RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:43   


   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,10:16   

Two questions:

1 - It seems that no one has actually seen this book.  Is that because it is not yet available, or because people are reluctant lend it any kind of support by paying for it?

2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,11:45   

Quote
1 - It seems that no one has actually seen this book.  Is that because it is not yet available, or because people are reluctant lend it any kind of support by paying for it?


According to the Deploring Evolution website the book is available for purchase, but I'll wait for used copies to become available.
   
Quote
2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

I'm not a teacher, but it's clear that the target audience is very ignorant religious people of all ages.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,11:59   

Quote

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.


Not "no one".

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

    
fusilier



Posts: 208
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,13:33   

Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,10:16)
Two questions:

1 - It seems that no one has actually seen this book.  Is that because it is not yet available, or because people are reluctant lend it any kind of support by paying for it?

2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

#1 - I'm waiting for a desk copy.  Since I emailed from a legitimate educational institution (community college) I expect a copy Real Soon Now.  However, since I e-mailed from a legitimate educational institution....

#2 - that's the sort of stuff you'd expect to see in an elementary school, or standard-track (not AP) high-school course.

It might be reasonable as a "do-it-yourself" exercise, though.  Lots of times you really, really, really want simple stuff for hands-on.  I'd never use a powah drill on a plastic cup, though.  It'd be way too easy to either shatter the cup, or get melted plastic all over everything.

I'd say it's aimed at the "home-school, can't bear to mention evilushun" crowd.

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,14:35   

I'll add my agreement with the comments regarding quotations and their use.  One can leaf through whole volumes of, say, Annual Review of Biochemistry and find fewer quotes than are seen in even the excerpts on the "EE" web site.  

I'm wondering - how much of an editing project would it be to revise "EE" so that quotations are replaced with accurate representations of the opinions and/or results of the scientist(s) being cited?  How dramatically would the tone of "EE" change if this were done?  Is this a project that the authors of "EE" would undertake?

   
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,15:25   

Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,11:16)
2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

That's par for the course in Creationist Land. One time I was to tutor a kid who went to a christian high school and they gave me a copy of Biology: God's Living Creation. It was embarrassingly bad. And written somewhere around a 5th grade level. Typical type sentence: "Jesus personally designed over a million nephrons in each of your kidneys" After glancing wide-eyed through the 'textbook', I told the kid's parents it was not going to work out.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,15:27   

Quote (Art @ July 22 2007,15:35)
I'll add my agreement with the comments regarding quotations and their use.  One can leaf through whole volumes of, say, Annual Review of Biochemistry and find fewer quotes than are seen in even the excerpts on the "EE" web site.  

I'm wondering - how much of an editing project would it be to revise "EE" so that quotations are replaced with accurate representations of the opinions and/or results of the scientist(s) being cited?  How dramatically would the tone of "EE" change if this were done?  Is this a project that the authors of "EE" would undertake?

Simpler to just throw EE in a wood chipper and get people real biology textbooks.


   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,15:37   

I'm a bit curious as to how many of the, uh, "arguments" made in EE are also found in "Of Pandas and People" . . . ?

Since creationuts simply recycle the same old crap over and over and over again, my hypothesis would be that it's a pretty high percentage . . . .

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

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,16:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 22 2007,11:59)
   
Quote

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.


Not "no one".

Why is there no mention of this book (EE) on Amazon?

Also, on a related subject - this weekend on BookTV on C-Span2, Phyllis Schlaffly is hosting a discussion of Tom Bethell's book "Politically incorrect guide to science" (or whatever the title actually is).  His talk deals with bird flu, HIV, global warming and he also gives his unique perspective on how science is funded.  And he also explains why homeopathy works.  Any why ID is science.  The program is supposed to be repeated tonight, at least in my area.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,17:34   

Quote

Why is there no mention of this book (EE) on Amazon?


AFAICT EE is only available through the DI/EE website. It could be that the publisher simply doesn't have a mass market distribution system in place; they seem to primarily publish multi-hundred-dollar texts that sell in the double to triple digits of copies. Or it could be that the DI wishes to track who is getting the book, in which case sales via Amazon.com would obscure information about the purchasing demographic.

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

    
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,19:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 22 2007,17:34)
 
Quote

Why is there no mention of this book (EE) on Amazon?


AFAICT EE is only available through the DI/EE website. It could be that the publisher simply doesn't have a mass market distribution system in place; they seem to primarily publish multi-hundred-dollar texts that sell in the double to triple digits of copies. Or it could be that the DI wishes to track who is getting the book, in which case sales via Amazon.com would obscure information about the purchasing demographic.

Is this how Pandas was published? Same publisher?

How many copies of Pandas are in print?

Given the small size of this publisher's offerings, does this mean that there will be no formal reviews of EE in any venue that looks at science books or textbooks?

I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,19:25   

Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,19:05)
I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

There are many public school districts that would love to use EE, and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures.

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

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,19:33   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 22 2007,19:25)
 
Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,19:05)
I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

There are many public school districts that would love to use EE, and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures.

Given the financial consequences and ridicule Dover had to face for their use of Pandas, I would be surprised to see any public school district take a chance on EE.

But you sound like the voice of experience.

  
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,20:10   

I believe that EE will be taught at this school:
Feel free to warn the administrators that they are about to get sued.


Curtis High School
8425 40th Street W
University Place, WA 98466
Phone: (253) 566-5710; Fax: (253)566-5626



Attendance: 566-5715
Athletics: 566-5718
Guidance: 566-5713
David Hammond, Principal
Terry Jenks, Asst. Principal &Athletic Dir.
Jeff Johnson , Asst. Principal
Rosalynn McKenna, Asst. Principal
Ron Brock, Coordinator Student Discipline

  
Henry J



Posts: 4039
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,22:00   

Re "and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures. "

Does DI think they can get away with it, or does DI think somebody besides themselves will wind up having to pay for it? (Or does that constitute "getting away with it" in their minds?)

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:32   

"Afarensis" tracked down another of the EE quotes.

Page, citation, and quote in EE:

 
Quote

p.27 Mark A. Norell, Michael J. Novacek, "The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontologic evidence for vertebrate history," Science 255 (Mar 27, 1992)1690-1693.

"Groups thought to have branched off early in primate history appear late in the record or have no fossil record."19


And now, the original:

 
Quote

"The relationships examined here also reveal that the quality of the fossil record judged from other perspectives does not necessarily predict its match with independently derived phylogenetic evidence. The documented fossil record of primates is generally regarded as one of comparatively high quality based on the diversity and widespread geographic and geochronological distribution of primate fossils and the amount of attention the group has received (27). Yet the primate fossil record poorly reflects the higher level cladistic branching patterns (17). This is because some taxa (tarsiers and cheirogalines, for instance) thought to have branched off very early in primate history appear late in the record or have no fossil record (Fig. 2).
Despite these discrepancies, there is a noteworthy correspondence between the fossil record and the independently constructed phylogeny for many vertebrate groups. Statistically significant correlations (P< 0.05) were found in 18 of the 24 cases examined. Correspondence is particularly evident in some of the mammalian ungulate groups. For example, the impression that the fossil record of horses provides an excellent picture of the history of this group is extended to the remarkable match of that record with cladistic results."


Additional comment:

 
Quote

Note that EE only quotes about half a sentence (bolded) from the original and inserts a word that doesn't appear in the original. Italics indicate the part of the sentence left off the EE quote. The substituted word significantly alters the meaning that the authors intended, since "Groups thought to have branched off early" implies all early primate evolution is put in doubt by the authors, while it is clear from the actual quote that instead they are raising their concern about specific primate taxa, and their larger point is that most lineages do show good correspondence between cladistic and paleontological data sets. The EE authors do not cite that more general conclusion, despite its relevance to the argument the EE authors are making.


See here.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:47   

"Afarensis" again comes through with an examination of an EE quotation.

EE page, citation, and quote:

 
Quote

p.34, Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002):710.

"I recognize," wrote Gould, "that we know no mechanism for the origin of such organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level...." 38


Now for the original:

 
Quote

"Several Darwinian strict constructionists, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in particular, hold that almost everything of interest in evolutionary biology either inheres in, or flows from, natural selection's power to craft the intricate and excellent design of organisms - "organized adaptive complexity," in Dawkin's favorite phrase. "Biology is engineering" Dennett tells us again and again in his narrowly focussed book (Dennett, 1995).

I do not deny the wonder, or the powerful importance, of organized adaptive complexity. I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of such organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level - for the sheer intricacy and elaboration of good biomechanical design surely preclude either random production, or incidental origin as a side consequence of active processes at other levels. But I decry the parochialism of basking so strongly in the wonder of organismic complexity that nothing else in evolution seems to matter."


Additional commentary:

 
Quote

It should be noted that this comes in a section defending species selection.


And the quote was billed as a capitulation by Gould that species selection could not explain large-scale evolutionary change in a short period of time. It should come as no surprise to readers of this thread that Gould was not discussing the topic that the EE authors claimed he was addressing.

Added: Link

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,14:48

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

    
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:57   

Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again.  I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August.  Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.

I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome.

P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:08   

Why should we do the damned DI's work for them?

If we continue to vet this book the DI will make money from, the people that are telling them what to correct should all get paid for their work.

And why should we do their work for them again?

I say let them lie and dig another grave for themselves and their half-baked crazy ID views.

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:14   

Quote
I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility

Paul, nobody cares.  EE is being addressed right here, right now, with less moderation than you're proposing somewhere else.  Why don't you just tackle some of the open issues here instead of disingenuously suggesting that the real conversation hasn't started--because the DI site hasn't turned their censorship down far enough to allow it (yet)?

How about starting in on the egregious quote-mining exaples Afarensis has claimed?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:46   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.

I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome.

Paul

When you check in from Rome, can you tell us if the inaccurate description of Dr. Chien as a marine paleobiologist (see original  comment here) has been

1) brought to the attention of whoever proofed the galleys for that page, and

2) changed to a more accurate description (e.g. toxicologist)?

Re the notion that quotations are acceptable in EE because they "occur frequently in science books", that is a red herring. This is NOT a science book; it is allegedly a textbook. I review a lot of textbooks for college-level intro biology. I am a senior reviewer for a new edition of a major textbook revision coming out in Jan 2008. Textbooks, just like scientific publications, contain few, if any, quotations as supporting material for some point that is being made. They may contain some quotations in sidebars, or as points from which to start a discussion, but they don't use them as evidence. When you get back, take a peek at any intro-level college biology textbook (i'm sure you have a few in the office there in Seattle) and see for yourself.

So if this is NOT a textbook, you might have a logical leg to stand on. If it is a textbook, and the EE webpages seem to suggest that is the primary use, you need to get rid of those quotations pronto.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:48   

Quote

And why should we do their work for them again?

I say let them lie and dig another grave for themselves and their half-baked crazy ID views.


They've already printed the thing; they'd have to make another edition to fix it, or publish a book-length errata. They cannot actually fix most of what has been pointed out so far, or what is coming. You can already see that in the case of the quotes that have been looked at, where if they accurately represented the quoted people they'd sink their own arguments.

Now is the time to show everyone just how dreadful the content is, before fall and the expected rollout in various classrooms. If we have the information available, presented in a coherent manner, the odds that all the students in those classes will fail to locate it during the course will be much smaller. If we say we're going to wait for a lawsuit to point out the problems, then you've essentially tossed those students to the sharks. Besides which, you've also made it less likely that the people contesting EE will have all the ammunition they should have when going to court.

This thread is for free-wheeling discussion of EE, and the EE Companion is where the coherent presentation part comes in. But the effectiveness of the Companion depends crucially on how much of the content of EE is critically analyzed within it.

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

    
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:34   

Quote (JAM @ 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.

Wesley,

You should update your description of the turtle quotations from page 24, because it doesn't include the second paper that they quote-mined:

How the Turtle Forms its Shell: A Paracrine
Hypothesis of Carapace Formation
JUDITH CEBRA-THOMAS et al.
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 304B:558–569 (2005)

They are still being completely dishonest, however. Here are the partial quotes from that second paper:
 
Quote
Because "the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly," Gilbert and his colleagues argue that evolution needs "to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace [shell]."


The first in context:
 
Quote
This reptile [Proganochelys] had the characteristic derived trunk morphology now associated with turtles. Thus, the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly. We can propose a hypothesis that may explain at least part of how this might happen. The key innovation is to getting the ribs into the dermis. Once there,
variation in the population might enable some individuals to use this heterotopic placement of ribs to form a shell. If they could form a positive feedback loop between the rib and the CR (e.g., through Fgf10 and Fgf8), they could co-ordinate rib and carapace growth. When the ribs undergo normal endochodral ossification, the BMPs would induce the costal bones that form the plate of the carapace. (This may involve overpowering natural inhibitors of BMPs that are secreted by the dermis.) This mechanism, wherein the displacement of a tissue allows it to induce structures at new locations, has been proposed by Brylski and Hall (’88) to account for the rapid emergence of the fur-lined cheek pouches of pocket gophers. The compatibility of our findings with those of the
turtle fossil record has been noted by paleontologists (Rieppel, ’01).


The second in context:
 
Quote
These observations indicate that the ribs act as initiation centers for the dermal ossification of costal bones. The ossifying regions of the dermis extend towards one another to eventually fuse. The data reported in the present report confirm and extend these observations and permit us to frame a hypothesis to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace.


There's nothing resembling the context added by Paul and his lying colleagues, and omitting the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:01   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.

Are they used in lieu of evidence, as you use them in your textbook? As Albatrossity noted, you are obfuscating when you use the category "science books," because the only relevant category is textbooks.

Quote
P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.

Set away, Paul. Lenny and I clearly are at least $100 ahead, because the turtle box in EE is a retread of the deception marketed here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....id=1127

Contrast the DI lie below with the quotes from the papers above, which at least one of you had to have read to have quoted.
 
Quote
(Neither Rieppel nor Gilbert and colleagues, however, provide a detailed model of this rapid evolutionary transition, but rather refer to the need for further research.)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:21   

Quote

You should update your description of the turtle quotations from page 24, because it doesn't include the second paper that they quote-mined


I didn't include that reference because they didn't actually offer anything that was supposed to be a quote from it. At least, I didn't see anything quoted as if representing that paper.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be dinged for ignoring what was reported there, just that the page in question is about quotations specifically.

Added: OK, I've set up a

Turtle Evolution

subpage under the "Universal Common Descent" page.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,17:46

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:26   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Why can't we just do it here . . . . ?


Ohhhhhhhhh, that's right --- IDers are lethally allergic to answering direct questions in any forum that they don't control.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:27   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.

Which part of "for every argument that appears in a peer-reviewed science paper, I give you $100; for every argument that appears in an ID/creationist religious tract, you give ME $100", are you having difficulty grasping, Paul . . . ?

Geez, that damn Jello just won't stay on that wall . . . . .

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,15:48)
Now is the time to show everyone just how dreadful the content is, before fall and the expected rollout in various classrooms. If we have the information available, presented in a coherent manner, the odds that all the students in those classes will fail to locate it during the course will be much smaller. If we say we're going to wait for a lawsuit to point out the problems, then you've essentially tossed those students to the sharks. Besides which, you've also made it less likely that the people contesting EE will have all the ammunition they should have when going to court.

Indeed, we should be preparing for the lawsuit now.

One good way is to link as much as possible in EE to the already-dead-in-court "Pandas".  And to all the decades-old creationist and ID religious tracts where they originally appeared.

I suspect that everything -- absolutely every argument in EE -- is just retreads.  Creationists are genetically unable to give up any rhetorical argument, no matter how dead it is.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:32   

Quote (JAM @ July 23 2007,16:34)
 
Wesley,

You should update your description of the turtle quotations from page 24, because it doesn't include the second paper that they quote-mined:

How the Turtle Forms its Shell: A Paracrine
Hypothesis of Carapace Formation
JUDITH CEBRA-THOMAS et al.
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 304B:558–569 (2005)

They are still being completely dishonest, however. Here are the partial quotes from that second paper:
     
Quote
Because "the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly," Gilbert and his colleagues argue that evolution needs "to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace [shell]."


The first in context:
     
Quote
This reptile [Proganochelys] had the characteristic derived trunk morphology now associated with turtles. Thus, the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly. We can propose a hypothesis that may explain at least part of how this might happen. The key innovation is to getting the ribs into the dermis. Once there,
variation in the population might enable some individuals to use this heterotopic placement of ribs to form a shell. If they could form a positive feedback loop between the rib and the CR (e.g., through Fgf10 and Fgf8), they could co-ordinate rib and carapace growth. When the ribs undergo normal endochodral ossification, the BMPs would induce the costal bones that form the plate of the carapace. (This may involve overpowering natural inhibitors of BMPs that are secreted by the dermis.) This mechanism, wherein the displacement of a tissue allows it to induce structures at new locations, has been proposed by Brylski and Hall (’88) to account for the rapid emergence of the fur-lined cheek pouches of pocket gophers. The compatibility of our findings with those of the
turtle fossil record has been noted by paleontologists (Rieppel, ’01).


The second in context:
     
Quote
These observations indicate that the ribs act as initiation centers for the dermal ossification of costal bones. The ossifying regions of the dermis extend towards one another to eventually fuse. The data reported in the present report confirm and extend these observations and permit us to frame a hypothesis to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace.


There's nothing resembling the context added by Paul and his lying colleagues, and omitting the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.


Oh, come on JAM!  Surely a bright high school student could come up with the hypotheses above after reading only the part the EE book quoted!  After all, why else would they leave out the hypotheses :p

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

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

Pages: (29) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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