Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Discussing "Explore Evolution"

Pages: (29) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:44    Quote (ck1 @ July 16 2007,15:22) On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites. A number of paleontologists and paleoanthropologists have looked at the question of whether current collections of fossils are representative of the fossil record (for example, Rob Martin looked at the subject of how well the primate fossil record is sampled in his paper Primates a definition). Most of the studies along these lines indicate that the fossil record is poorly sampled and that there is still a lot out there to be uncovered. The writers of EE have labeled this the "artifact hypothesis". My question for Paul concerns the misleading and inadequate portrayal of the reptile/mammal transition. For example this: Quote Some textbooks alter the scale of pictures showing the order of appearance of group such as the mammal-like reptiles. This makes the features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship, and an easy transition between different types of animals. Presentations of the reptile-to-mammal sequence, in particular, often enlarge some skulls and shrink others to make them appear more similar in size than they actually are. Which makes it sound like paleontologists have suggested that a linear increase in size is what unites all the species in the transition. Not surprising that ID proponents would be so misleading about this, because the reptile/mammal transition is actually a good example of the de novo origination of a complex organ (the mammalian ear) - something ID says is impossible. In reality, a whole slew of traits link the species in question - traits that are not dependent on trends in size. -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:55    Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:58    I have to go play some poker. This book is just one big attempt to decieve, and it's angering up my blood.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,19:04    Hey Paul, what happened to you . . . ? I thought you were, ya know, gonna discuss some things with us, or something . . . .? (sound of crickets chirping) Yep, that's what I thought. It's easy to fight in a forum where you can kick out people who disagree with you, isn't it -- and NOT so easy to fight in a forum where you CAN'T (such as, oh, federal courtrooms, for instance). Cowards. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,22:12    Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,18:55) Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried. Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists. -------------- 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.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,01:09    Quote Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists. The canonical example of that strategy being Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:18    Steve, I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:23    Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33    Hmm. Did you post a sample page that leaves out it's context? Brilliant! Is that so that you can rope these evolutionist dogmatists into bets they couldn't possibly win? Kudos. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. The point being...? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,06:36    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 17 2007,05:33) Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. The point being...? To apparently cast apersions on the credibility of scientists without challenging them on the actual science. Reminds me of this incident as related by Wes. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:40    I can see why EE references a 17-year-old science framework and not the current California science framework: the particular quote in question does not appear to exist within the current framework. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:56    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Hi, Paul It's good to see you here and responding to questions. When you get a free moment, please see my previous comment and let me know what credentials (i.e. peer-reviewed publications, advanced graduate training, etc.) allow you to claim that Paul K. Chien is a "marine paleobiologist". Thanks in advance. -------------- 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

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,09:20    Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am. When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed? I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly. (And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,16:58    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,06:18) Steve, I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms. I'll make no official bet. Everyone here knows you can't just admit this is repackaged creationism. That deception is the whole point of the 'textbook'. What use is this textbook to the Discovery Institute if you admit that? This book is an attempt to slip the same old bogus antievolution arguments into the schoolhouse. You tried it and called it creationism, that didn't work, you changed 'god' to 'intelligent designer', that didn't work, now you've take the words 'intelligent designer' out. But it's still the same old crap. I'm sure we're going to find plenty of creationist nonsense in the book. We've already found several items from the few excerpts we've been given.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:12    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Um, so what? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13    I see that Paul is logged in right now.  I sure hope he will answer my question! -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13    Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:26    Quote (Doc Bill @ July 17 2007,10:20) Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am. When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed? I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly. (And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?) A few years ago, Paul Nelson kind of admitted that, you know, we IDers don't exactly have what you might call a theory. Compared to people like Dembski bragging about our imminent Waterloo and comparing themselves to Isaac Newton, this seemed to be very honest. We gave him too much credit. If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers. Edited by stevestory on July 17 2007,18:27

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:32    (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:47    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve. Well, actually, "toxicologist" would be an even more accurate description. Of the 10 biologically-relevant papers attributed to him on Web of Science, the most recent one being 1995, one is on yeast, three are on non-marine worms, one is on human erythrocytes,  and 5 are on various marine or saltmarsh organisms. ALMOST ALL of them deal with heavy metal toxicity. His qualifications to comment on a fossil and its relevance to the bogus "artifact hypothesis" seem to me to be non-existent. Finally, his publication record would suggest that he might not even be up to speed in toxicology... I'm sure that this will be changed in the next printing, but that section should read "toxicologist" rather than marine paleobiologist. Of course, that wouldn't be as impressive in the context of that paragraph. thanks -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:59    Stephen C. Meyer Scott Minnich Jonathan Moneymaker Paul A. Nelson Ralph Seelke 4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design? Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:13    Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:26) If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers. Indeed -- it ain't "intelligent design theory" anymore, now it's "teach the controversy about evolution".  They tried it in Georgia, tried it in Ohio, tried it in Kansas.  And got their ass kicked every time. I sincerely hope that we'll get to see this latest magnum opus get incinerated in court, too.  I *love* the smell of fried creationist in the morning. And I hope we get to watch Nelson testify about it.  But, alas, he doesn't have the ping-pongs for it. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:15    Hey Paul, does this magnificent, uh, "science textbook" tell us how old the earth is? Why not? (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:17    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. "A scientist who objects to evolution for religious reasons" would be even better, Paul. And far more accurate. Too honest for you, though, huh. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:18    Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:59) Stephen C. Meyer Scott Minnich Jonathan Moneymaker Paul A. Nelson Ralph Seelke 4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design? Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul. Is it from DI's publishing company, too? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:43    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything? -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:44    Ralph Seelke: Quote Conclusion Much has been written about whether ID can result in a viable research program (see, for example, Moreland, 1994). I believe the time has come for ID proponents to be actively contributing to important research areas. The examples I have given are meant to stimulate thinking about areas of research for ID proponents; they are by no means exhaustive. The ID interpretation of the results of this type of research will clearly be different from they typical neo–Darwinian explanation. But in time, the weight of the evidence would make the design inference more and more attractive. That was written in 2003, back when the IDers were publishing their fake journal. ID has gotten less attractive since then, if you can possibly imagine that.

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:54    Hey Mr. Paul Nelson, I am a science teacher in the state of Washington and would love a review copy of EE. How can I get one?

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:03    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve. Hi Paul. You should check with Stephen Meyer. He (or one of the other authors) identifies Chien as a "marine paleobiologist” in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. He (Meyer) also did so in his expert witness report (revised) that never made it into the Dover trial because he withdrew. Since he is a co-author of the book in question I suggest you talk with him. I’m glad I could be of assistance in your search for the truth of who the culprit might be. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Pages: (29) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard