RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,09:39   

Paul,

What about the evolution of flowering plants? I'm curious to find out what you think of the current state of research in that field.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,09:45   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu

Paul, I'd be happy to do most of that, but in most cases it will be impossible to give a "brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent". I'll tell you if a book misrepresents Haeckel or von Baer, but since embryology does provide extensive and ever-growing evidence for common descent (see PZ's recent blog post about yolk sacs and human embryos), that part of your request represents an substantial time commitment that I am not willing to make.

I have an NSF proposal to review, and papers to grade, but I should be able to send you this list within the week. I'll post it here as well. I just got another textbook today (Cain, Damman, Lue and Yoon, 2007). Unfortunately for your side, it fails to mention either Haeckel or von Baer, and fails to show the odious Haeckel figure or any facsimile.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,10:25   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 20 2008,09:45)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu

Paul, I'd be happy to do most of that, but in most cases it will be impossible to give a "brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent". I'll tell you if a book misrepresents Haeckel or von Baer, but since embryology does provide extensive and ever-growing evidence for common descent (see PZ's recent blog post about yolk sacs and human embryos), that part of your request represents an substantial time commitment that I am not willing to make.

I have an NSF proposal to review, and papers to grade, but I should be able to send you this list within the week. I'll post it here as well. I just got another textbook today (Cain, Damman, Lue and Yoon, 2007). Unfortunately for your side, it fails to mention either Haeckel or von Baer, and fails to show the odious Haeckel figure or any facsimile.

Dave - I suggest you hold out for some of teh DI millions.  

Paul - Come on!  Send a little rain Dave's way!  If the DI can fund hacks like Behe and Dembski, the least they can do is help out a real scientist like Dave, especially when you want him to do your work FOR you.

Ask yourself WWHD?  What Would Howard Do?

And what about Father Moonie?  I've heard he might have a little "green cheese" laying around, just collecting dust and interest...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,10:44   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2008,10:25)
Dave - I suggest you hold out for some of teh DI millions.  

Paul - Come on!  Send a little rain Dave's way!  If the DI can fund hacks like Behe and Dembski, the least they can do is help out a real scientist like Dave, especially when you want him to do your work FOR you.

Naw, I figured I would help out as long as Paul promises NOT to use my name in his list of reviewers.   ;)

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,18:21   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,09:23)
I'm continuing to work on JAM's question about body size, which has resolved itself into two sub-questions (a) how does one infer the genetic basis of traits for extinct taxa? and (b) what is the relevance of variation under domestication to possible ranges of variation for extinct or natural (i.e., not domesticated) groups?

What a crock. My question was simply whether you had any evidence to support your assumption that body size is not evolutionarily plastic.

I cited evidence that showed that it was.

It doesn't "resolve into two sub-questions," Paul. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no evidence at all?

If ID is so important scientifically, why aren't you doing actual science (i.e., producing new data) instead of traveling?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,19:19   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 20 2008,19:21)
It doesn't "resolve into two sub-questions," Paul. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no evidence at all?

Why not be honest and call his book "Old Creationist Complaints Against Evolution, Written, Funded, and Reviewed by Creationists"? Because integrity would upset his goal of getting creationism into schools.

Quote

If ID is so important scientifically, why aren't you doing actual science (i.e., producing new data) instead of traveling?


No one in ID does actual science because ID is scientifically barren. See for yourself. It doesn't lead to any science but it does fool some of the rubes, so people like Paul focus on propaganda like Expelled and EE.

Everyone should take some time and read about Barry Marshall, The Alvarezes, Stanley Prusiner, etc. Anyone who spends a few hours studying how real scientists work to get controversial ideas established can see that IDers aren't doing any of the necessary work, they're just doing PR.

Edited by stevestory on Mar. 20 2008,20:28

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2008,09:58   

Quote
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu


Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?[/QUOTE]

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2008,10:13   

Quote (raguel @ Mar. 21 2008,09:58)
Quote
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu


Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?

Honest research makes it more difficult to lie, which is why creationists like Paul don't do it. Perhaps a better way to put it would be: if you're lying you don't need no stinkin' research.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2008,14:14   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 20 2008,07:23)
Another update --

I have three weeks of travel coming up, starting tomorrow (South Carolina & then Brazil), but I'll try to check in here periodically.

Paul, Did you mannage to mail the review copy of EE before your trip?

Thanks in advance,

GH

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2008,22:50   

In my experience textbooks sometimes come with a little slip of paper in them marked "errata," that is, errors discovered after publication.

For example, an errata might read "pg 223  x = 6 should read x = 3."  That sort of thing.

It occurred to me that if EE were to come with an errata, the errata could easily exceed the size of EE by a factor of two.

Therefore, my question to Paul would be, will EE be published as a three volume set to include EE and the two volumes of errata?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,01:40   

This is an open message to Paul to put down the crypto-creationist textbook business and focus on publishing his Ontogenetic Depth idea. And unlike you Discovery Institute folk, I won't hide my motivation. My motivation is simple. Explore Evolution is boring. It's all the old creationist crap with the words 'creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' taken out. The contents of the book were published years ago under honest titles like Scientific Creationism, and all the arguments are already documented at sites like The Index of Creationist Claims. We're beating a dead horse. It's not even a horse anymore. It's a pink area on the ground where a few old-timers remeber a horse being, back in the day. Whereas if you publish your new pretend science idea of Ontogenetic Depth, it will be a brand new embarrassingly bad idea, like IC or CSI, and we will get to laugh at it over thousands of comments.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2008,22:27   

Is 12 days too soon to wonder if Paul sent the book?  He said "Soon."  I guess I am spoiled by Amazon.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2008,00:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 25 2008,23:27)
Is 12 days too soon to wonder if Paul sent the book?  He said "Soon."  I guess I am spoiled by Amazon.

Maybe you have to send an SASE.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,19:21   

Nelson?  Nelson?


Anyone?


Nelson?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,04:28   

There was a comment Paul Nelson made at the Menuge and Nelson presentation about how ID is "doing the heavy lifting".

What exactly does that mean?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,14:58   

Maybe that's the opposite of intelligent falling? :p

  
Advocatus Diaboli



Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2008,08:31   

Update:

49 guests, 9 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Advocatus Diaboli >J-Dog >Paul Nelson >Bob O'H >celdd >BirgitBenniean >mybroq >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >drew91


--------------
I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

"I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot

"Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova

"UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2008,20:43   

Should we have another "random page error-check" day tomorrow for "Explore Evolution"? I'm thinking that we may need a little structure to make this work out for the most people. Like having a specified person for posting a random page number at an agreed-upon time, so everyone can be set to have a look when the "starting gun" goes off.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,21:57   

(scene: Cocktail party, slightly alternate universe)

Jimmy: So, what do you do?
Professor Nelson: I'm a professor of Intelligent Car Design.
Jimmy: Oooo, what is that?
Nelson: I study how cars have, and are, being designed and built.
Jimmy: Oh, so you study Ferdinand Porsche and the EDGE design group and CAD and such?
Nelson: Of course not! I am not a Car Creatorist.
Jimmy: Uh what?
Nelson: Car Creatorist. They talk about Ferdinand and EDGE and CAD and Michigan etc etc etc. I have nothing to do with that.
Jimmy: But aren't you in fact a Car Creatorist? And didn't you write this essay about Car Creating? And aren't you currently, this minute, paid by a group that advocates Car Creatorism?
Nelson: I don't see how any of that is relevant. Here, look at this textbook I wrote.
Jimmy: This is a funny cover. It looks like it originally said "Introduction to Car Creatorism", and then that title has been defaced and underneath it you wrote in Sharpie "Intelligent Car Design" but then you tried to obliterate that too and you just wrote "Exploring Cars" but it's still basically the original book.
Jimmy: Yes. It's just about cars. I study how cars have, and are, being designed and built, but I refuse to say anything about the designers or builders or when or where the cars were designed and built, or the methods used.
Jimmy: Um...so what do you do.
Nelson. I mostly just sit around saying "Them cars sure look designed and built."
Jimmy: That doesn't sound like a very productive way to study car design. Do you and your fellow ICD scholars actually publish any papers?
Nelson: not really.

Edited by stevestory on April 04 2008,22:59

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,08:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 03 2008,20:43)
Should we have another "random page error-check" day tomorrow for "Explore Evolution"? I'm thinking that we may need a little structure to make this work out for the most people. Like having a specified person for posting a random page number at an agreed-upon time, so everyone can be set to have a look when the "starting gun" goes off.

Sunday would be better for me. I agree, though, that we need a structured approach...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,11:02   

I have completed my survey of biology textbooks, testing the assertion in EE that "many" modern textbooks repeat Haeckel's error. The spreadsheet with complete data can be downloaded here.

Here are the highlights. I reviewed 36 books dating back to 1980 up through this year (26 college-level intro, 5 advanced college-level, 2 developmental biology textbooks, 2 high school level, and one that can be used in either high school or at the college intro level). 28 of these do NOT even mention Haeckel or the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" aphorism. Of the 8 that do mention him, 2 of these are creationist texts (Pandas and People, and the Bob Jones University "Biology for Christian Classrooms) and 2 are advanced college-level books. Only one (the BJU creationist text) reproduces the original Haeckel woodcuts. 23 of them have some figure showing comparative embryology; about half of these are photos and the other half are drawings.

Excluding creationist books, then, 6 out of the 36 mention Haeckel, and exactly none of them repeat his error.

Please pass this along to your coauthors, Paul. And please amend your book.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
snscience



Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,12:10   

I teach high school biology. I went through all the textbooks (approximately 15) I considered during our last adoption year (4 years ago). Not one of them mentions Haeckel. Not one them includes Haeckel's drawings. Not one of them mention's "ontology recapitulates phylogony."

Tony

--------------
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.  Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2008,15:40   

Happy Paul Nelson Day, everyone!

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2008,17:00   

Yes, Happy Paul Nelson Day!

At least he shows up here from time to time, bless his Mendelvian-pea picking heart!

Pop quiz time.

Has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer to a question?

Anybody?  Bueler?  Anybody?

I can't recall.  I don't think he has, even to a simple question like "what's the age of the Earth?"

On Paul Nelson Day we should document the Best of Paul Nelson.  Anybody experience more than just BS with PN?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2008,00:03   

Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2008,07:20   

Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.

Why, Mr Anderson, why, WHY!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2008,09:59   

Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2008,00:03)
Paul, you're spending all your time and energy defending bullshit. You know it. We know it. Somewhere, deep down, there's a little voice that says 'Dangit, this YEC stuff just doesn't hang together.' We know that it's been a part of your core beliefs. We know that it's a painful thing to realize. But every day can always be the start of a better life. Just because you fell for it years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep fighting reality now. YEC is bullshit. It's done. That ship has sailed, my friend. You're among the best they're got, and frankly, you look like an idiot. You're choosing to look like an idiot. You don't have to do this. You can cut your losses. There's always time to discard ideas that just didn't work out and do something productive. You might think it's too late, but better late, than never.

Steve, et al.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family. In grad school, when he finally was confronted face-to-face with evidence that could not be reconciled with the Fluud, it triggered a personal crisis that seems to still be going on years later. Words like "bitterness, rage and disappointment" can be found throughout the account; his relationships with his parents, wife, siblings etc. have all had to be renegotiated. Another ex-creationist, quoted in the article, discusses his conversation with his mother: "The day that I had to tell my mother I wasn't a YEC was the scariest day of my life".

I think sometimes we forget how those fact-free beliefs, installed in their heads when they were young, become incredibly intertwined with everything else in their lives. Giving up the fact-free beliefs would be easy if that is all that would be required. But in reality it involves giving up a lot more than that, and sometimes at great psychic cost.

It takes a lot of guts to make that break. The intellectual understanding is just the first, and probably the easiest, step. Paul might have the brains to do this, but it would be no surprise to learn that he doesn't (like lots of others) have the guts.

I'd be happy to send a PDF of that article to anyone who can't get past the subscription wall at Science. It is an excellent and informative read.

---ETA that I'm certain this attempt at empathy will be read in some quarters as more "nauseating arrogance". Too bad.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2008,16:25   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2008,07:59)
If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend a recent article in Science ("Crossing the Divide", Jennifer Couzin, Science 319:1034-36, 22 Feb 2008), documenting the history of a paleontologist raised in a YEC family.

His experience is published as a book written with his brother-in-law, a minister, who went through the same process of discovery and learning.

Stephen J. Godfrey, Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage" Toronto: Clements Publishing

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2008,16:27   

Quote (snscience @ April 05 2008,10:10)
I teach high school biology. I went through all the textbooks (approximately 15) I considered during our last adoption year (4 years ago). Not one of them mentions Haeckel. Not one them includes Haeckel's drawings. Not one of them mention's "ontology recapitulates phylogony."

Tony

Would it be possible to put together a bibliography of the HS textbooks you checked?  It might come in very handy when creationists parrot DI nonsense.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
snscience



Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2008,21:17   

Quote
Would it be possible to put together a bibliography of the HS textbooks you checked?  It might come in very handy when creationists parrot DI nonsense.


Will do. It might be a few days before I can get to it.

Tony

--------------
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.  Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man)

  
  861 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]