User talk:Ungtss

!!!- 21:40, 13 February 2008 (EST)
 * Hi Ungtss, and welcome! Am I correct in deducing that you are "the artist formerly known as 'the guy who started this thread'"? human  14:17, 14 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ha! Yup -- and thanks for the welcome.  Been enjoying our discussions very much:). &mdash; Unsigned, by: Ungtss / talk / contribs


 * Do I detect a little American-centric "Intelligent Design" in many of your edits? Don't forget that there's another few billion people in the known universe, most of whom think that's crap. Susan  Miouw  18:11, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * Well, try and be tolerant, Susan. I think it would be nice to have a wider range of opinion here.  -- 18:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * True, but not to re-align existing artlicles to favour ID viewpoints. Which is what (s)he seems to be doing, by stealth. Such views could be added as supplementaries without negating exising points. Susan  Miouw  18:25, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * Three questions for SusanG:
 * Not sure how one gets tagged as Amerocentric for writing things like this, having grown up in Africa, Asia, and Europe, only recently moved to the US.
 * Not sure how you figure that "most people in the known universe believe creationism is crap," since the majority of people in the world are in fact Creationists of one stripe or another ...
 * Not sure which texts are being realigned to favour ID viewpoints. Do you mean Creationism, which explicitly refers to it in the first line as "Bullshit," or Microevolution which defines it as "the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles."  Hmm.  Ungtss 19:14, 16 February 2008 (EST)

undent I never mentioned creationism (which is arrant crap) ID is a weasel way of creeping creationism past US 's banning of religion in schools and should declare itself as what you obviously think it is: creationism. Susan Miouw  19:31, 16 February 2008 (EST)

ID derangement syndrome
I haven't edited anything related to ID, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. But I find ID derangement syndrome ceaselessly entertaining. THE THEOCRATS ARE COMING! Hide your children! Ungtss 00:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Saying a scientist has "ID derangement syndrome" is like saying someone is "allergic to cyanide". --Gulik 02:04, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * nah. ID derangement syndrome is like believing there are fundies dropping cyanide on us from black helicopters and we're all too stupid to evaluate it on the merits for ourselves and decide whether we want to swallow it.   Ungtss 02:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Wait. You're saying...i mean...uh oh.  I have to reevaluate a few things.--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 02:25, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Interesting, googling "ID derangement syndrome" yields one actual link (one is a collection of gibberish): www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/peer-review-and-pt/ - nope, no ID there at all... human  14:31, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Hmm ... Must be underdiagnosed. You can google "wedge strategy" for some case studies ... Ungtss 18:35, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Or just read about it here: Wedge strategy and Wedge Document. Hmmm, is there a chance that you are slightly at cross-purposes with the aims of this wiki? human  16:02, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * PS, our article is #40 (or so) in that google search. human  16:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)

For a realtime discussion
Come on over to IRC to talk through things in realtime®. If things get too rough on you, we can set things up so's there is but one person "discussing" things with you (at a time). For user:human, we can either save the logs to a page or C&P a synopsis to make sure there is a history of the discussion ON WIKI. I just hate to see these things drug out all night (and day) because we're relying on the wiki as a discussion medium. CЯacke ® 19:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * And I will be there as well, if only to keep the mood light. : )  -- 19:50, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * thanks for the invite -- unfortunately I'm on the road and only have my iPhone which despite many levels of awesome lacks IRC capabilities ... Ungtss 23:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * Oh well. Perhaps some other time then.  -- 00:21, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ironically I must note that the woman who wrote most of our help files did so on a PDA. Sorry you are incapacitated by your hardware. human  01:26, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * guess they have to leave room for upgrades:). Someday I s'pose we'll just attach the sim cards to our frontal lobes ... Ungtss 01:36, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Brainz!!! We'll eat our brains! Yum,... human  01:40, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Block
I am sorry for such a long block, but my powerz of cognition could no longer stand up to your superior powrz of reasoning. (Actually, I just got sick of reverting your cdesign proponentsists idiocy. Feel free to come back later and create a debate page, but stop trolling on the real stuff, m'k?)--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 15:24, 18 February 2008 (EST)


 * Err ... Pal: "07:54, 18 February 2008 AKjeldsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Ungtss (contribs) (Can't see having removed anything. Refs?)" Susan  Miouw  15:38, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * That's a strange way to spell meiow, Susan! And, yes, AK unblocked Ungsst. human  15:47, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * Damn his rationality and generosity!162.82.215.199 15:54, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry, Doc. I'll try to be less rational and generous in the future. :-( -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:36, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks, AK. Think I'll move on, though.  Getting too old for being cursed and blocked because I present simple, verifiable facts like "Creationism finds its roots in Judaism not the Fundamentalist Christian theology that co-opted it 3000 years after it was written down."  The presentation of that fact inspired PalMD to tell me to fuck off, piss off, got me called an idiot and whatever else.  Plus it got me blocked in total violation of the rules for blocking (I don't think "admin feeling capricious" is a justification for a block -- but that was his stated reason for blocking me).  The only thing it didn't get from PalMD was a rational response.  Been looking for a community of rational people interested in discussing and learning across the ideological divide.  Tried Wikipedia, Creationwiki, Conservapedia, and now Rationalwiki.  Seems like the dominant voices are always those of people like PalMD or his Bizarro World identical twin, User:Conservative.  And somehow, despite their manifest ignorance and bigotry, they always manage to become admins, too.  Whether it's User:Conservative calling me an atheist or PalMD calling me a creationist troll, it all comes to nothing.  I'm sure there are great rational and generous people here like you, AK, and AmesG.  I wish you all the best.  Ungtss 23:31, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * Don't leave yet! Give us another chance.  Me, AK, Ames, Interpreted, and Researcher are all want you here.  -- 23:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * P.S. Where will you go next?  -- 23:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I admit that I don't know the merits of this case, but I think this is a debate we need to have, because regardless of the merits, this goes to a fundamental issue of our founding, and there've been a couple similar complaints lately (weird). We should be accepting of other peoples' crazy beliefs, and take the intellectual high road, and recognize that all-in-fun goatery and fun-blocking may not be in order for people who are feeling slightly in the minority. Ungtss, I think if you stick around you'll do more good for us (in being honest to our mission) than you will in departure. Could you weather the storm and see where it goes? I think we do need people like you, and, basically, people who disagree with us. I'll conclude by saying that, while I find it incomprehensible that PalMD would do something untoward, even slightly mean, or not in the wiki's best interest, I also find it incomprehensible that we wouldn't worry about allegations of the same, and seek to rectify any misunderstanding.- 00:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ungsst is being disingenuous: I present simple, verifiable facts like "Creationism finds its roots in Judaism not the Fundamentalist Christian theology that co-opted it 3000 years after it was written down." while he is trying to build an ID-friendly series of articles. One flaw that RWians have fallen prone to is conflating the term "Creationism" with "Young earth creationism".  That is all we have to fix to avoid his sophistry. human  00:49, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * And, of course, the reason we do that is society at large (the media, etc.) do it, too. An OEC viewpoint is not news or an issue ever, so the only "creationists" you ever hear about are YECs.  I cite watching TV last night. human  12:00, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * In the spirit of Judeo-Christian forgiveness, I have unblocked myself. That being said, there really is no such thing as "JudeoChristian" anything...it's a made-up word to make some of us feel less excluded.  Similarly, Ungtss, while unfailingly polite, has entered on a campaign to distort the truth that is apparent to any thinking, rational person.  His hair-splitting on the roots of Creationism are disingenuous at best, outright deception at worst (although I won't attribute any malice t'it).  I still maintain that such wholesale edits that fly in the face of what this project has been about should go through the usual brutal debate process on talk and debate pages, rather than straight into the content pages.  No rational project would allow one editor to dismantly, albeit cleverly, their raison d'etre.  So I say, no blocks, no mean-ness, but keep the debate going where it belongs.  User:PalMD

Welcome
back. SHahB 20:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You're back!
Glad to have you back, Ungtss! 15:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks:). Ungtss 00:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Mission and such like
Hi Ungtss. I case you are not aware, and in order to help your edits to stick, I'd just like to remind you of a few things about the site.

We have three mission statements:   ''1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement. 2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.'' From RationalWiki

We have a Point of View: "As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. We believe that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is dangerous and wrong. We create our articles from this perspective, demonstrating the strength of science and the folly of the cranks." from: RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article

We have suggestions about contentious edits: "If you feel that you may be making a contentious edit, you might wish to raise the issue on the article talk page first." From: RationalWiki:Newcomers

It is possible that bearing these points in mind will decrease the possibility of irritation to all concerned.--Bobbing up 14:27, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm clear. My goal is to learn from your site's perspective, as well as to challenge it on the particulars.  Ungtss 14:31, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * I love debating, and without healthy debates, rationality becomes blind faith in accepted science. As such, I think that RationalWiki, of all places, should participate in debates, without scaring those who disagree away. InaVegt 15:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * I have many such debates in daily life (Daughter of a family of socialist YECs. Very reasonable people, just not rational when it comes to the Bible.), and I know that it is sometimes frustrating for BOTH sides to listen to the arguments of the other side. InaVegt 15:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * However, this does not mean that I love my family any less, in fact, I love that my father, a vicar, taught us that one should think for themselves. He handed down what he considered evidence, and I rejected it, and he doesn't love me any less. InaVegt 15:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * People in debates that basically boil down to 'science rejects part of a religion' often forget that some people just think differently than others. And because of that, I think it is important to remember that, no matter how strange, unusual, or similar adjectives you think the ideas of the other are, they remain human beings, and they most likely are not out to harm you. InaVegt 15:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * Fun:). I like where you're coming from:).  Ungtss 15:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Felines dancing on my keyboard
My cat was dancing on my keyboard and... anyways, you seem to be a sysop now (see what I mean!). 18:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Clearly, your sysoperization was the will of Bast (Blessed Be She), the god of cats (and dancers, I might add). 18:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Here's the instruction manual. Enjoy! 18:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * w00t! I am honored, sensei!  Ungtss 22:56, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Block Please
Ungtss, I am done here. Can you please give me a nice lengthy block to help me resist the temptation to post? I would be much obliged. Tricksy 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard the stories about how Ulysses and Jason heard the song of the sirens and survived? Ungtss 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this with me
The concept of genetic competence. Let me know if you think the incorporation of foreign DNA into the genome could somehow possibly sometimes in some cases be construed as an increase in information. 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, a page has passed from one book to another. One book has gained information, but the information already existed in another individual.  Net increase in information for the book, but not the library; for the individual, but not for the population.  The question is, where did the information in the original book come from?  Creationists say, "Somebody had to write it."  Ungtss 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem insistent on defining genetic information in terms of pages, chapters, books and libraries. I am trying to figure out how to show you this is wrong and not generally applicable.


 * If I could somehow get you to define information instead of giving an analogy for information, this would help. 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could -- I think the topic is fascinating. But I'm not the only one having a problem -- defining and measuring "information" is a topic of widespread research ... but I'm still not happy with any of the attempts so far.  The closest I've ever heard is "minimum size to which a dataset can be compressed without loss of data."  But that still doesn't work, because random series can't be compressed, yet they don't carry meaningful "information."  Anyway, I'm only interested in the fact that we all know what it is, but none of us can define it.  You do agree War + Peace has more of SOMETHING resembling "information" than a children's book, right?  Shit -- we can even differentiate between the "information content" of an article that repeats the same point in a hundred different ways and an article that makes a hundred points -- even though we can't quantify it in terms of "bytes" or "data compression."  Ungtss 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to have such an understanding to see how information can be added by evolutionary processes. But we can't do anything until you understand what information is and what added information is. 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across a possibility as I was ranting on Debate:Falsifiability. Let's define information is number of unique instructions that provide functionality to the organism.  Change an instruction, it's still just one instruction.  Add data that doesn't add any functionality, and it's not meaningful information.  Do we have the tools to quantify this in the cell yet?  Not really.  But it seems conceptually sound to me.  Ungtss 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, because I'm not a 100% clear on your position; you can't define clearly what information is, but evolution can't increase information. Is that about right?   19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I know what information is intuititively (as I think you do too), I just tried to define information quantitatively as best I could, and I've never heard of any observed increase in the sort of information I just defined above your comment.  Ungtss 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's your abstractions that are making this so difficult for you to understand. Why is information the number of the instructions? 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of coming to terms with your insistence on these abstract analogies. How about these instructions: Turn left, go 100 feet. Now if we duplicate this we get: Turn left, go 100 feet, turn left, go 100 feet. Now if we mutate it, we get: turn left, go 100 feet, turn right, go 100 feet. Please explain how, using duplication and mutation, that adding information is impossible (Is that even what you're saying?) 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great example. That mutation didn't change the instructional content.  There are 4 instructions in each version.  But there's another essential element -- functionality.  If "turn left, go 100 feet, turn right, go 100 ft" gets you to the cheese at the end of the maze, and "turn right, go 100 feet, turn left, go 100 ft" runs you off a cliff, there has been a loss of information, because the instruction is no longer functional for the organism.  Ungtss 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed that duplication changed the number of instructions from 2 to 4. Please reassess and respond. Also, you can freely assume whatever you want about the result (or if you insist on "meaningful" information, that it gets you somewhere advantageous). 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it. Well, let's say that in the first instruction set, you get a block of cheese; in the second instruction set, you get the same block of cheese after the first two steps, but nothing after the last two; in the third instruction set, you run off a cliff.  No information increase in the duplication because there's no added functionality.  Information loss in the rearrangement, because of lost functionality.  Information increase with be "Turn left, go 100 ft, get cheese.  Turn right, go 100 feet, get hamburger."  New instructions, new functionality, increase in information.  Ungtss 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to get this straight: it's only information if you happen to perceive it as being advantageous, correct? 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I "perceive" it as advantageous ... that it is advantageous. Information increase to go from "reptile" to "mammal" because the mammal has instructions which create useful traits that the reptile lacked.  Ungtss 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an impractical definition you're working with. Is sickle cell anemia advantageous? 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In certain environments -- like high-malaria. Does it come from an increase in instructions or a breakdown of old instructions?  That would determine whether it's an increase or a decrease.  It's certainly an impractical definition now, because we lack the tools to quantify "instructions" in the code.  But that's a problem of quantifying the instructions, not the concept itself.  In any event, I think it pretty well conceptualizes what we're talking about when we talk about information.  Ungtss 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see how you went from "this is advantageous" to this is advantageous "in certain environments"? I want to stress that it's not cut and dry. Yeah, if there's cheese in both places, it's advantageous. If there's a cliff, it could get you killed. But regardless, the information that got you to the cheese or the cliff is new. (I'm trying to build up into the introduction of antifreeze proteins in arctic fish arising from duplication, mutation and frameshift)  19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. My instinct tells me that it's an increase in information, because it provides the capacity for malaria-resistance to a population that otherwise lacked it.  The key ingredient here would be whether it was a new instruction, or a modification/breakdown of an old instruction.  Ungtss 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So if a series of additions and modifications produces a result that may be advantageous, it is new information. Are you familiar with the example of antifreeze glyco proteins in (ant)arctic fish? 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Antifreeze proteins in general.
 * I am now. And as often happens, there's no falsifying experiment.  The two possibilities are "gene evolved from other gene" or "gene did not evolve from other gene."  What did they do to test that hypothesis?  Nothing.  They found two genes with similarities, and invented a way that one might have moved to the other.  They never tested their hypothesis.  When did scientists start calling their untested hypotheses "science?"  Ungtss 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The tested postdictions which yield inductive insights to explanations. Where did you go for your analysis on the research? 20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went here. I'm not gonna lie -- I don't understand what your first sentence means.  Can you clarify?  Ungtss 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, aside from that: If what scientists say happened actually did happen, would this be an example of an increase in information? 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would clearly be a new trait, and yes, it would be a new instruction. So yes, it would be an increase in information.  The real question is, "did it happen?"  And there's no scientific answer to that question, because they did not test their hypothesis.  My biggest question is, "if this is a case of gene recruitment, how did this gene make its way to its new home?"  Ungtss 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The scientists made postdictions and verified them with experimentation. Failure to satisfy any of these postdictions would have falsified their hypothesis. Regardless, do you deny that any of the proposed mechanisms (duplication, substitution, frame shifts) actually happen in genetics? 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what these postdictions were in this case, and how they fit in with the scientific method? Just because the evidence they choose to look at is consistent with the hypothesis doesn't mean it isn't also consistent with the alternative.  If the evidence is consistent with both alternatives, then what have they really accomplished?  Of course those things happen in genetics.  But my question is 1) was the organism able to survive after each of the individual shifts?  2)  Did each shift have enough of an advantage each step of the way to spread to enough individuals as to make the next shift have a foothold?  3)  Did this thing actually happen?  Honestly, it looks like some sorry-ass "science" to me.  It doesn't provide any meaningful evidence to support or refute any particular conclusion.  What the hell's it good for?  Ungtss 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may look like some sorry ass science to you, but you'd be a fool in my eyes to claim that you could even read and understand the original paper (unless you have some training I am unaware of). What are you basing your assessment on? Did you personally skim the original paper? Did you go to a creationist cite to read what to say? Did you take genetic engineering at a university? How are you even commenting on this? I was expecting to walk through the experiment together, but you've apparently mastered it. 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hitting the hay now, and flying tomorrow -- it'll likely be a couple days before I'm back on the web. I am learning a lot from this, though, and I'd like to continue it later.  Ungtss 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI--We have a very young page on information theory here that deals with some of these issues. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it, thanks for the heads up. 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shot from the terminal -- correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding: These scientists observed that the two genes in question were fairly similar in their content.  They then calculated what shifts, duplications, and deletions would turn the first gene into the second gene.  Then (without testing whether this could happen, whether there would be any survival advantage each step of the way, much less whether it did happen, historically), their discussion concludes that it "could have happened."  The flaw in the paper is not in the nitty gritty details -- it's in the conceptual approach itself.  They invent a hypothesis, but they don't test it.  Is that really science to you?  A real experiment could use genetic engineering to duplicate the alleged evolution.  Make the first switch, and see what happens.  Make the second switch, see what happens, etc.  See if there's even a feasible path from A to B.  It wouldn't show that it did happen, but at least it would show that it could have happened.  This sorry paper doesn't do anything but speculate with flashy jargon, pictures, and machines.  (Side note -- all I know about this topic, I learned from that article.  I googled what you asked me, and read the first credible article I could find, which was certainly not creationist in nature.  If I'm wrong in my understanding, tell me -- but I don't see what my "training" has to do with my reading comprehension.)  Ungtss 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you like those edit buttons? DO YOU?!
21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your unborn child
Ungtss - I've stopped debating falsifiability with you because we were just shouting at each other but when I read about your unborn child's condition my heart went out to you. You, like any prospective parent, must be wracked with worry. I hope that, as you say, it's just because dad's a big man and, it's not that far outside the bounds of normal, and that, in the fullness of time your child will grow to be all that you could ever wish for, just as mine have. Please may I quote from the first web site that Google brought forth "The available evidence suggests that this finding is most frequently without consequences." You have that half assed science of medical statistics on your side (and I'm sorry I called you an asshole). Silver Sloth 23:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kindness -- it means a lot. I must confess, though, it doesn't worry me at all because the studies show absolutely no abnormalities from 10mm-12mm, which means that the cutoff should be at least 12, maybe higher.  Mostly I'm just pissed that this "diagnosis" is based on statistics alone, rather than anything to do with problems themselves.  And I don't mind if you call me an asshole -- I'm learning a lot and hope to continue doing so:).  Ungtss 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of wishes for your progeny, and yourselves, and those you love. 05:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man:). That's incredibly kind of you.  Ungtss 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)