013, titled Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution. In it, The Panda's Thumb reports that:

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Panda's Thumb.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#284 May 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
To borrow your line: Who is more authoritative and more credible among the majority of the world's greatest scholars AS IT PERTAINS TO BIOLOGY?
99.9% of all scientific professionals in relevant fields?
Or yourself?
Mathematicians outrank biologists when it comes to understanding Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which says a lot about biology. Since you misunderstand the unified nature of science and mathematics, you err in believing that math professors are not universal experts on all questions mathematical.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#285 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Mathematicians outrank biologists when it comes to understanding Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which says a lot about biology. Since you misunderstand the unified nature of science and mathematics, you err in believing that math professors are not universal experts on all questions mathematical.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Sanford was refuted before his book was officially released.

He now stands along side of such great thinkers as Erich von Däniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, Edgar Cayce.

LOL! You can have the lot!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#286 May 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Sanford was refuted before his book was officially released.
A testament to the power of myth but mathematical certainty has not been refuted.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#287 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>A testament to the power of myth but mathematical certainty has not been refuted.
You misunderstood Sanford's work. He had a false premise at the base of it. If you base a "mathematical certainty" upon a false premise the only resulting answer is guaranteed to be nonsense.

Sanford even tired to get a peer review stamp on his work. He did that by submitting it to the wrong reviewers. They thought that he was a typical scientist, i.e. honest. He almost got away with it too. Of all people Squishy (aka Russell) provided a link where the writer explained how Sanford almost got away with having his book earn a peer reviewed stamp. I should have bookmarked it when I had the chance.

His whole article was based on false assumptions and if you bust the assumptions no matter how correct the math is the only result will be GIGO.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#288 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>A testament to the power of myth but mathematical certainty has not been refuted.

I see your mathematical ignorance rivals your scientific ignorance.

It is another example of the GIGO principle. The formulation is basic and established thermodynamics. But just as any other formula in which garbage is input you will get garbage as an output.

Thus so, it is not the math that is in question.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#289 May 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstood Sanford's work. He had a false premise at the base of it. If you base a "mathematical certainty" upon a false premise the only resulting answer is guaranteed to be nonsense.
Sanford even tired to get a peer review stamp on his work. He did that by submitting it to the wrong reviewers. They thought that he was a typical scientist, i.e. honest. He almost got away with it too. Of all people Squishy (aka Russell) provided a link where the writer explained how Sanford almost got away with having his book earn a peer reviewed stamp. I should have bookmarked it when I had the chance.
His whole article was based on false assumptions and if you bust the assumptions no matter how correct the math is the only result will be GIGO.

I wish I had read your post before composing mine. It would have saved me the effort.

Stubby's "reality" however, ends where he wants it to end.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#290 May 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You misunderstood Sanford's work.
I reviewed Standford's book, paying particular attention to his axioms. Stanford's axioms are firmly grounded in empirical reality. Surely you're just relying on other people's opinions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#291 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I reviewed Standford's book, paying particular attention to his axioms. Stanford's axioms are firmly grounded in empirical reality. Surely you're just relying on other people's opinions.

Stanford put forth a hypothesis that was soundly refuted.

GIGO, is an axiom that is firmly grounded in empirical (as any other) reality.

The amusing part is not that his hypothesis was groundless, nor that he attempted to skirt peer review, nor even that his own colleagues turned against him due to the lack of scientific merit of his ideas. No, the amusing part is that he was refuted, in print, before his book was officially released.

Refutation of poor ideas in science have come at an ever quickening pace, but being refuted before one is even published is a standard which can hardly be expected to be eclipsed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#292 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I reviewed Standford's book, paying particular attention to his axioms. Stanford's axioms are firmly grounded in empirical reality. Surely you're just relying on other people's opinions.
Not on "opinions" on the facts that other people can bring up.

This article debunks Sanford's nonsense fairly well:

http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/r...

Even Sanford knew his idea was bullshit. You could see that by his approach to peer review. He submitted his article to the mathematics/information science part of the journal and not to the biological part. The biologists would have been able to show what was wrong with his assumptions and his book would have been blown out of the water peer review wise. As I said he almost got peer review. At the last moment his evil plot was foiled by the good guys.

Even the various creatard sites did not make hardly a peep about how Sanford's peer reviewed stamp was taken away. The few real scientists that work at those places knew what he did wrong.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#293 May 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Even Sanford knew his idea was bullshit. You could see that by his approach to peer review. He submitted his article to the mathematics/information science part of the journal and not to the biological part.
It's very interesting to me that Sanford's attempted to get his idea published in a mathematics/information science part of a journal. I didn't know anything about that. However, Sanford is right in thinking that his theorem is entirely mathematical. I've been saying that for years.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Conclusion: There is an undeniable pattern in your topix postings. Clearly, you don't understand the issues you're writing about. Even worse, the power that controls you is obvious. Your hatred of truth, God and all things spiritual compels you to automatically interpret truth to be error.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#294 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Even worse, the power that controls you is obvious. Your hatred of truth, God and all things spiritual compels you to automatically interpret truth to be error.
OK, maybe it isn't obvious. Maybe you're just hopelessly confused.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#295 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Mathematicians outrank biologists when it comes to understanding Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which says a lot about biology. Since you misunderstand the unified nature of science and mathematics, you err in believing that math professors are not universal exts on all questions mathematical.
http://everythingimportant.org/genomEnd of.pdf
Merely the question: IF the mutation rate exceeded the rate at which natural selection and beneficial mutations could correct or improve the net outcome.

Clearly it did not. The continuing evolution of species proves it.

The fossil record proves the continuing evolution of species.

Sanford is falsified, empirically. Experiments demonstrate the recovery of genetically compromised populations once natural selection is re-introduced.

End of Sandford's hypothesis: created in the first place only because he in his condescending concern for humans, believing that like Jack Nicholson, we "Can't handle the truth", and would fall into useless nihilism if we accept evolution.(Read his dribblingly pessimistic / condescending prelude to the Mystery of the Genome for proof of that).

Arguments from (supposed) consequences are feeble and false.

We evolved, and we can deal with it. Sanford is a doddering fool, as are his uncritical followers, such as you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#296 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> It's very interesting to me that Sanford's attempted to get his idea published in a mathematics/information science part of a journal. I didn't know anything about that. However, Sanford is right in thinking that his theorem is entirely mathematical. I've been saying that for years.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Conclusion: There is an undeniable pattern in your topix postings. Clearly, you don't understand the issues you're writing about. Even worse, the power that controls you is obvious. Your hatred of truth, God and all things spiritual compels you to automatically interpret truth to be error.

It is the math fraud Sanford tried to perpetuate that got him hung out to dry.

I wish you knew enough about the subject to hold a meaningful conversation.

Like math and computers internet forums are also subject to the GIGO rule.

Conclusion: There is an undeniable pattern in your topix postings. Clearly, you don't understand the issues you're writing about. Even worse, the power that controls you is obvious. Your hatred of truth, science and all things rational compels you to automatically interpret truth to be error.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#297 May 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Merely the question: IF the mutation rate exceeded the rate at which natural selection and beneficial mutations could correct or improve the net outcome.
Clearly it did not. The continuing evolution of species proves it.
The fossil record proves the continuing evolution of species.
Sanford is falsified, empirically. Experiments demonstrate the recovery of genetically compromised populations once natural selection is re-introduced.
End of Sandford's hypothesis: created in the first place only because he in his condescending concern for humans, believing that like Jack Nicholson, we "Can't handle the truth", and would fall into useless nihilism if we accept evolution.(Read his dribblingly pessimistic / condescending prelude to the Mystery of the Genome for proof of that).
Arguments from (supposed) consequences are feeble and false.
We evolved, and we can deal with it. Sanford is a doddering fool, as are his uncritical followers, such as you.

Nice summary of the scientific reality.

It really is just that simple.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#298 May 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Sanford is a doddering fool, as are his uncritical followers, such as you.
I possess an incredible amount of critical and rational power. I consider Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific paper in peer-reviewed journals as irrefutable evidence that you are unquestionably dishonest. How could you not be a religiously controlled bigot?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#299 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I possess an incredible amount of critical and rational power.

This is the funniest thing I have read on the internet, ever.

You don't even know you have a mental illness.

So funny

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific paper in peer-reviewed journals as irrefutable evidence that you are unquestionably dishonest. How could you not be a religiously controlled bigot?

Sanford did his best work when he was younger and unquestionably was a top notch scientist. But the past tense is the point, isn't it. It is a shame that he has become such a hollow sham. He might have contributed more to science.

As to your "incredible amount of critical and rational power", please review the symptoms of Delusional Disorder - Grandiose type.

I offer the contents of everythingimportant.org as evidence of your diagnosis and as irrefutable evidence that you are unquestionably dishonest. How could you not be a religiously controlled bigot?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#300 May 3, 2013
I could not help but notice I shut Shub up. Usually people with his illness do not run from a fight. Maybe he is not a delusional as I thought.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Stanford put forth a hypothesis that was soundly refuted.
GIGO, is an axiom that is firmly grounded in empirical (as any other) reality.
The amusing part is not that his hypothesis was groundless, nor that he attempted to skirt peer review, nor even that his own colleagues turned against him due to the lack of scientific merit of his ideas. No, the amusing part is that he was refuted, in print, before his book was officially released.
Refutation of poor ideas in science have come at an ever quickening pace, but being refuted before one is even published is a standard which can hardly be expected to be eclipsed.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#301 May 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
I offer the contents of everythingimportant.org as evidence of your diagnosis
My diagnosis is that you suffer from penis envy. You wish you had one. Furthermore, I already pointed out your shortcomings in your remark about Noam Chomsky. It's a curious mindset that you have. You live in a world that's complete makebelieve.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#302 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> My diagnosis is that you suffer from penis envy. You wish you had one. Furthermore, I already pointed out your shortcomings in your remark about Noam Chomsky. It's a curious mindset that you have. You live in a world that's complete makebelieve.

Let me know if you come up with anything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#303 May 3, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> It's very interesting to me that Sanford's attempted to get his idea published in a mathematics/information science part of a journal. I didn't know anything about that. However, Sanford is right in thinking that his theorem is entirely mathematical. I've been saying that for years.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Conclusion: There is an undeniable pattern in your topix postings. Clearly, you don't understand the issues you're writing about. Even worse, the power that controls you is obvious. Your hatred of truth, God and all things spiritual compels you to automatically interpret truth to be error.
I clearly understand this subject better than you do. The busted part of Sanford's argument were his basic assumptions. That is why he avoided biologists in seeking peer review since they would have quickly shown that to be the case. In fact that is how he was caught. You obviously did not read or you did not understand the article that I linked.

And your posting links to a known lunatic is proof that even you know that he was wrong.

Did you know that the idiot who wrote that site that you linked to was so insane that he was kicked out of one of the most foolish of Christians sects? He was too big of a fool for even the Seventh Day Adventists.

He must be a world's class fool to be kicked out by them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min replaytime 221,384
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 67,567
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Subduction Zone 437
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 4 hr replaytime 417
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Eagle 12 3,559
News Texas' battle over teaching evolution comes dow... 7 hr pshun2404 8
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Goof Hunter 160,998
More from around the web