RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:08   

Quote (silverspoon @ 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.

Paul, uh, missed that, too.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:14   

Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2007,19:03)
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook.

BTW, Paul, that particular tome laid out a specific legal strategy for getting ID into classrooms.  How'd that, uh, work out for y'all . . . ?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's right.  I remember something about a trial in Pennsylvania . . . . As I recall, the judge concluded that "Of Pandas and People" (and ID) was just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Edwards v Aguillard.

Kind of like, ya know, "Explore Evolution" is just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Kitzmiller v Dover . . .


Given the fact that ID/creationism has managed the rather remarkable feat of losing every single Federal court case it has ever been involved with, I'm a little curious as to why on earth you would have any hope at all that THIS crap will do any better in court than the LAST dozen batches of crap did . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Augray



Posts: 1
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,06:54   

The Raup quote on http://www.antievolution.org/cs/node/693 has previously been clarified at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote25

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:07   

Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07)
Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

maybe because if they did not do that some would have been bigger then the page itself and some would have been too small to see clearly.

Or is that being too logical for this discussion?

I find the "without telling the reader" comment laughable, as already on this thread there are loads of things that EE does not tell the reader! I call shenanigans!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:37   

Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:42   

Oldman,

By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,09:30   

Thanks, I've added a link to the Raup quote discussion.

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

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,10:56   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Because it is irelevant to the point being made? Recall that Afarensis wrote:
Quote
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.

In other words, size is irrelevant for the point being made.

It may be true that some folks find this "objectionable" (although I would be curious to know who they are and where they stand on evolutionary theory). Frankly, it seems odd to point to this as any sort of objection to the theory of evolution. But give the DI's track record on the figures for Haeckel's embryos, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a priority given to presentation rather than to factual reality.

--------------
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: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,16:46   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Because changes in size aren't a big deal genetically:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112

Do you have some data that suggest that size changes are a big deal?

Oh, I forgot--you produce no data, because you're lack sufficient faith to test your hypotheses. Instead, you just spin the data of others.

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:16   

Just look what they’re teaching our first graders. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!



--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:24   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07)
Afarensis wrote:

Quote
Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size.


Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

Why not explain why _Diarthrognathus_ has two jaw joints -- one mammalian, one reptilian.

And why not explain why all this "therapsids" crapola is lifted nearly intact from Gish's writings at ICR from twenty-five years ago?  Since, ya know, "teach the controversy" doesn't have anything -- anything at all whatsoever -- to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".

(snicker)  (giggle)

Paul, ever wonder why everyone thinks creationists/IDers are dishonest evasive deceptive deliberate liars?

Think maybe books like this one have something to do with that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

My dad is taller than me, Paul.

Does that mean, in your opinion, that he's not my dad?


Just curious.


After all, we can't tell if he's my dad through a DNA paternity test, since we all KNOW that genetic similarity doesn't indicate descent either.  Right?  (snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:36   

Hey Paul, I've not read your, uh, wonderful new science textbook yet.  But, given the extensive past history of creationism/ID, I feel pretty confident that I can make a testable prediction about its contents:

*ahem*

I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**).

Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed science journal articles wherein any of these, uh, "scientific criticisms of evolution" have appeared?

Tell you what, Paul, since you're such an eager betting man and all, I'll even offer you a wager.  I'll give you one hundred dollars ($100) for every scientific argument against evolution presented in your magnum opus that has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and you will give me one hundred dollars ($100) for every one that has appeared in some creationist/ID tracts published by ICR, AiG, or one of DI's minions.

Deal?

I've always wanted a yacht of my own . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:40   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:42)
By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.

That's not what "actual size" means at all.

If you're going to write your posts in English, "actual size" means "actual size," not "on the same scale."

Writing "on the same relative scale" is mind-numbingly redundant. What do you think "scale" means?

If you can't master these simple terms, why are you writing a textbook? If you're a Christian, why can't you simply admit that you were wrong?

"The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language ... "

Do you remember where that quote is printed, Paul?

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:04   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Do these people you speak of only look at drawings?

My head is swinging from the pure idiocy of this line of reasoning. It reminds me of the Peppered Moth pictures are fake argument. As if somehow that was supposed to discredit natural selection.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:15   

But not to worry, Paul.

No doubt "Our Pal" Slimey Sal will be dropping by soon enough to pull your bacon off the frying pan.

And trip, stumble, oops!, pitch it in the fire blast furnace.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:21   

Re quotation #24,

The second and third quotations aren't in the cited paper. In fact, this very cool paper supports a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the rapid evolution of the turtle's shell, directly contradicting the apparently manufactured quote:

"The recognition of a simple developmental mechanism, namely an epithelial-mesenchymal interaction, at the initiation of carapace development provides a basis for hypotheses about the rapid evolution of this body plan (Burke 1989b).

Burke, A. C. 1989b. Development of the turtle carapace: implications for
the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199: 363–378.

Note also that the authors hypothesize which proteins are involved, which inductive relationships between tissues are involved, etc.

Clearly, this is another lie by omission, possibly compounded by lies of commission.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:47   

Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are:

Quote
GOALS

Governing Goals

   * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
   * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
   * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
   * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
   * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
   * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:37   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)
Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.

Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Sigh. No Paul, this is completely wrong. The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant. To give an example, in pelycosaurs the occipital condyle is single and hemispheric shaped. It evolves into a double condyle in mammals and an intermediate stage is seen in therapsids. None of this has anything to do with size. The mammal condyle is not just an allometrically scaled version of the pelycosaur. So explain how  
Quote
...fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother...
is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general?

--------------
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.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:57   

Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2007,18:47)
Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are:

Quote
GOALS

Governing Goals



You forgot one (one that, I'll bet, Paul is very fond of, since he's a young-earth creationist -- go ahead, Paul, tell everyone how old you think the earth is . . . .  snicker, giggle):

*ahem*

"Five Year Objectives:

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation"

So much for that whole "ID doesn't have anything to do with creationism, no sirree Bob" BS.

Oh, and as for this whole "our new exciting scientific textbook about scientific criticisms of evolution doesn't have anything to do with ID, no sirree Bob", it may be interesting to note that, in the Wedge Document itself, "Dr Paul Chien" is listed as part of a "Paleontology Research Program", which is itself listed as one of "The Wedge Projects".

Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:18   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,20:57)
Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars.

It appears they've given up even pretending to do research, to focus on yet another effort to sneak a textbook in. I would add 'shameless' to your long list of adjectives.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:26   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,17:36)
I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**).

Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?

Well, Paul?

Am I?


(sound of crickets chirping)


Yep, I thought so . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,20:50   

Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet.

Keep up the good work.

--------------
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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,21:21   

Quote (BWE @ July 19 2007,20:50)
Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet.

Keep up the good work.

I can't wait to hear Paul and his ilk trying to explain to a Federal judge why not oen argument anywhjere in the book appears in any science journal, and why every one of them appears solely and only in creationist/ID religious texts.

(snicker)  (giggle)


But then, first they have to find a school board that is stupid enough to trust DI, after DI has already abandoned the Dover Dolts to twist alone in the wind, leaving them with a million bucks of legal debts and no more jobs.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,21:35   

I think this time they're being proactive and picking the school board themselves. You know the first thing they told those people was Rule 1 of Jesus Club: DO NOT F*%&ING TALK ABOUT JESUS CLUB!!!!!!!!1111 Act like this has NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS!!!!!11

I wonder if that's going to come out in court, or if they can count on their contacts' having a faulty memory on that point. Alternately, if they deliberately picked secular people, that's not going to work out for them.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,06:46   

Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2007,21:35)
I think this time they're being proactive and picking the school board themselves. You know the first thing they told those people was Rule 1 of Jesus Club: DO NOT F*%&ING TALK ABOUT JESUS CLUB!!!!!!!!1111 Act like this has NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS!!!!!11

I wonder if that's going to come out in court, or if they can count on their contacts' having a faulty memory on that point. Alternately, if they deliberately picked secular people, that's not going to work out for them.

They'd also have to hand-pick everyone who testifies at a hearing, shows up at a board meeting, or writes letters to the editor.  In every case, there will be plenty of brainless minions who will stand up and shout "JESUS SAVES !!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Fundie creationists are, by far, their own worst enemies.  They seem to suffer from a genetic inability to shut their big mouths.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,09:54   

Afarensis wrote:

 
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?  If size doesn't matter, showing the fossils as one might see them lined up in a museum drawer shouldn't be a problem.

The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

JAM, can you say which quotes from the box "Coming Out of Their Shell?" you find objectionable, and why?  Also, Burke's data were interpreted by Rieppel (2001) as disproving the "correlated progression" model for turtle evolution, advanced by Kemp and others.  Rieppel writes:

   
Quote
The turtle body plan is evidently highly derived, indeed unique among tetrapods.  The problem for an evolutionary biologist is to explain these transformations in the context of a gradualistic process.  Given the recently obtained developmental evidence [Rieppel cites Burke 1989 here], the theory of "correlated progression" presents an incomplete explanation of the turtle body plan....Ribs can only be located either deep to, or superficial to, the scapula.  There are no intermediates, and there is only one way to get from one condition to the other, which is the redirection of the migration, through the embryonic body, of the precursor cells that will form the ribs.


O. Rieppel, "Turtles as hopeful monsters," BioEssays 23 (2001):987-991; pp. 990-991.

For his part, Kemp responds:

   
Quote
[Correlated progression] stands in contrast to an alternative view of the origin of turtles, expressed most recently by Rieppel (2001 [citing Burke]), that the rib-vertebrae-carapace-limb complex is too radically different from the ancestral amniote condition to have evolved gradually, but must have resulted from a macromutational event caused by a radical change in early development.  The difficulty with Rieppel's hypothesis is that it must account for how this sudden developmental change also caused what must have been simultaneous, but functionally integrated shifts in many other traits, notably the musculature, limb function, central neural control of locomotion, ventilation mechanism, dietary shift away from faunivory and so on: it is unrealistic in the extreme that any single macromutation could have such a comprehensive effect.


T.S. Kemp, "The concept of correlated progression as the basis for a model for the evolutionary origin of major new taxa," Proc. R. Soc. B. 274 (2007):16671673; pp. 1669-1670.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,10:03   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,09:54)
Afarensis wrote:

   
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?  If size doesn't matter, showing the fossils as one might see them lined up in a museum drawer shouldn't be a problem.

The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

Paul, the strawman is dead, so why don't you stop kicking it and put up another one?  Do you believe that textbooks are never questioned in classrooms, or that teachers play no part in elucidating supplementary materials? Even if your complaint regarding scaling made sense in light of relevancy, and we've established that it doesn't, I've never seen an instance of a teacher at any level refusing to answer questions about the subject at hand.

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

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,10:06   

You've never taken a class from Mr. Nelson, it appears.
Or Dembski, Behe, or Cordova.
Or Luskin, Wells, or, well, the list goes on and on...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

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

Pages: (29) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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