RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: IDC Advocates Speak, Experiencing TARD Benders< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,23:45   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,19:56)
Highlights from My Night with the Discovery Institute

1. John West Says it isn't about Religion, except for those Damn Dirty Atheists

2. Carlsonjok Takes on a DI Fellow and ducks into the punch

3. ATBC Becomes the Poster Child for Academic Freedom

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

5. And in a heartwarming conclusion sure to touch the depths of your cold, black Darwinist heart, Casey rises above it all and forgives everyone, especially Wesley Elsberry.

Naturally we'd love details about all.

#2 had to have been West, eh? Hard to imagine Luskin packing much of a wallup. Be a good story to tell the kids someday, though.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,23:58   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 20 2009,23:45)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,19:56)
Highlights from My Night with the Discovery Institute

1. John West Says it isn't about Religion, except for those Damn Dirty Atheists

2. Carlsonjok Takes on a DI Fellow and ducks into the punch

3. ATBC Becomes the Poster Child for Academic Freedom

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

5. And in a heartwarming conclusion sure to touch the depths of your cold, black Darwinist heart, Casey rises above it all and forgives everyone, especially Wesley Elsberry.

Naturally we'd love details about all.

#2 had to have been West, eh? Hard to imagine Luskin packing much of a wallup. Be a good story to tell the kids someday, though.

Yes, it was West. I will say this, the man is a gifted speaker and he knows all the tricks to avoid hard questions. He never really answered my question, but sounded good avoiding it.

I took 21 pages of notes and I am in the process of a first pass to clean them up.  It is going slow and I have a busy couple of weeks coming up in real life.

Oh, and I forgot that the absolute #1 highlight of the night was Casey Luskin saying "tits."  That alone was worth the price of admission.

--------------
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!)

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,00:08   

It was the most boring night of my life  (seriously, I was reading papers for work I was so bored) until shit hit the fan.

SHIT HIT THE FAN.

Bountiful lulz were had.  Casey loves everyone at AtBC.  Also, tits.

Unfortunately, the gays got me drunk, so Im not posting anything until tomorrow.

Also, tits.

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,01:52   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,21:58)
Oh, and I forgot that the absolute #1 highlight of the night was Casey Luskin saying "tits."  That alone was worth the price of admission.

Really?

??

He didn't even start with

??

This wouldn't be related to  
Quote

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

in any way, would it? It seems that she has, as they say, a pair.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,01:59   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 21 2009,01:52)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,21:58)
Oh, and I forgot that the absolute #1 highlight of the night was Casey Luskin saying "tits."  That alone was worth the price of admission.

Really?

Yes.  God as my witness, he said "tits" and he weren't talking about no birds neither.  If you know what I mean and I think you do.
Quote

This wouldn't be related to    
Quote

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

in any way, would it? It seems that she has, as they say, a pair.

Yes, again.  But, I am going to have to save this for another time,  I have just finished cleaning up my 9 pages of notes from John West's talk and I am tired.

--------------
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: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,04:53   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,21:56)
Highlights from My Night with the Discovery Institute

1. John West Says it isn't about Religion, except for those Damn Dirty Atheists

2. Carlsonjok Takes on a DI Fellow and ducks into the punch

3. ATBC Becomes the Poster Child for Academic Freedom

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

5. And in a heartwarming conclusion sure to touch the depths of your cold, black Darwinist heart, Casey rises above it all and forgives everyone, especially Wesley Elsberry.

Quote

Then there’s the issue that Casey Luskin has a curious connotation for “forgiveness”. In a comment supposedly left by Casey in the thread he cited, Casey specifically “forgives” me for the rough treatment he received there. Yet here we are several months later with Casey apparently retracting that forgiveness. Casey, you can either get props for sincerely forgiving someone for a transgression (though it helps if there actually was a transgression by that person), or you can bash them with the alleged transgression ad infinitum. It simply doesn’t work to try to get props for the sincerity of your “forgiveness” and still be using the supposed fault as your favorite rhetorical billy club.



Link

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,04:54   

Oh, and if anybody needs a new card for bingo, check this out.

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

    
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,06:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,04:53)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,21:56)
Highlights from My Night with the Discovery Institute

1. John West Says it isn't about Religion, except for those Damn Dirty Atheists

2. Carlsonjok Takes on a DI Fellow and ducks into the punch

3. ATBC Becomes the Poster Child for Academic Freedom

4. Abbie Smith Flips off Casey Luskin, MS JD Esq.

5. And in a heartwarming conclusion sure to touch the depths of your cold, black Darwinist heart, Casey rises above it all and forgives everyone, especially Wesley Elsberry.

   
Quote

Then there’s the issue that Casey Luskin has a curious connotation for “forgiveness”. In a comment supposedly left by Casey in the thread he cited, Casey specifically “forgives” me for the rough treatment he received there. Yet here we are several months later with Casey apparently retracting that forgiveness. Casey, you can either get props for sincerely forgiving someone for a transgression (though it helps if there actually was a transgression by that person), or you can bash them with the alleged transgression ad infinitum. It simply doesn’t work to try to get props for the sincerity of your “forgiveness” and still be using the supposed fault as your favorite rhetorical billy club.



Link

The close of Casey's presentation was to put up a slide showing all the nasty things that were said about him on the Casey Luskin thread (douchebag, attack mouse, etc) and to highlight an incident where Abbie disemvoweled a troll and then made some less-than-prim comments (the aforementioned tits incident) to the troll on her blog, ERV (details to follow later).  It was then he proffered his sincerest apologies.

His argument, in no small part, was that people are mean  at AE.org and on blogs, so therefore we need Academic Freedom Bills. *

It is my opinion that his forgiveness is debate tactic disguised as a magnanimous gesture.  His closing statements were classic poisoning the well (particularly towards Abbie). But by offering absolution he is trying to make anyone who gets up to challenge him in the Q&A look bitter and angry and, thus, diffuse any rhetorical points they might have scored by confronting  him. Casey wasn't offering anyone forgiveness, he was playing the crowd.

*Casey, since you are reading this,this is for you:  Science doesn't get done on message boards and in blog comments.  You ought to know that, you are one of the few Discovery Institute folks who has done real science in the past.  Maybe you should see if the DI will peel off some of it's $4 Million budget, so you can get into a lab or out in the field. When you have offered your work up to the Academy, if people call you names, then you can feel free to complain.

--------------
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: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,06:21   

Weird... people exercising free speech means that people don't already have free speech? What sort of argument is that?

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

    
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,06:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,06:21)
Weird... people exercising free speech means that people don't already have free speech? What sort of argument is that?

Wes, I am starting to think you are a little slow.  After all your years defending science, you are still expecting logical consistency?  Casey doesn't want free speech, he wants affirmative action in the high school science class for his ideas.  Oh, and everyone has to be nice to ID advocates too.

--------------
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!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,06:34   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2009,12:31)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,06:21)
Weird... people exercising free speech means that people don't already have free speech? What sort of argument is that?

Wes, I am starting to think you are a little slow.  After all your years defending science, you are still expecting logical consistency?  Casey doesn't want free speech, he wants affirmative action in the high school science class for his ideas.  Oh, and everyone has to be nice to ID advocates too.

NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

I'll be nice the day they stop relying on bullshit.

Promise.

That should happen about ooooooooh never.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,06:36   

Is there audio available of the presentation? Link or PM me, please.

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

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:03   

A topical comment at Abbie's place

Quote
To those wanting to know how Casey defends "Cdesign proponentsists," go read his mind-numbing article over at US News, as he offers it there. It's buried in the middle of that morass, starting about nine paragraphs after a lengthy inset quoting Monton's testimony and rambling on quite a ways afterwards. He mainly bases it on excuses offered by Thaxton at Dover. My best effort at summarizing (with maybe just a hint of editorial snark):

--We'd adopted ID as a term before the Edwards decision. In fact, the Greeks invented it so we're just copying them. So no court-evasion was involved.

--ID is not creationism, so we needed a term that wasn't "creationism."

--It was VERY IMPORTANT that we stick to the "empirical domain" and so not mention creationism.

--Did I mention it was VERY IMPORTANT we stick to the empirical domain? 'Cause it was. But not because of Edwards! Nuh-uh. It was just because...um...because.

--We always meant to use ID in Pandas, but because (even though we've been using ID as a term since the Greeks) all of our friends who we wanted to interview and work with us on it didn't know what ID WAS and only understood "creationism," we used that as a placeholder and planned to replace it with ID later. That way they'd know what the book was about. You know, kinda like "From Darwin to Hitler" as a working title for "Expelled?" But it was never about creationism!

--We did a lot of hard work on fitting our arguments to only the empirical domain (I did mention how VERY IMPORTANT but NOT AT ALL ABOUT EDWARDS that was, right?)

--(actual Casey quote): "Any arguments that ID is creationism because early pre-publication drafts of the Pandas textbook used "creation" terminology are false conspiracy theories based not upon substance, but semantics and revisionist history. The very fact that Darwinists must resort to such arguments shows just how weak is their case that ID is creationism."


The whole mess is one of the most muddled, incoherent, laughable exercises in excuse-making and "I meant to do that!"-claiming I've ever seen. But the real gem is the bit about "creationism" being used as a placeholder for their friends. That paragraph deserves reprinting for full admiration (and remember, this is Thaxton speaking):

"I realize that the charge was that we were trying to just use a substitute word for creation, but that isn't the case at all. In the early days of writing the Pandas book for example, although we understood what we were doing, most other people who we were talking to didn't know our objectives really. And if you have a whole culture that knows about creation as a term ... So we used that word early on, not for deception so we could later switch on them but because we wanted the materials to be understood that we were focused on. It was always clearly within the empirical domain, even the things that we wrote early on."

I hadn't read this part of the transcripts before. I understand even better now how Jones could end up so pissed. He knew how dumb they thought he was.

Posted by: rrt | February 21, 2009 3:01 AM



Also, tits.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:16   

And the Great Search-and-Replace just happened to occur just after the Edwards decision came out. Total coincidence, yeah.

These guys really hate it when people do make a design inference.

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

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:32   

and do it without using FSCI or the EF or UPB or CSI or the NFL.  

just tits.

carlson quit stalling!!!!!  share your thesis.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:37   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:32)
and do it without using FSCI or the EF or UPB or CSI or the NFL.  

just tits.

carlson quit stalling!!!!!  share your thesis.

Dude, real life calls.  I will try to get my John West notes up tonight.

Huh-huh-huh. Casey said tits.



--------------
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!)

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,08:45   

TITS!!!

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,09:11   

I take it that Casey didn't bother to mention that when people requested a place to talk about the DI's "Explore Evolution" textbook, Paul Nelson said that he'd check into that on the DI site (which still has nothing in that direction), but I had the thread here at AtBC up within a couple of hours of the request. Compare that with what the DI calls debate, where they post their responses to stuff, but they don't let those other opinions appear using their bandwidth.

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

    
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,09:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,09:11)
I take it that Casey didn't bother to mention that when people requested a place to talk about the DI's "Explore Evolution" textbook, Paul Nelson said that he'd check into that on the DI site (which still has nothing in that direction), but I had the thread here at AtBC up within a couple of hours of the request. Compare that with what the DI calls debate, where they post their responses to stuff, but they don't let those other opinions appear using their bandwidth.

Yeah, I was pissed for a minute that night about Casey pulling "ABBIE HATES FREEDOM!" after the shit they pull, but to be in the company of the other people they attacked last night (including you, Wes), its an honor.

I updated the John West post too.  Alas, no tits.

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,09:59   

So!

Are you saying the whole ID case went TITS-up at this shindig or no?

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,10:38   

George Carlin on "tits", from the 7 dirty words:

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/george-....cs.html

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:24   

My Evening with the Discovery Institute - Part the First

Note:  I am going to try to report this as accurately as I can. When I interject my own comment, I will highlight those comments in red.  Further understand that I am composing this in MS Word and will be formatting it such that it is readable in Word.  The formatting may not translate onto ikonboard, which has limited formatting options.  I apologize up front if the formatting on AtBC comes across as poor.  I will gladly make the WORD file available to anyone who wants it.


Opening Comments by Don Ewert

> There are great controversies around evolution – particularly around implications of its meaning.  He makes reference to Origin of Species specifically mentioning the subtitle about preservation of “favored races”.  Not sure what he was going for here. I presume he is tipping his hat to the current preferred theme that Darwinism = racism, but Don doesn’t specifically state that. It seems more like he wants to leave a specific impression in peoples mind without actually committing himself on the record. My opinion only.

> He thanked Trinity Baptist Church for helping to organize the event and immediately states something to the effect that, of course, they would be interested in this since it is a controversy of materialism vs. theism.  It would be more accurately stated that it is a controversy between science and a narrow subset of theist thought, but that doesn’t fit with one  of the themes of the night <wink, wink> that invites the listener to think of evolution as just a competing religious doctrine.

John West – 7 Myths of Darwin Debate

Myth 1. There is no scientific debate over Darwin

> He asks what we mean by evolution?
    o Change over time
    o Small changes like antibiotic resistance and beak sizes
    o Large scale changes and development of new features (Cambrian Explosion)
    o Universal Common Ancestry
    o Natural Selection acting on random mutation as primary creative force

> He said the first two are not really controversial (I will come back to this), but the other 3 are. Although, admittedly, with a minority of scientists. Personally, I thought his separation of the last definition is logically incoherent.  Even if you accept the first 4 as distinct conceptualizations of evolution, RM+NS is still part of what drives the first four definitions. In retrospect, I think that he is setting up RM+NS as a strawman to knock over later.

> He brings up New Scientist article “Was Darwin Wrong?” as proof  that scientists think Darwinist’s tree of life needs to be pitched and the fundamentials of biology need to change.  He points out these are not creationists.(Creationist was his word, not mine. Also note that John Lynch brought this article up in his talk at OU last week and described the idea contained that the tree of life conceptualized with a single trunk is changing and it is really more like a thicket of life due to HGT.  West certainly misrepresented the article to make a rhetorical point)

> Developmental Biology 173:357-372 (1996)My notes don’t say what his point was. Maybe some can look at the article.

> Goodwin 1995 – “origin of species-Darwin’s problem-remains unsolved”

> Biologists have been questioning neo-Darwinism since the 1970s.  Someone needs to introduce West to Casey Luskin who says scientists are afraid to speak out. I would put my money on West in the ensuing doneybrook.  West appears to be a big ole boy and Luskin, a little feller.

> Lynn Margulis – “New mutations don’t create new species, they create offspring that are impaired.” He mentions link between malaria resistance and sickle cell.

> No unambiguous literature showing that natural selection only works to create novelty. Two thoughts: first nothing is unambiguous to the committed denialist so this statement is scientifically empty but not obviously so to the unschooled observer.  Second, the idea that NS is not the sole creator of novelty is a “dog bites man” statement.  I thought immediately of Allen MacNeill’s list of dozens of mechanisms.

> Douglas Axe (He has a PhD!) article in The Journal of Microbiology studying functional protein signaling (not sure I got that right) found that only one in a trillion- trillion- trillion- trillion- trillion possible combinations work (there may have been a sixth trillion in there. I wasn’t counting) West says the Discovery Institute funded this research but had to keep it on the down-low so that Axe wouldn’t be persecuted.

> Showed video of Axe. He talks about sitting in Caltech lecture about how cells make triptophin.  Is very elegant regulatory mechanism at molecular level. More elegant than anything he learned as an engineer. In fact, brilliant engineering!  He is amazed how our preconceptions color how we look at and understand data.  (No comment) He, on the other hand, always asks questions.

> Durat and Schmidt in Genetics
    o mathematical calculation of probability of a 2 step mutation happening.  Very simple point mutations. First inactivates one bonding site and the second activates another site. He says again that this is a trivial change
    o They found it would take an enormous amount of time for this type of change. 100M years in a human. But wait!  Primates have only been around for 55M years.
    o Also looked at fruit flies and still calculated it would take several million years.  But even that assumed that the first mutation was not harmful. Changing the calculation so that the first mutations could be harmful, it increased to several hundred M years.
    o Here is where I think West is knocking down the strawman he set up earlier. Here he is saying that even simple mutations wouldn’t happen except over huge expanses of time.  But this would nominally contradict his early admission that changes (like antibiotic resistance) do happen and are uncontroversial. He has to separate out RM+NS as he did above to avoid wrapping himself around the axle.

> Scientific Dissent from Darwin – over 700 scientists!  We wouldn’t teach flat earth because we couldn’t find 700 flat earthers.  But we haver 700 dissenting from Darwin so much teach. (The Dissent list has been thoroughly fisked. No need to recount that here)

> Why are Darwinists afraid of questions?

--------------
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!)

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:31   

This is great, Carlson!

You were taking great notes, while I was being a crappy student and looking at lolcats to entertain myself... *embarassed*

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:47   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 21 2009,16:31)
This is great, Carlson!

You were taking great notes, while I was being a crappy student and looking at lolcats to entertain myself... *embarassed*

One of the occupational hazards of being a corporate middle management drone project manager. You are always taking and publishing meeting minutes.

--------------
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!)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,17:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2009,04:21)
Weird... people exercising free speech means that people don't already have free speech? What sort of argument is that?

I see that argument constantly, esp. from conservatives -- "you're criticizing me, therefore you're suppressing my freedom of speech".

The spooky thing is, most people who use this argument actually think it makes sense.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1008
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,17:48   

The developmental biology article is open access. It's by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff.Here is the abstract:

 
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


So he was probably making a similar argument to what they made with the Altenburg 16.

Edited to correct formatting and a few spelling errors.

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,17:59   

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 21 2009,17:48)
The developmental biology article is open access. It's by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff.Here is the abstract:

So he was probably making a similar argument to what they made with the Altenburg 16.

Edited to correct formatting and a few spelling errors.

So, basically he was taking changes or controversies within the evolutionary framework and misrepresenting them as challanges to the entire edifice?

--------------
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!)

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1008
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,18:08   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2009,17:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 21 2009,17:48)
The developmental biology article is open access. It's by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff.Here is the abstract:

So he was probably making a similar argument to what they made with the Altenburg 16.

Edited to correct formatting and a few spelling errors.

So, basically he was taking changes or controversies within the evolutionary framework and misrepresenting them as challanges to the entire edifice?

That is what it sounds like based on the article he was citing.

Edit to add: The Durrett and Schmidt paper is available here. They also published a reply to Behe that I haven't been able to find as open access. If you have access to genetics the reply can be found here

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,18:36   

Casey is such a crybaby.  He submits Rob Crowther (his superior at DI) a report entitled Pro-Evolution Blogger Abbie Smith Flipped Me Off on Friday Night, and Here’s the Story.  Rob publishes said report on Evolution News & Views.  

And what was this forgiveness spiel about?  Here's a quote from the talk:
 
Quote
I’m not interested in holding grudges. I’m interested in forgiving so we can all move forward in a spirit of civility! …There Is a Better Way: Free Speech, Civility, and Peaceful Co-Existence in the Academy

Peaceful co-existence, huh?  I thought your  Wedgie Manifesto called for "direct confrontation", no?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1008
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,18:41   

I have also tracked down the Goodwin 1995 cite and that refers to a book called How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: the evolution of complexity. I haven't read it but the reviews and so forth make it sound like Kauffman's stuff.

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

   
  266 replies since Feb. 17 2009,12:28 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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