User talk:Dpbsmith

Comment posted on talk page for Commandments:

Seeing as you seem to be our resident Evolution Expert, I have a question. How Does evolution explain the instinct in bees to only harvest nectar from one kind of plant on any given day? According to the survival of the fittest, the bees should be going to the flowers closest to their hive so as to maximize the amount of nectar that they could gather in a day. --CJS 21:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

I don't want to be "resident evolution expert" if that means I'm supposed to "prove" evolution, or have a pat answer for everything, or anything like that. And, by the way, I love to argue, but I'm a stranger here and trying to be a polite guest.

I don't know a specific answer to your specific question.

So I'm going to answer your question with another question: how can you be sure that going to the closest flowers is really the best survival strategy? How can you be sure that what they actually do may not be better?

Scientists have discovered some surprising things. You might wonder why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations. You'd think that according to Darwinism, the people without sickle-cell anemia would be fitter and that over time the population carrying the sickle-cell gene would be selected out. So, does the continued existence of the sickle-cell gene disprove Darwinism?

It turns out that the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia only does so when there are two of them... and when there is only one of them, it provides protection against malaria! So, in places where there is malaria, there is selection for the sickle-cell gene. This benefits the population as a whole, because most members of the population only get one gene, so they get malaria protection without getting sickle-cell anemia. Only the unfortunate people who are homozygous for the gene get sickle-cell anemia.

So, it may not be at all obvious what is really being selected for... in fact it may take a research study to discover it.

So, with respect to the bees, the real scientist's question: how would you find out? What experiments could you perform to find out whether it is better for bees to go to the closest flowers than to go to the flowers they actually go to?

(Pretty feeble, but the best I can do at short notice!) Dpbsmith 22:24, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Reply: Evolutionists exaggerate the sickle-cell anemia example, though I don't fault Dpbsmith for repeating it. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia — a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout your body. Under normal circumstances, your red blood cells are flexible and round, and they move easily through your blood vessels to carry oxygen to all parts of your body. In people with sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid and sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregular-shaped blood cells die prematurely, resulting in a chronic shortage of red blood cells. Plus, they can get stuck when traveling through small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to certain parts of the body. This produces pain and can lead to serious complications. There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324

So sickle cell anemia is, overall, a harmful disease. And the disease itself does not protect against malaria, but those susceptible to the disease (e.g., have the gene) may be less vulnerable to malaria. I don't know if that's been proven but I have an open mind about it. Regardless, this does not support evolution in any way. There is no evidence that really has been "selection" for those afflicted with vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, and that suggestion seems highly unlikely. The link to evolution here remains a leap of faith. --Aschlafly 01:24, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I happen to think that on the topic of evolution, the scientific community has allowed itself to become somewhat dogmatic and to claim too much about the explanatory value of the theory.

And I also think the "science versus religion" aspect doesn't do much good for either science or religion. The Catholic Church's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo was a good thing.

P. S. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research whether or not a single allele of the sickle-cell anemia gene really protects against malaria. I think that's sound, but a lot of things that circulate as simple stories turn out to be a lot more complicated when you look into them. Dpbsmith 09:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --Aschlafly 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Feel free to respond there. Thanks!

--Aschlafly 12:34, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Much better. Fine, in fact. Dpbsmith 13:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

---

I moved our interesting debate about perpetual motion machines to its own talk page for that entry, in the hope it will enlighten and perhaps spark debate by others. I've marked that page as "Watch" now so I will be notified whenever you post to it.

Thanks. --Aschlafly 19:00, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Your explanation of Bell Laboraties is superb! I worked there in the mid-1980s and became an expert in UNIX there. --Aschlafly 22:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Nice image of Phillip Brooks! --Aschlafly 20:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)

• Thanks. Dpbsmith 20:26, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your entry on $\pi$. I improved the symbol using our LaTex capability. --Aschlafly 21:25, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I am sickened that this discussion on evolution is going on here, not that I agree with your views on it, but there are places to debate this other than a member's talk page. I just wanted to thank you for your conflicting, yet intelligent, contributions. We need more people like you. :) David R

Well, thanks. But everybody on this talk page has been perfectly courteous. Dpbsmith 21:42, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to geometric progression!!! --Aschlafly 21:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

You're welcome. Dpbsmith 21:41, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for putting your two cents in on the 'spelling issue'. You certainly make more sense than the other person I was speaking to. --Katie 21:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken about the debates; they are available to anyone who has anything to say.

--BenjaminS 19:33, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, the debates are for everyone. --TimSvendsen 19:39, 20 January 2007 (EST)

• OK, I'll consider that an invitation. Thank you. Dpbsmith 19:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)

OOPS!

You're right, I did mean protected -- not against. Thanks

--BenjaminS 13:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your good improvement to my additional example of Wikipedia gossip (about John Tower). Your time reference is insightful. --Aschlafly 23:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to the Chappaquiddick entry. I didn't realize it is a separate island! --Aschlafly 20:38, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Oddly enough, I was just about to add something to it... a quotation from a New York Times editorial. Dpbsmith 20:52, 31 January 2007 (EST)

• Whoops! I didn't realize I had the font in blue. Thanks for catching that! ~ SharonS 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Herman Melville

Dpbsmith, thanks for your reply. I don't know what happened to my Melville comments about its shift in popularity. That's OK, the entry looks great the way it is now. Please feel free to add to the content your fascinating material about the NY Times obituaries that you have on the talk page.--Aschlafly 19:01, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Work in progress

Kentish Sir Byng stood for his King,
Bidding the crop-headed Parliament swing:
And, pressing a troop unable to stoop
And see the rogues flourish and honest folk droop,
Marched them along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song.

God for King Charles! Pym and such carles
To the Devil that prompts `em their treasonous parles!
Cavaliers, up! Lips from the cup,
Hands from the pasty, nor bite take nor sup
Till you`re---

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song.

Hampden to hell, and his obsequies` knell
Serve Hazelrig, Fiennes, and young Harry as well!
England, good cheer! Rupert is near!
Kentish and loyalists, keep we not here

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song?

Then, God for King Charles! Pym and his snarls
To the Devil that pricks on such pestilent carles!
Hold by the right, you double your might;
So, onward to Nottingham, fresh for the fight,

CHORUS.---March we along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song!

Kentish: the county of Kent was a Royalist stronghold.

Sir Byng: appears to be Browning's invention, not a real person.

Crop-headed: Oliver Cromwell and his followers were Puritans, and many of them wore their hair cut short, an unusual style at the time. See also Roundheads.

Parliament: Before the Civil War, the English Parliament did not play an important role in the government of England. The Civil War pitted Parliament against the King, with Parliament ultimately winning a much more powerful role. Parliament, and its supporters, the Parliamentarians, were the opponents of King Charles.

swing: i.e. Byng thought that the Parliamentarians should be hanged for treason.

Pym: John Pym (1584-1643), leader of the Long Parliament.

carles: variant of "churl," a rude, ill-bred person

parles: Words. Probably also intended to echo "Parliament."

Lips from the cup: Cavaliers are often portrayed as jolly, devil-may-care types who liked their wine, women, and song, as contrasted with the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical.

Hampden to hell: John Hampden, (1595—1643), a champion of Parliament.

Hazelrig:

Fiennes:

Young Harry:

Rupert: Prince Rupert, the German nephew of King Charles, who led a thousand Royalists in a cavalry battle against the Parliamentarians at the Battle of Powick Bridge.

Onward to Nottingham:

Thanks

On second thought you're probably right; I unblocked him.

Thanks for the heads up.

--BenjaminS 13:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and JoshuaZ keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --TimSvendsen 11:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Hmmm... I thought I had seen that somewhere, but I guess you're telling me it's a mistake. The original article in Wikipedia said "It was created by a World History class of 58 homeschooled teenagers." So I guess I should say "teenager," not "middle-schooler." Sorry.

It's not directly relevant to any debate, but it certainly affects my understanding of the site, the project, what's appropriate, and how I should interact with other users. Dpbsmith 12:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)

"Teenager" would be accurate. There are not many non-teenage middle-schoolers, though they are certainly welcome also. Also, as time goes by, many of the original teenagers are quickly becoming adults.

Somewhere else someone (Joshua, I think) speculated that the requirement that entries be clean here was motivated by the age of many users. That's certainly a consideration that sometimes is important. But the bigger reason is to keep the entries on a high level, just as a real encyclopedia would.--Aschlafly 12:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

I don't know what you mean by a high level in that regard. Britannica has articles on articles on human reproductive systems that I imagine you might consider inappropriate to have articles about and a variety of other, arguably even more "unclean" topics. It isn't clear to me what "cleanliness" has to do with high-mindedness (indeed, I would be tempted argue that if one is sufficiently high-minded everything becomes clean as they are just different parts of God's Creation). JoshuaZ 12:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Syntax

No need to "pretend" thanks for the catching that mistake. JoshuaZ 16:44, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Appreciation for work on Robert Frost

Nice work on improving the Robert Frost entry!--Aschlafly 17:21, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Homeschooling

Some good edits were caught up and lost in your recent deletions, please be more careful. Harpie snark 14:50, 23 February 2007 (EST)