tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2996736477436524057..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Willis wonders about the PDOSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82444361052919318102013-06-10T14:08:55.958+10:002013-06-10T14:08:55.958+10:00I've been in the creation-evolution eternal fl...I've been in the creation-evolution eternal flamewar for over (ouch) twenty years now. Not only do the two groups use the same playbook, it is often the same people doing so. Two of the best kniwn, and probably also largest, creationist groups are the (young earth) Institute for Creation Research and the (intelligent design creationism) Discovery Institute. Both are also in denial about climate change.<br /><br />One of Monckton's favorite tactics is the Gushgallop, Robert Grumbinehttp://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62319491494365140372013-06-10T13:57:02.725+10:002013-06-10T13:57:02.725+10:00John Byatt is on top of the creationist/climate sc...John Byatt is on top of the creationist/climate science deniers. He posts a lot at WatchingtheDeniers.wordpress.com.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28639072999003092332013-06-10T13:54:32.360+10:002013-06-10T13:54:32.360+10:00Yes, I noticed that lots of papers were by the cre...Yes, I noticed that lots of papers were by the creator of the "law". I also agree that calling it a "law" is silly. It's just something made up after the fact. An attempt to fit mathematics to observations. I don't know that it applies universally and I very much doubt it should be termed a "law" in any scientific sense. (Not that the word "law" is used at all in science these days anyway.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43327981393764872112013-06-10T10:28:38.171+10:002013-06-10T10:28:38.171+10:00@Catmando
There was a convergence between the evol...@Catmando<br />There was a convergence between the evolution and climate change deniers at Watt's fever swamp last week on the Greenland ice post that Willard flushed down the memory hole. There were several posts made that were made by obvious young earth creationists, and that may have been one of the reasons that post vanished without a trace.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07604184699513441116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9081355280686569602013-06-10T06:33:54.118+10:002013-06-10T06:33:54.118+10:00I spent some more time looking at this "law&q...I spent some more time looking at this "law" and I can't make up my mind. It feels a lot like, but isn't, Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance idea that is totally pseudoscience (he'll probably now track us down here and give us a hard time). It just doesn't feel as if it actually tells us anything new - trivial, in Feynman's term - rather like the anthropic principle, in my opinion. <br /><br />I found a handful of critiques through Google. One that was upset because Bejan didn't support intelligent design (which was perhaps a little odd because I found a review paper by Bejan which references Simon Conway Morris, palaeontologist, who certainly does support a form of intelligent design). One review of Bejan's book applying his law to evolution didn't like the way the author seemed rather aware of his own importance and I am not mad keen on the way so many of the papers on the subject are, 1, authored or co-authored by Bejan, and, 2, so many of them being applied to so many different fields. In fact anything seems fair game for the application of this law.<br /><br />My gut feeling, for what it's worth is that we won't be talking about this law in fifty years. I'm always wary about ideas that make so many claims. And I wonder how it fits in with what we already know in areas like natural selection and genetics. I always think it is not for the discoverer to say whether it is a scientific law or not - utility and replication surely have something to say about that.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66350157605159340822013-06-10T03:54:06.978+10:002013-06-10T03:54:06.978+10:00Evolution is really my field of expertise so it is...Evolution is really my field of expertise so it is interesting to see someone else come up with what I have long believed - climate science deniers use the evolution deniers playbook almost down to the letter.<br /><br />I had a search and found a site that listed eighteen pages worth of Willis's wonderings, 180 posts at WattsUpWithThat mainly. That's an awful lot of ramblings and phoney formulas.<br />Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9116639805763830552013-06-10T01:14:15.482+10:002013-06-10T01:14:15.482+10:00That's hilarious no whey constantly shoot each...That's hilarious no whey constantly shoot each other down. Reminds me of the two camps of creationists in the 80's.<br /><br />Archaeopteryx is CLEARLY A BIRD!!! It has no dinosaur features at all!<br /><br /><br />Archaeopteryx is CLEARLY A DINOSAUR. Those feathers are fake!Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70485790941026187372013-06-09T22:36:36.377+10:002013-06-09T22:36:36.377+10:00I looked it up in Google scholar. A lot of the pap...I looked it up in Google scholar. A lot of the papers were by the person who invented the concept but there are quite a lot of others using it as well. He got published by the Royal Society.<br /><br />http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1545/1335.full<br /><br />I've since read some bits and pieces by people who are attracted to the idea, but more as a way of challenging the way we think about systems than anything in a practical sense. It seems to me it might have some similarity to fractals. The "law" states:<br /><br /><i>For a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live) it must evolve such that it provides greater and greater access to the currents that flow through it.</i><br /><br />Sounds a bit like what I learnt decades ago about stream flow / river development though looking at it from a different perspective.<br /><br />I'll leave it alone for now - something for people who deal in flow mechanics to work with.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72130256083341927302013-06-09T19:12:16.241+10:002013-06-09T19:12:16.241+10:00I tried to find out more about the constructal law...I tried to find out more about the constructal law myself and it doesn't look like more than a description of what happens in some systems. I don't see much rigour. I'm sure that the idea is developed a bit more than a fairly content free fortune cookie statement (I was about to quote it but the more I read it the less I like it).<br /><br />Google did give me some earlier WonderWillis at WattsUp hits so he clearly likes it. It sounds like an engineers solution ignoring physical complications but I could be wrong.<br /><br />Anyway, I have started to notice the ephemeral nature of all these climate change falsified claims. They are like adult mayflies. All over in one day... Next?Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.com